Cadalyst - September 2008 - (Page 41)

aecinsight How’re We Doin’? Software vendors’ delivery of realworld IFC-based interoperability can be judged from a January 2008 report by Erabuild, representing 10 European countries — among them Finland, the Netherlands, and Norway — that are pioneers, leading adopters, and strong advocates for IFCs. “Review of the Development and Implementation of IFC-Compatible BIM” was brutally frank. Erabuild found that the IFC standard “is generally agreed to be of high quality and is widely implemented in software,” but it judged that “the certification process allows poorquality implementations to be certified and essentially renders the certified software useless for any practical Figure 1. Under contract to the GSA, Chuck Eastman and students at Georgia Tech’s AEC usage with IFC.” Integration Lab are working out details of real-world interoperability during early concept Backing up its stunning conclusion, design and beyond. (Courtesy of Georgia Institute of Technology) Erabuild reported anonymous tests of eight leading IFC-certified applications. Two top performers achieved average scores of only zation projects. That platform happens to be Bentley 96% and 93% accuracy, respectively, on real-world MicroStation, which matters to Bentley’s competitors and data exchanges. For context, imagine a single data round their users, but the more important point is that a major trip that includes a 96% accurate export to a 93% accurate consumer of AEC data believes multiplatform interoperabilimport, followed by 93% re-export and 96% reimport. ity remains inadequate for many mission-critical facilities. After one such round trip, data accuracy could be As the world’s largest owner-operator of nonmilitary real reduced to 80%. After three round trips, odds may be estate, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) can little better than a coin toss that any bit of project data afford to take a different tack. To help achieve its bottomremains as designed. up goals of real-world interoperability, GSA has engaged Some blame must go to software vendors that also parGeorgia Tech professor Chuck Eastman and his students ticipate in determining certification processes and that in the AEC Integration Lab to test, debug, and redefine might view IFC certification as a marketing coup rather interoperability use cases from concept design through the than a technological imperative. However, the ultimate entire AEC process across all leading platforms (figure 1). fault lies in the process itself. Wikipedia explains that softThis approach exemplifies the difference between conforware interoperability is achieved by several means, the mance testing (against a standard) and true interoperability first of which is product testing. In turn, product testing testing (products against each other). “depend[s] on the clarity of the standard, but there are In July, Autodesk and Bentley announced intent “to often discrepancies . . . that system and unit testing do not exchange their software libraries and support each other’s uncover. . . . Interoperable product testing is different from application programming interface tools to improve interopconformance-based product testing, as conformance to erability between their products.” Hailed by some as a “hisa standard does not necessarily engender interoperability toric great leap forward,” this news was disturbingly silent with another product also tested for conformance.” regarding IFCs. Optimistically, making two leading product To be fair to IAI, its standards-writing role extends only suites interoperable with each other could simplify makto certifying whether products meet those standards — ing both interoperable with everything else. However, the conformance testing, a top-down approach. True interopresult also could be an Autodesk–Bentley duopoly at the erability among real-world products must be achieved on expense of IFC-based interoperability generally — to the a case-by-case basis, a bottom-up approach. This is where detriment of user choice among worthy products such as enlightened building clients can and must play a role. Gehry Technologies’ DigitalProject, Graphisoft’s ArchiCAD, Nemetschek’s Allplan and VectorWorks, Onuma Planning Where Do We Go from Here? System, Tekla, Vico, and many others. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), responsible for the world’s largest inventory of buildings and propIndustry analyst and consultant Jerry Laiserin helps AEC/O erty, takes a cautious approach for 43 Army standard facili- businesses — and the technology providers who serve them — ties types in its Center of Standardization. Until true design build smarter through the integration of technology strategy and interoperability among BIM platforms is achieved, USACE business process. E-mail him at jerry@laiserin.com. will specify only one BIM platform for Center of StandardiSeptember 2008 cadalyst www.cadalyst.com 41 http://www.cadalyst.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Cadalyst - September 2008

Cadalyst - September 2008 Contents Editor's Window Cad Central Tech Trends: Genie Out of the Bottle Cadalyst Labs Reviews: Big Tools for Big Jobs — Wide-Format Scanners and Printers Make Small Work of Large Projects Cadalyst Labs Reviews: AutoCAD 2009 — General-Purpose CAD Software Cadalyst Labs Reviews: AecBatchStylesEditor 2009 — CAD Standards Management Software for AEC Cad manager: Synchronize CAD Files over a Wide Area MCAD Modeling: Is 2D Drawing Doomed? Plm Strategies: More Bang for Your Truck Aec Insight: Works and Plays Well with Others Cad Cartoon Issue Indexes Hot Tip Harry: VBA Hints for Customizing AutoCAD

Cadalyst - September 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.