Here is an uncomfortable truth about Information Delivery Specifications
Many won't like it, few might even feel offended
But if I'm not right, please, prove me wrong.
If you're producing IFC models - and I say this with complete respect - I need to share an uncomfortable truth.
Consultants (architects, engineers, MEP designers, etc) have zero business incentive to implement IDS when clients don't require it.
Think about it:
→ Billable hours model rewards time, not efficiency
→ Traditional deliverables still win contracts
→ PDFs and Excel sheets satisfy current clients
→ Why invest in machine-readable specs?
But they struggle to justify implementation costs when clients aren't demanding it.
- Training teams on new workflows
- Updating QA processes
- Restructuring deliverable templates
- Significant investment with no guaranteed ROI
Meanwhile, traditional deliverables continue winning contracts.
The reality:
The IFC models you receive might look perfect in viewers.
But they often lack structured information needed for:
→ Automated compliance checking
→ Asset management integration
→ Energy analysis workflows
→ Regulatory reporting
→ Meaningful data analytics
You're getting digital drawings instead of intelligent building data.
The solution:
Stop hoping consultants/designers will voluntarily adopt IDS.
Instead:
- Convert your project requirements into IDS format
- Make it contractually mandatory before any agreement
- Create market demand for structured information
When IDS becomes a competitive requirement rather than voluntary best practice?
Consulting firms rapidly develop capabilities to deliver structured information.
This transforms voluntary adoption into business necessity.
What do you think about this theory?
Have you considered that consultant (architect, engineer, contractor) reluctance might be purely economic rather than technical?
I know this from talking to many people who work on IFC model-based projects, they still dont use IDS.
The pattern is remarkably consistent across firms and project types.
The technology exists. The standards are mature.
But the market incentives remain misaligned.
PS. Are you ready to shift from hoping for adoption to creating market demand?
BIMvoice
Why your IFC models are failing you
(and consultants won't fix it)
Here is an uncomfortable truth about Information Delivery Specifications
Many won't like it, few might even feel offended
But if I'm not right, please, prove me wrong.
If you're producing IFC models - and I say this with complete respect - I need to share an uncomfortable truth.
Consultants (architects, engineers, MEP designers, etc) have zero business incentive to implement IDS when clients don't require it.
Think about it:
→ Billable hours model rewards time, not efficiency
→ Traditional deliverables still win contracts
→ PDFs and Excel sheets satisfy current clients
→ Why invest in machine-readable specs?
Here's what actually happens:
Most consulting firms (engineering consultancies, architecture studios, specialty contractors) understand IDS benefits theoretically.
But they struggle to justify implementation costs when clients aren't demanding it.
- Training teams on new workflows
- Updating QA processes
- Restructuring deliverable templates
- Significant investment with no guaranteed ROI
Meanwhile, traditional deliverables continue winning contracts.
The reality:
The IFC models you receive might look perfect in viewers.
But they often lack structured information needed for:
→ Automated compliance checking
→ Asset management integration
→ Energy analysis workflows
→ Regulatory reporting
→ Meaningful data analytics
You're getting digital drawings instead of intelligent building data.
The solution:
Stop hoping consultants/designers will voluntarily adopt IDS.
Instead:
- Convert your project requirements into IDS format
- Make it contractually mandatory before any agreement
- Create market demand for structured information
When IDS becomes a competitive requirement rather than voluntary best practice?
Consulting firms rapidly develop capabilities to deliver structured information.
This transforms voluntary adoption into business necessity.
What do you think about this theory?
Have you considered that consultant (architect, engineer, contractor) reluctance might be purely economic rather than technical?
I know this from talking to many people who work on IFC model-based projects, they still dont use IDS.
The pattern is remarkably consistent across firms and project types.
The technology exists. The standards are mature.
But the market incentives remain misaligned.
PS. Are you ready to shift from hoping for adoption to creating market demand?
6 days ago | [YT] | 0