BIM is broken and everyone hides it …

The Hook of the Elusive Ideal of Digital Design in 10 Points

For over a decade, I’ve been working on architectural projects using 3D software. Despite numerous promises and marketing slogans proclaiming a design revolution through BIM (Building Information Modeling), everyday practice tells a very different story. In theory, BIM presents a vision of perfect coordination and precise digital models, but in practice, we often deal with tools that hinder rather than help the design process.

1. Time-Consuming and Complex Work

Creating a 3D model takes significantly more time than using traditional CAD software. There’s a lack of hierarchical information structure — the model contains all data at once, often leading to chaos, especially in large teams. Fixing issues visible in sections or plans can take many hours, as each change requires updating multiple elements across the model. Drawing on a single plane had the advantage of limiting the process to erasing lines to improve clarity. Drawing errors were easier to manage, as they appeared in the same place every time.

2. Avalanche of Errors and the Need for Control Tools

Without using specialized coordination software (like BIMcollab, Navisworks, or Solibri), detecting all clashes and inconsistencies is impossible. For an average project, the number of reported issues can range from hundreds to thousands. Importantly, many of these errors would never surface in a traditional approach, as they wouldn’t impact construction. Unfortunately, nowadays every minor inconsistency becomes “critical” — a result of over-formalization.

Clash detection often generates extensive reports, full of tables, graphs, and classifications, which look great during coordination meetings — but don’t necessarily improve project quality. Analyzing and resolving these issues consumes designers’ and BIM coordinators’ time, while many of the “clashes” would have no real-world consequences.

Even after “resolving” 90% of reported issues, experienced users know the documentation often ends up outdated on-site. Contractors rely on their own knowledge or investor decisions made to save costs. What was meant to be a tool of precise control becomes a bureaucratic burden, disconnected from construction site reality.

3. Documentation Export is a Nightmare

In my 10-year career, I encountered only one foreign construction site where documentation was accessed solely from the cloud. Despite technological progress, many firms still require DWG or PDF files. Open formats like IFC, COBie, and free viewers are supposed to ease collaboration, but in practice, few project stakeholders know how to use them. Additionally, the lack of consistent naming conventions for layers, lines, and objects forces the creation of separate documentation schemes for each team.

Key standards in different countries include:

• ISO 19650 (BIM information management),
• DIN SPEC 91400 (Germany),
• PAS 1192 / BS EN ISO 19650 (UK),
• NS 8360 (Norway),
• PN-BIM (Poland – still in development).

4. Limited Accessibility and High Costs

Advanced BIM tools are expensive and often inaccessible to smaller firms or subcontractors so they rely on outdated workflows. There’s a lack of education on how information chains actually function. I often encounter the naive belief that “the software will do everything by itself,” while without proper training and project structure, the tool generates more problems than benefits.

5. Information Overload — When Too Much Data Hurts

BIM software operates like complex databases, like MySQL or other. The amount of information generated in a single model can exceed the cognitive capacity of the person interpreting it.

Many investors and design offices assume that the more data is delivered, the better the project will be. Traditional drawings had thematic layers — BIM combines everything at once: fire protection, acoustics, finished, furniture, installations, etc. It’s easy to get lost or jump between topics while drawing. All elements are literally available under finger tip. Leading to mistakes and data gaps. Excessive detail and lack of information filtering causes chaos in both design teams and on construction sites.

Often, key agreements regarding the model’s scope and detail level are overlooked at the contract stage. Vague terms like “BIM2D”, “BIM3D”, or “full coordination” fail to define responsibilities or expectations. Teams are forced to produce excessive data, schedules, and tables — which no one uses or understands. This leads to confusion, information overload, and delays.

From a designer’s perspective, this is frustrating — the workload increases without a corresponding improvement in quality. Many firms still fail to realize that successful BIM implementation hinges not on “more data” but on “the right data, in the right form, at the right time.”

In the past, buildings were constructed using plans and sections. Today, it often feels like we’re building from Excel. One must ask: at what cost?

6. Stability Issues and Unrealistic Interoperability Expectations

Distributed teams (often across countries) rely on cloud-based collaboration, which frequently results in sync errors, data loss, or blocked model access. Software can be unstable, and crashes may mean losing hours of work.

In theory, the BIM model should be universal and open. In practice, it works best only within one platform and its partners. Imports from external files (DWG, RVT, IFC) often lead to formatting errors, unit mismatches, or data loss. The traditional workflow allowed flexibility and human interpretation — BIM demands full compliance with program rules.

BIM programs are rapidly evolving, but not always to the user’s benefit. Annual version changes and lack of backward compatibility force constant investment. Time is lost adapting, converting files, and fixing compatibility issues. I miss the days when everyone used the same software version for years and you could just say over the phone, “Click here,” and it would work.

8. Automation and Scripting

Automation and scripting are among the most promising aspects of digital architecture. They allow repetitive tasks — like generating documentation, creating schedules, or optimizing design parameters — to be done in seconds, greatly improving efficiency.

However, few people combine the skills of an architect, data manager, and programmer — and that’s precisely what’s needed for advanced automation. Large teams may afford specialized roles, but smaller firms often can’t bear the operational costs.

Furthermore, the drive to collect as much data and as many parameters as possible often leads to information overproduction and disorganization. Instead of aiding work, complex models become unreadable. Ironically, less technologically advanced projects — built with simpler tools and logic — are more transparent and practical than highly formalized models that “no one can get anything useful out of.”

And if someone in the office asks why something isn’t working, the standard answer could be: “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature — we just haven’t written the script for it yet :)”

9. Emphasizing Clarity

Paradoxically, a technologically advanced project can be less clear and harder to manage than one created using simpler methods. Too many drawings, data points, schedules, and interdependencies hinder decision-making and quality control.

10. Model Overload and Performance Drops

Large BIM models (e.g. airports, office buildings, transport hubs) can weigh hundreds of MBs or even several GBs. Even high-performance workstations sometimes can’t handle them. This leads to lagging, crashes, or the need to split the model into sub-models — which complicates coordination. This is especially frustrating near the end of a project.

I intended to stop here, but — as with everything in BIM — nothing is ever that simple. There’s more to come in part two, which may not be cheaper, but will certainly be more interesting.

11. Limited Creative Flexibility

One of the most common criticisms of BIM is that it restricts creative freedom, especially in the early design phases. Unlike traditional methods — sketches, hand drawings, or simple 2D models — BIM environments are inherently structured, demanding, and computationally heavy. Every element must be defined as a component with parameters, dependencies, and relationships.

While this precision is crucial in later phases, it stifles the spontaneity necessary for ideation and exploring alternatives. Each change triggers a cascade of updates, slowing down or discouraging experimentation.

BIM is meant to mirror reality — the so-called digital twin. In theory, if it can’t be modeled, it can’t be built. But in practice, this leads to the opposite: models are simplified or stripped down not because solutions are impractical, but because they are too complex or time-consuming to model. Decisions are made for modeling convenience or performance, not architectural quality.

As a result, we lose what’s most important in design — openness, experimentation, and the ability to ask “what if?”. BIM, while powerful, will never replace a sketchpad, imagination, and a conversation with a blank sheet of paper.

12. BIM as a Contract Requirement — A Fiction of Usefulness

Given the above problems — and despite the potential benefits like quick energy analyses and material waste reduction — BIM is often applied superficially. In many countries (e.g., Scandinavia, the UK), BIM is mandatory in public tenders. But many projects create models merely to meet the requirement, not to use them meaningfully. These models are “empty,” lacking informational value, resulting in superficial implementation with no real benefit.

13. BIM Fails to Support the Execution Phase

Although BIM is meant to support the entire building lifecycle, during construction and operation, it often proves impractical. Contractors prefer clear 2D drawings, and Facility Management systems are still poorly integrated with BIM models — so much of the information “dies” when the project ends.

14. Lack of Long-Term Digitization Strategy in Firms

Many firms implement BIM “because they have to,” without a thoughtful strategy, training plan, information policy, or dedicated roles (e.g., BIM Manager, CDE Administrator, Modeler, Data Menager, Programmer). This leads to frustration, team resistance, and poor model quality. The tool itself doesn’t solve organizational problems.

“Of course! Below I have prepared an Excel table that you can’t live without – it contains key points (in a somewhat organized form)”

APPENDIX – Practical BIM Problem Table

No.	Problem	Description	Root Cause	Result / Consequence
1	Time-consuming modeling	3D modeling takes much longer than 2D, especially in complex work	Lack of automation, need for detailed modeling	Team overload, delays
2	Error and clash overload	Thousands of clashes, many insignificant	Overly sensitive clash detection tools	Bureaucracy, wasted time
3	Export/exchange issues	Different standards, formats used	Lack of unified norms	Manual data adjustments needed
4	Software cost	High license and training fees	Vendor monopolies, subscription models	Smaller firms excluded
5	Information overproduction	Data irrelevant to the current phase included	No filtering, no BIM strategy	Confusion, hard to find key data
6	Technical stability	Software crashes, unsaved files	Remote teams, bugs, large models	Data loss, user frustration
7	Frequent updates	New versions incompatible with old	Forced upgrades, no support for legacy versions	Team compatibility issues
8	Overtrust in automation	Belief BIM will do the work for you	Lack of knowledge about data structures	Poor documentation quality
9	Cognitive overload	Too many simultaneous data layers	Unstructured views, bad model structure	Mistakes, incomplete documents
10	Model overload	Models reach gigabytes in size	Low optimization, over-detailing	Performance drops
11	Creative limitation	BIM hampers quick sketching and iteration	Rigid modeling rules	Difficult early-phase design
12	BIM as paper tender requirement	“Empty” models to tick boxes	No intent for real BIM use	No added value
13	BIM not effective for construction	Models not usable on-site	Poor format adaptation	Contractors work from scratch
14	Lack of digital strategy	Firms adopt BIM without planning	No roles, no training, no goals	Poor implementation, resistance

The table above summarizes the main challenges we observe in the daily use of BIM – both from the perspective of a coordinator and an investment process manager. Ultimately, BIM is a tool – and like any tool, its effectiveness depends on how it is used.

BIM as a concept holds great potential. However, the current state of technology, lack of standardization, skills mismatch, and unrealistic expectations mean that many architectural firms experience it more as a source of frustration than as a development tool. Rather than promising a revolution, it is worth focusing on gradual implementation, competence development, and a realistic approach to what can truly be achieved with this technology.

If you need help with a project or information analysis, comment or send me an email. I’ll be happy to respond – arch. inż. Piotr Macieszczak