That was never the Destination: 3 Rules for Good BIM

A few days ago, I encountered a situation in which a group of very wise and very big companies promised a client to deliver practically everything you can do with a digital model (and frankly, beyond). The problem? In their original statement, the client was pretty clear that they had a low level of digitalisation and just needed a model for basic navigation.

But isn’t it good that we deliver more than we’re asked?

No. It’s not. And here’s why.

1. The Original Promise of BIM

1.1. From Object-Based Modelling to Information Management

In the great pantheon of architectural and engineering revolutions, we talked about BIM as a shining sword — a tool that promised to slay the dragons of inefficiency, miscommunication, and construction waste. It was a grand vision: seamless collaboration, precise coordination, information flowing as smoothly as a mountain river. We didn’t really believe it could all be achieved, let’s be honest, but it was a nice tale to spin: full of hope and progress and the possibility for technology to be the harbinger of a brighter world.

And yet, as every D&D player knows, even the finest sword can grow dull when wielded against the wrong foe.

Today, we aren’t faring any better than we started. What we’re doing doesn’t work, the construction industry continues to face significant inefficiencies and waste, impacting both its economic performance and environmental footprint. Global construction waste is projected to reach 2.2 billion tons annually by this year, 2025, nearly double the volume from a decade ago. It didn’t stop nor relented (see here). In the United States alone, construction and demolition waste exceeded 600 million tons in 2018, a 342% increase since 1990, and over 75% of this waste is not recycled (see here). Construction waste is a challenge for over 95% of ongoing projects, but only about 57% of companies track or measure it (see here).

And what about the quality of work? Don’t make me laugh. The construction industry has been facing a mental health crisis way before the pandemic surge, with workers experiencing some of the highest rates of mental health issues and suicide compared to any other sector. Suicide rates among construction workers are nearly four times higher than the general population, as I was writing here a while ago, more than 50% of builders in the UK reported struggling with mental health problems during 2023, and nearly 1 in 5 construction workers report having anxiety or depression in the US, while 84% of those affected did not seek professional help (see here and here).

While some of these issues, such as waste and environmental impact, have been included in BIM’s promise to improve them, others have never even been on the table.

Despite our best or worst efforts, BIM risks becoming less a weapon of change and more a relic displayed in the halls of “we meant well.”

If we are to continue this quest of digitalisation with integrity, perhaps it’s time to pause, sharpen our tools, and — most importantly — remember why we picked them up in the first place.

1.2. The Myth of BIM as a Universal Solution

Back at the dawn of BIM’s mythic era, the promise was simple yet radical:

Stop drawing lines. Start managing information.

Early BIM wasn’t about spinning 3d models like a digital Vitruvian Man; it was about creating a structured, coherent environment where data travelled with the project, from inception to construction, from maintenance to eventual reuse.

In its purest form, BIM offered:

• a single source of truth through the wise understanding and application of the Common Data Environment;
• objects enriched with attributes (not just sofas modelled down to the woven fabric and upholstered leather);
• a profound shift from artefact-making to knowledge-building.

This was no trivial upgrade from the simple drafting of drawings to illustrate the design, building and operational idea behind a system. It was the architectural equivalent of discovering that a building could think for itself — if only we were wise enough to ask it the right questions. The ambition wasn’t merely better drawings; it was better buildings, better decisions, better outcomes. BIM, in its original spirit, was a call to intelligence through design — and like all noble quests, it demanded more than technical skill: it demanded vision.

Of course, no hero’s journey is complete without a little hybris. Somewhere along the way, the industry mistook the map for the territory, the model for the mission. BIM became a buzzword. A badge of honor. A line item on a tender. Software vendors sold it as a silver bullet. Marketing departments wrapped it in glossy reports promising 20% savings here, 15% efficiency gains there — as if a new tool alone could undo decades of systemic fragmentation.

Suddenly, BIM was expected to fix everything:

• Bad project management? BIM it!
• Poor communication? BIM it!
• Unclear client briefs? Surely a model will sort that out!

BIM was intended to amplify good practice, not conjure it out of thin air.

This myth of BIM as a universal cure-all is doing more than inflate expectations: it’s going to corrode trust. When BIM implementations fail — not because the idea is wrong, but because the expectations are fantastical — the backlash will be inevitable. When clients start opening models that are inflated with attributes no one really needs, the blue doughnut they will get in response will be a thunderous answer to the question: “Was this worth all that money?”

That’s why I think this is one of our last chances to reflect, really reflect on what we’re doing with BIM. We stand at a critical juncture. The landscape around us is shifting faster than a river breaking its banks, with more buzzwords being added to the mix (from Digital Twins to Artificial Intelligence). Societal pressures — from climate resilience to ethical construction — demand that we stop digitising nonsense and start building with purpose, and pulling us (willing or not) into new expectations of accountability, traceability, and transparency.

In short: we are being called not just to use technology, but to think digitally. To reflect, recalibrate, and reforge the tools of digitalisation — so they serve needs, not trends. Our journey must move beyond the myths. It’s time to rebuild the promise — one informed, critical, and purposeful step at a time.

---

2. The Misinterpretations and Misapplications

So, where are we doing wrong and what can we do to improve? I don’t have a finite answer, of course, I wouldn’t be here if I did, but I do have a couple of ideas when it comes to the traps and false allies we met during our road to BIM, the shiny baubles that promised shortcuts but led people straight into the swamp: standardization without understanding and compliance without thinking.

These misinterpretations didn’t come waving red flags and twirling villainous moustaches.

They appeared respectable — even wise — whispering tales of efficiency, best practices, and “the way things must be done.” And maybe they even meant well. I mean, standardization and compliance aren’t bad things per se, you’ll never hear me saying that.

And yet…

2.1. Standardisation Without Understanding

Once upon a time, the arrival of standards like ISO 19650 was hailed as the beginning of a golden age. At last, the wayward tribes of construction and design would march to the same beat! There would be order! Clarity! Harmony! The local, underdeveloped regulations would all align with the same Universal Standard!

Or so the legend went.

In practice, many mistook the existence of standards for the completion of understanding, thought they could disconnect the brain and just follow standards, and were disappointed when they opened the pages and… found none.

This is where things get weird.

Since people wanted tables they could copy and paste into their BIM execution plans, a sort of Mandela Effect took over the construction industry. Forms were filled, naming conventions observed, CDEs dutifully structured with neatly labeled (and entirely meaningless) folders. None of which was part of any norm.

I mean, if you take a close look at ISO 19650, all you’ll find when it comes to naming conventions is… the necessity of having one. All you’ll find when it comes to Levels of Development and Levels of Information Need (two different things, but that’s a conversation for later) is the need to agree upon an incremental structure of information, geometry and — for the more enlightened — documentation. That’s it.

And yet, we all know what the “correct naming convention” is, right?

Kids, repeat after me.

And yet, we all know what the “correct folder structure” for a CDE is, right?

Kids, repeat after me.

It’s no surprise that the most popular part of the Italian norm on BIM (a National Annexe to ISO 19650 and yet developed before the international norm saw the light) it’s the appendix to part 4 on Levels of Development, which is — and I quote literally — just a bunch of examples. The second-most popular part is part 6, a template on the Exchange Information Requirements, which is… not even a norm: it’s a technical report, specifically meant as a guideline. People want the truth. People want stuff they can copy. People don’t want to think. The heroic flaw here? Mistaking the ritual for the meaning.

Standards were meant as scaffolds, not straightjackets. They offered principles to adapt, not scripts to recite. And yet organisations treat standards like sacred scrolls — to be obeyed without context, questioning, or adaptation to real project needs.

We aren’t trying to summon Baal, for fuck’s sake, that you’re repeating the introduction to ISO 19650-2 as a mantra: the power of standards lays in shared intent, not identical execution.

In other words, the industry is trading critical thinking for procedural security. They believe the journey can be completed by following the footprints of others — without realising that every project, every client, every challenge demanded its own path, albeit marked with the compass of shared wisdom. A map is useful, by all means, but only if you still know how to navigate.

2.2. Blind Compliance to Non-Existent Manuals

If standardisation without understanding is a false ally, blind compliance with non-existent manuals and standards such as THE naming convention, THE Level of Development Matrix, THE Clash Detection workflow, is a full-blown hallucination. The combination of dozens of little Mandela Effects when it comes to standards have generated one of the more curious phenomena of the BIM era — the belief that somewhere, out there, hidden in an illuminated manuscript or buried deep in a forgotten ISO annex, exists a complete, step-by-step guide to the perfect digital project.

The thinking goes like this:

• If we just follow the checklist;
• If we just use the template;
• If we just submit the right files in the right folders…

…then surely, surely BIM will be easy.

This is the fantasy of automation without standardisation, that follows standardisation without thought, just like hell follows Pale Rider in the Apocalypse. It is not good. It is the mirage that tempts to believe the journey can be completed without courage, judgment, or leadership.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: no manual exists that can replace understanding. And I should know, since I write manuals.
There is no form that can substitute for listening.
No standard can tell you what your client actually needs, or what your project uniquely demands.

Blind compliance, in the end, is not a show of professionalism — it is a surrender. A quiet abdication of responsibility.

Managers, real ones, do not merely tick boxes.
They engage.
They challenge.
They adapt.

They know that the project journey is uncertain, and that the strength to make wise decisions in the unknown is the real skill.

---

3. Redefining Quality in the Digital Era

So, we’ve come to the uncomfortable realisation: the treasure we were seeking with BIM had to be gained through was a better understanding of our processes.
In the noisy world of digitalisation — where every new platform promises salvation and every new acronym demands allegiance — it’s easy to forget what we are actually here to do: solve real problems, fulfil real needs, create real value.

Instead of creating real problems, for instance.

If BIM is to mean anything at all, we must reclaim an ancient but stubbornly powerful idea: quality is not the perfection of a model, but the fitness of a thing for its purpose.

3.1. Quality as the Fulfilment of Needs

Quality is not an ornamental flourish. It is not “extra.” It is not “when there’s time.” It is the measure of whether what we deliver actually matters.

A drawing that hangs at the Biennale but confuses a contractor? Useless.
A federated model that ticks every Level of Development box but answers no operational question? Noise.
A perfectly structured data drop that no one can use? Decoration.

In the digital age, quality is simple (but not easy):

• identify the true need;
• address it meaningfully;
• deliver data in a way that creates clarity, not confusion.

And here’s the thing: clients don’t always know what they need. Not at first. And it’s often not their job to come preloaded with the right specifications.

It’s our role — our obligation — to help them find it. To move from “What file format would you like?” to “What decision are you trying to make?”

In other words: we shouldn’t be suppliers of models. We should be architects of understanding.

3.2. Process Quality vs Product Quality

How do we do that? Well, for starters we could try taking our head out of our buttocks and stop looking at out stuff like Pygmalion looked at his marble blocks. Too often, the digitalisation conversation gets hijacked by shiny outputs. Look at our 5D model! Marvel at our laser scans! Gasp at our immersive AR visualisations!

Who cares.

Process Quality is about how decisions are made, how information flows, how clarity is built over time. Product Quality is about the final deliverable, but it is inseparable from the journey that created it. How can we craft meaningful products if stakeholders are digitally inept and people crafting the products aren’t sitting at the tables where decisions are made?

An immaculate model created through months of confusion, misaligned goals, and rework is a Pyrrhic victory (a.k.a. a victory that comes at such a high cost that it’s essentially a defeat). A modest drawing set that arrives when needed, answers the right questions, and leads to sound decisions, on the other hand, might be a triumph. Sure, you didn’t do 4d and 5d, you just used the model to extract drawings, you’ll never get invited to speak at a conference, but guess what? Maybe the client will call you again because what you did actually held value.

The key is deciding the output not based on what we think we should do in order to “be BIM”, but based on an actual assessment of what the client really needs. In the digital world, process is product. There is no meaningful output without meaningful engagement.

Thus, cultivating good processes — transparent, collaborative, purposeful — is not ancillary to digitalisation.
It is digitalisation.

3.3. Clients Must Be Guided, Not Supplied

When we arrive at the data drop with our shiny digital models, clients are grappling with bigger, murkier questions:

• What are we trying to achieve with this asset?
• How will we operate it?
• How can we reduce risk, cost, and environmental impact?

If your client is a construction company, questions are even more pressing:

• How can we save money and actually deliver the same solution?
• Can this thing even be built?
• Can we do it in time?

The last thing they need is more files: they need better conversations. The heroic task is not to stand at the gates of the Common Data Environment, launching transmittals with a trebuchet. It is to walk alongside the stakeholders, use the information within the models to illuminate the landscape, and help shape the right questions.

Sometimes this means slowing down the rush to model. Other times, it means admitting that the best solution isn’t a 500TB federated marvel modelled down to the last standing screw but a well-structured schedule and a conversation with the right stakeholders. Often, it means challenging the brief and passing as the troublemaker. Trust me. I know. As we’re witnessing with genAI, clients think they need a magic machine that does what they ask it to do, no questions asked and no objections made.

To guide a client, in this sense, is to accept a heavier burden: responsibility for outcomes, not just deliverables. And that — not the fancy software, not the buzzword compliance, not the glittering acronyms — is the real hallmark of digital mastery.

4. Towards a New Culture of Practice

Here comes the real work: rebuilding not just what we do, but how we think.

The truth is, digitalisation doesn’t need more tools. It needs a new culture — one that privileges purpose over process, meaning over compliance, wisdom over trend-chasing. And every professional in the BIM piramid, regardless of their shiny certification, needs to move from tool-bearers to strategists. Even if their job is to place labels on a 2d drawings. To move from checklist-tickers to framers of meaning. Even if their job is churning models through an automatic tool for validation. To move from passive recipients of standards to active shapers of quality.

The journey forward demands not just better deliverables, but a different way of practising altogether.

How? I can think of three ways.

4.1. Strategic Digitalisation: Purpose Over Tools

Tools are seductive. They gleam, they promise shortcuts, they offer the sweet illusion that if we just buy the right thing, mastery will follow. And they don’t talk back.

Strategic digitalisation means asking harder — and better — questions:

• What problem are we trying to solve?
• What knowledge do we need to make the next decision?
• What outcome matters most?

Sometimes the answer will involve a cutting-edge platform.
Sometimes it will involve a spreadsheet and a well-run meeting.

We aren’t medieval knights in the Arthurian cycle, for fuck sake, and we shouldn’t fetishize our weapons.

Digital maturity means starting with purpose, not technology. It is not about what we can model or whether it’s technologically possible. It is about why we should model it in the first place.

Educating Clients, Not Just Meeting Requirements

The ancient compact between client and professional has always been more than transactional. It is a partnership. A mutual journey into the unknown. Yet in the world of digital deliverables, that partnership has frayed.
Too often, clients are asked what outputs they want — not what problems they hope to solve.

Meeting requirements is the easy path.
Educating clients — guiding them towards better questions, clearer goals, more strategic use of information — is the road we need to pursue.

It means:

1. Challenging briefs that don’t make sense;
2. Refusing to overdeliver irrelevant data just because “the standard says so.” Fuck the standard. It often doesn’t even say so.
3. Helping clients see that digital models are not ornaments, but decision engines.

We are not mercenaries: we are mentors. We are not here to dazzle with artefacts but to build capacity, courage, and clarity. True digital transformation does not happen when the model is delivered. It happens when clients become better thinkers about their own assets, their own futures.

The Role of Norms: Guidance, Not Gospel

Finally, a word about standards, those ancient tomes that many worship more devoutly than any god.

Standards are useful.
They give shape to complexity.
They provide a common language across sprawling, chaotic projects.
I love standards.

But they are not gospel. They were not carved in stone tablets and handed down from Mount BIM. I swear. I was there.
Standards are living frameworks, meant to be interpreted, adapted, and — when necessary — challenged.

Kids, repeat after me.

1. A standard is not an excuse to turn off your brain.
2. It is not a shield against poor decisions.
3. It is not an oracle that can tell you what matters for your project, today, with these people.

The mature practice of digitalisation means wielding standards like a skilled navigator wields a map: not blindly following every marked path, but using it to make better decisions when the terrain gets rough. In the end, standards are only as valuable as the wisdom with which we apply them.

The new culture of practice must embrace flexibility, criticality, and above all: a relentless loyalty to outcomes over appearances.

6. A Call for Thoughtful Digitalisation

If you pardon me for carrying through with the fantasy metaphor — I am replaying Elder’s Scroll IV after all — the hero’s journey doesn’t end with slaying one daedric prince. It ends with the understanding that more Daedra will come — and that the real treasure is knowing how to face them with courage and wisdom.

Today, BIM is not the only digital promise shimmering on the horizon: the banners of Digital Twin technologies flutter proudly (and more so in Rome, apparently), the siren songs of Artificial Intelligence grow louder with every passing month, and don’t get me started with Virtual and Augmented Reality, which keep coming back like a hydra you’re killing wrong.
Each comes, as BIM once did, with bold claims.

Seamless integration! Total predictive control! Self-optimizing assets! Effortless intelligence!

And if we have learned anything on this long road, it is this: no technology, no matter how powerful, absolves us from the work of thinking.

Digital Twins will not inherently deliver better outcomes. If we load them with bad data, unclear objectives, or irrelevant KPIs, they will become bloated reflections of our own confusion — expensive mirrors showing us what we refuse to confront.

Artificial Intelligence will not solve our coordination problems. If we train models on biased, incomplete, or irrelevant information, they will reproduce and automate mediocrity — faster and at greater scale than ever before.

The principle remains the same, no matter the tool:

1. start with needs, not features, and build processes before building artefacts;
2. guide clients toward clarity, not toward dependency;
3. treat standards as guides for meaning, not as shields against thinking.

The landscape may be shifting, but the our burden — and privilege — remains constant: act with discernment, choose wisdom over expedience, shape technology around needs, not the other way around. Because if we are not careful, we will once again mistake the tools for the journey, the maps for the land, the buzzwords for the work.

The call to thoughtful digitalisation is not a retreat from innovation. It is an act of defiance. If we are thoughtful and rebellious enough — if we walk this path with clear eyes and ready minds — we have the chance to build something truly remarkable: a digital practice rooted not in fashion but in purpose, a future where technology amplifies wisdom and doesn’t replace it, a profession that does not chase trends, but crafts meaning.

And that, in the end, is the only future worth fighting for.

---

Something to Read

To re-read with different eyes:

• Eastman, C. (2011). BIM handbook : a guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, engineers and contractors. John Wiley And Sons Inc.‌
• Succar, B. (2009). “Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders”. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357–375.
• Deming, W. E. (2000). Out of the Crisis. MIT Press.

Further Readings:

• Munir M, Kiviniemi A, Jones SW, Finnegan S (2012). “BIM business value generation theory: a grounded theory approach”. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), Vol. 24, pg. 406-423.
• Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Random House Business. (Original work published 1990)
• Floridi, L. (2014). The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford University Press.
• Taleb, N. N. (2013). Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. Belles Lettres.

The picture in the header is John William Waterhouse’s Consulting the Oracle (1884).