Three ways architects can address vague models and hidden risks

Architects do not need models that pretend every uncertainty has disappeared. They need ones that help the team understand what is known, what still carries risk and what needs to happen next.

BIM implemented well is more than producing models. When done effectively, they help design teams ask better questions earlier.

That was the focus of our recent Architects’ roundtable, where we discussed how design teams can make better decisions when the information they rely on still carries uncertainty.

After hearing views from over 30 architectural practices, three themes stood out.

If you’re an architect who’s had enough of vague models and hidden risks, and you’d like to join the next conversation, please get in touch. 

You can register your interest and suggest topics for our next session here. 

Existing building models often begin with archive information or survey data. But archive drawings may be incomplete and point cloud models still involve interpretation.

That creates a difficult question for architects: if the model was produced by someone else, who takes responsibility for it once the design team starts using it?

If the model is unclear, the team can spend more time validating information than progressing the design. But asking for more detail is not always the answer. A highly detailed model can still be unreliable if the tolerances, assumptions and ownership are unclear.

Architects need to consider:

• Who owns which parts of the model?
• What tolerances matter for the decisions being made?
• What level of detail is enough to move forward?
• Where are further checks still needed? 

The aim is not to remove all uncertainty. It is to understand what the model is reliable enough to support.

Some hidden risks only become visible when models are reviewed together.

Builderswork and fire stopping are good examples. To specify fire stopping properly, the team needs to know where services pass through fire-rated walls and floors, what size openings are needed, and how those penetrations will be treated.

But that information often depends on an M&E design that is still moving.

Bring fire consultants in too early, and there may not be enough certainty for them to advise with confidence. Bring them in too late, and any issues they identify can lead to redesign, delay and additional cost.

Architects should consider:

• Which elements in the model actually matter for fire stopping?
• Where are services passing through fire-rated elements?
• When is the design developed enough to test likely risks?
• What still carries uncertainty before the design becomes too fixed?