#cloudalize

New Post has been published on http://www.bimjournal.com/digital-construction-news/bim-news/maxim-greant-cloudalize-discusses-advantages-open-bim-closed-bim/

Maxim Greant of Cloudalize Discusses the Advantages of Open BIM over Closed BIM

Cloudalize has begun establishing itself as a business that is constantly looking to the future and is always looking at development.  The business is aiming to become the preferred platform for creators or businesses to collaborate using online cloud computing services.

It will do this through its development of the GDaaS platform, a cloud platform that will allow vendors and service providers to seamlessly connect and work on projects despite their locations.

The business uses BIM to cut down lead times of around six months that companies will have to wait out when looking to go into collaboration on a joint project.  The use of BIM allows Cloudalize to control security of their clients, increase efficiency and speed of the virtual workstations, and offer added flexibility to the development of these systems.

Regarding the present BIM landscape, what do you feel are some of the shortcomings of traditional, closed BIM, and do you feel that a more open, transparent and collaborative approach based on open standards and workflows can resolve some of these concerns?

The biggest shortcomings of traditional, closed BIM, are well known. I can fully agree that there is a need for a streamlined protocol towards open standardized file-formats to be used in all types of CAD software. However as long as these files are not yet fully compatible to all CAD software, we’re not leveraging the full potential of open BIM.

My belief is that any CAD professional should be able to do their work in their preferred software they feel comfortable with to deliver the optimum results in the best time and thus in the most efficient way.

As long as these files are not compatible with other CAD software, this efficiency gain is nullified as part of an excellent job might not be converted correctly, be simplified enough, or the receiver of the files might need to spend too much time getting everything compatible to their software of choice.

Therefore, I strongly support OpenBIM, though I think there is still a long way to go. I believe this movement will be strongly pushed and advocated by market challengers and smaller players in the CAD software/suite market.

The biggest players might be at ease with their dominant position and thus implying their software to be used in BIM projects, as they have no interest in pushing compatibility towards competitive software. In fact from a purely technical point of view the best written software is not to be found in the main dominant player of CAD design software, probably because they’re in the most comfortable position and are not yet challenged enough.

I’d like to compare it with the ‘we’re 2nd, we try harder’ philosophy of AVIS (car rental company).

What benefits can see you a transparent and collaborative workflow, with a common language and translation, bringing to construction projects, both in comparison to those already utilising BIM and also those which are perhaps not?

The biggest benefits are quite simple and to be compared with Formula 1, where we have different car and engine constructors, and users (pilot).

If all pilots would drive the exact same car, there would be less pressure to innovate (R&D), and race times will probably be slower. This is what happens in a Closed BIM.

Let’s have a look at OpenBIM, where different constructors enter the Formula 1 scene. To be the best, they have to research new technologies and the user (pilot) drives the car he feels best in to set the fastest lap times. OpenBIM can thus lead to shorter lead times (shorter lap times) and state of the art designs (new automotive technologies).

What limitations or challenges might you also see stemming from collaborative workflow, and can you see this means of working being one to stunt creativity and relationship development, or perhaps complement it in the alternative means of working, with clear controls over personal design data?

Don’t really understand the question. The only limitation I see is that designers are not challenged to try other software. Compare it again with F1 pilots, they’re not challenged to drive fast lap times with other cars they’re not used to. They’re less polyvalent but are better experts.

Is this a limitation?

How do you see openBIM altering the landscape with relevance to small and medium enterprises, the alteration or boundaries to entry, and potentially increased competition from smaller software vendors and the impacts of this on those already-established core brands.

I think I answered this question already. Yes, it will increase competition and lead to better software with more possibilities and features or at cheaper prices because lock-in to a certain software vendor disappears. Non-established brands try harder, however, let’s not forget that established core brands have done a lot of development and research to get where they are now.

At which points of the project lifespan do you see the primary effects, be they negative or positive, of openBIM on any given project? This could include anything from initial concepts and plans all the way through to the asset management and planned renovation of structures in future years.

Initial points as you’ll get greatest designs in fastest way. Compare it with sleeping in your own bed. Everybody sleeps better in their own bed (unless you’re staying at a 5-star hotel).

But if everybody stays at a 5-star hotel (imagine we all have the money), consumer bed vendors will try harder making beds better closing the gap with beds in 5-star hotel rooms.

How can you see the openBIM approach, methodology and philosophy being adapted in the given years? In which ways might you support this development with any given reasoning and purpose?

Our platform supports any software, and in fact I personally support best written software from my technical point of view (which does depend the least on expensive hardware). Some smaller software developers wrote some very good software using multiple cores, needing less clockspeed, and using GPU for simple parallel processing tasks, and this helps systems work much faster than established software.

From a CAD user point of view, I would share this opinion but add to it by saying that software has to be intuitive. I hear a lot of complaints about file-architecture and complex file structures which make it very complex to combine all files to one full comprehensive design.

What closing statements and, or, points might you wish to add to the openBIM debate? Please provide full reasoning, relevance and argument for any points within this section to give proper links back to the core text.

Small vendors have to try harder if they want to challenge established softwares to make openBIM an accomplishment. I strongly feel there is margin for improvement for those smaller vendors, by following the technological evolution of hardware.

I would also like to add, that this interview has been focusing a lot on software, open vs closedBIM, but that other challenges have to be coped with before even talking about BIM or collaboration, as collaboration still has a lot of challenges. It is still difficult to manage a collaboration environment or platform, and to set it up without high capex investment.

Whatever software is used, it will still be difficult to collaborate in real time with local workstations, and let’s not forget constant up and download when working on files, stored on a central server. That’s where the added value of a cloudplatform like GDaaS is. Other benefits are to be found in the answer to the first question, but they broaden the debate.