Paul Oakley

It would have been better if I'd gone fishing

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@NigelPDavies Suggest you go back and review the ISO standards on documentation. Internationally some countries have very specific standards implementations, such as Singapore CP83.

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@for59j54 @DigiNeanderthal @StewartGH1970 This shows the total lack of understanding about the original process and the benefits it achieved.
Roll back to Avanti…

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@DRossiter87 @RowlyPaul @BSI_UK If only we had built this into Autocad Architecture 15 years ago…
In fact we did!

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

Speaking today at #DigiDeck22 in Zagreb, Croatia with #dctgrp #Croatia #BIM #digitalconstruction

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@for59j54 @CaseyRutland 22 years ago it just worked for 2x as Teamwork demonstrated. Certification was the debate 6 years ago around IFC 4 and how it should be done. Then we now have this mess…

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@Just_Super At the beginning…
See Mervyn’s lectures on https://t.co/bNQ8068wHL

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@bimprocess Never mind what you call it, does it still work?

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@bimprocess @for59j54 Still the industry fails to recognize the difference between cost and value. That is why the whole "Beginning with the end in mind approach is so crucial. Instead we have box ticking of useless documentation which only adds waste!

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@NigelPDavies Why did it take you so long to work that out? How could you fit a classification where most codes are 14 characters into a standard that limits it to 6.

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@DRossiter87 @bondbryanBIM @Studio_Bim @bim_little Because the information requirements for commissioning could have a major impact on the approach to the feasibility.
ISO 19650 EIR, exchange information requirements are not the container for information requirements as identified in the level 2 Employer information requirements.

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@for59j54 First this is not a new standard but a revamp of an existing standard. As I doubt you will ever write a data dictionary I don’t expect you will need to either read or implement this. Also as uk we generally stick to English to requirements of multi language etc are not required.

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@bimprocess What is worse is those now issuing MIDPs which are actually MPDTs. MPDTs were a BIM protocol v1 requirement and should be provided as a Responsibility Matrix!

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@Just_Super @tkunsman @UKBIMAlliance @pambhandal Your lucky to have such an informed Client!
Content has now been restored.😃

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@Just_Super @UKBIMAlliance @pambhandal I have now restored much of the original content on https://t.co/XlMwnnMW0t which on review still provides a useful guide to requirements.

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@Just_Super @tkunsman @UKBIMAlliance @pambhandal This site is some 10 years old and existed before the UK BIM Task group, never mind the BIM Framework. Technology for Website included flash so had to be taken down. I query because there was other content relating to CAD standards, plot styles etc. which may be still required?

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

Yes, feedback has been very promising and hopefully a gain changer for adoption in Asia / Pacific @bimprocess @RichardsMervyn

[Paul Oakley @OakleyCAD]

@UKBIMAlliance @SarahDUoN @Johnad25 @JenniferMac80 @DRossiter87 @MottMacDonald @FuturebuildNow Has it even unified the UK market?