It is true that BIM is a niche filled to the brim with acronyms. In rather an overuse of the things, it is often necessary to include an entire appendix section just to cover them all. Wondering what your MIDP has to do with a RACI, or unsure whether you need LOD or LOIN? There are so many acronyms in use, that it is inevitable that you will get one or two instances of disagreement about what it really stands for. Level of Development, or Level of Detail? Well one meaning that “everyone” has been in agreement with for some time is that BIM = Building Information Modelling. Apart from the odd amusing misuse, such as BIM = Building In Mistakes, or Budget Is Massive, there is a consensus of opinion that spans industry disciplines, geographical regions, cultures and languages. At least, to my knowledge, it has been that way until now.
I have recently been receiving some exciting emails. I could hardly contain myself when, one Monday morning, I should be informed that “our evaluation panel has shortlisted to feature BIM Weasel BIM Consulting (BWBC because acronyms rule of course) as one of the Top 10 BIM Service Companies in APAC”. Finally, our hard work had been recognised and we can make a show of our undisputed BIM chops, or so I thought. Of course, if something looks too good to be true, that’s usually because it is. Back to the email and soon enough came the sentence, “the reprint rights of BWBC’s single-page profile is US$3,000.” Ah. I see. So we were legitimately shortlisted, and this sum does cover the cost of a “Certificate of Honor” (sic), a single page “color Adspace” (sic), and circulation is “55,000 print qualified subscribers” along with “85,000 digital qualified subscribers”. So Construction Tech Review is quite a big thing, is it? Well respected within the industry? I was curious to find out more.
For the sake of argument, and to spare any blushes, let’s call the author of the introductory email Jonathan Malibu. Well, I did the usual due diligence by checking out the author, via LinkedIn, and visiting the website of the publication. LinkedIn found only one Jonathan Malibu, but with an incomplete profile, as well as a Nigerian chap called Malibu Jonathan. So far, so good. Maybe he’s such a successful businessman that he’s too busy for LinkedIn? But what do you suppose I discovered when I visited the website? Hold on to your socks because what you’re about to read is in danger of knocking them right off!
He has been a persistent fellow, this Mr Malibu, so you’ve got to give him that at least. Very keen indeed. Three times now, he has reminded me about his initial introductory email and wants to schedule a call to discuss our well earned reward. I have not replied once. Pardon my lack of enthusiasm, but I am sceptical of any worthwhile source of industry knowledge that refers to BIM as Business Information Modeling. Yes. Eyebrows raised. The very first BIM article I looked at, valiantly railed against collective industry-wide perceived knowledge by changing the meaning of BIM! It has absolutely nothing to do with building anything, apparently.
Once I had recovered my composure, shocked as I was that we had all been using the term BIM incorrectly all these years, I checked out the rest of the article. It was an absolute shitfest of poor grammar, misinformation and vaguely worded bullshit. In fact, a little bit like a UK government statement on how the unrestricted flow of road freight will occur post-Brexit, only without the grammatical errors.
I moved on to another article, entitled How Will the BIM Models Work Efficiently to see if I could glean anything useful, but it was the same sorry story. Poorly understood copy-pasta, not a source of useful information. I would like to think that the entire edifice of Construction Tech Review will get outed and shown the door by the wider community. But then, who should I see pop up with an article in their name? Only industry veteran, knowledge repository and generally nice guy, Richard Kuppusamy. Eyebrows raised again. Unsure as to whether this was original content (pretty sure it’s not), but a quick Google search was briefly put off when I was hit by this cheeky message:
Despite the fact that the text appears to be a transcript from a presentation Richard made back in 2017, I can’t copy-pasta because it’s copyright? No problem Mr Malibu. Such utter horse shit. Anyhow, needless to say, I shall not be taking him up on his offer to pay US$3,000 for some dubious publicity puff-piece which may or may not even appear on a seldom viewed website, or in print.