Work is now under way on version 2.0 of the AEC (UK) BIM Protocols. An exact timeline will be published soon, but the committee is now reviewing change requests we have received. As an insight, the new version will:
- Amalgamate and rationalise the protocols from the Revit and Bentley Building versions
- Redevelop the generic document to apply to all BIM authoring tools
- Provide product-specific appendices to implement the protocols for specific software
- Include closer alignment with BS1192:2007 and other British Standards (BS8541-1 and PAS1192-2)
- Integrate the protocols with the project process through a Project Execution Plan
Please let us have any comments or questions you may have by posting a response to this post. We may not publish all of them, but we will read, and take on board, all comments you send.
I think also some thoughts on structuring / naming conventions for worksets might be interesting to see.
This is a fantastic resource for the developing BIM world. Thanks.
In any revision, please consider your use of the phrase “…the BIM.” e.g. clause 7.3.1 “…the publication of documentation from the BIM.” I trust you are referring to “the BIM Model” as distinct from “the BIM process”.
Cheers and look forward to the update.
Working with a company over the last few days and they have suggested a standardised approach to numbering between the AEC standards, AEC Bentley and AEC Revit standards documented. For example, File Naming, has Architect represented by A in AEC UK, A in AEC Bentley and AR in AEC Revit and generally the discipline’s tables are quietly widely different between the 3 documents.
In addition to Rob’s comment about consistency –
Suggest Landscape Architects are assigned code L in line with BS1192:2007 and that Lift Engineers are assigned LE instead.
Also some confusion around code D from BS1192:2007 and code CD in AEC (UK) Standard. Could this be clarified why there is a need for a different code.
Zone codes 01 and 02 should be removed from the suggested list in the standard as these can conflict with the Levels codes and can lead to confusion. Suggest prefix Z (for zone) or P (for phase) is encouraged.
In general all conflicts with the BS should be removed and just provide additional unidentified codes.
Be careful about including status codes in your file naming convention.
While Building owners in the US are under an implied warranty for the reliability of any information issued to the contractor by their design teams, UK owners are not.
Fitness for Purpose is not the accepted standard in the UK, it is instead ‘reasonable skill and care’. Issuing a drawing or model as ‘fit for’ actually raises the standard of care from best endeavours to achieve that result (as imposed on any professional) to an unqualified obligation to achieve a result. The defining case was George Hawkins v Chrysler (UK) (CA).
If a model is issued as Fit for Manufacture, the issuing party accepts full liability to achieve that end-result. I don’t think this is what was intended.
Thanks David – I think this point was discussed in the LinkedIn CPIC/Uniclass Group. It’s a point well worth bearing in mind, but not something either BS1192 implies, nor the AEC (UK) requires.
Will the updates be published in Draft first so that comments can be made before final publication? Would gladly post comments but your summary list looks like it will tackle these points. Glad to see that the new version will attempt to address our current particular concerns.
As stated before we would be happy to help with ArchiCAD specific protocols if you need input.
Yes, there will be a draft. Once we’re happy with it we’ll send it out to a wider audience for comment.
O…great the development of generic document for all BIM authoring tools is cool stuff ……looking for timeline which i feel is closer
As discussed on Twitter.
A table of LOD like the AIA standards would be useful that is aligned to the RIBA stages.
Content parameter standardisation and content naming would be a nice area to clean up.