There needs to be a blank page after the cover page so that when using 2-sided printing the odd pages appear on the right.

There are many times when BIM and NBIMS are defined in the document.  All of the definitions should be checked for consistency so that there are no conflicts in their definitions and the sum total of all the definitions adds up to what BIM and NBIMS really are.

The name of this section should be "Foreword," as in "the first word," and not "forward," as in "moving forward."

The Forward to NBIMS exemplifies much that follows in this document: wordiness and lack of clarity.

 A) The third sentence, lines 6 and 7 which reads "To minimize confusion we recommend continuing with what people have come to accept." NBIMS, as written, will not end confusion. The sentence at lines 20 and 21 which reads "There are currently as many definitions for BIM as there are people implementing them" makes the phrase "what people have come to accept" nonsensical. Some "accept" that Autocad ADT is BIM.

 B) One can hope that the sentence at the Foreword which reads "To date, however, there is little transfer of information between the traditional facility industry stovepipes where we are essentially only creating cylinders of excellence" is the worst of the confusing statements made in NBIMS. Stovepipes awaits page 7 for its definition. Accordingly, "cylinders of excellence" is difficult to make sense of.

NBIMS is the right concept. Let's make it both readable and useful to all concerned. A suggestion: After correcting its parts as a result of this review exercise, take the next critical step and break the whole NBIMS document into its best constituent parts, excise the wordiness and reorganize for clarity. While at it, deal with the excess of acronyms: OGC, IDM, MVD, COBIE, CPTR, OSCRE, VDC .......

No doubt BIM is in our future.  It has been endeavoring to gain a foothold since the early to mid 1980's. Now momentum appears to be shifting in its favor.

"some sectors of the capital facilities industry." Suggest including "and the building construction industry".

Carl Matthews, AIA, Page Southerland Page, Houston, TX

suggest changing "To build" to "To build or renovate"

Carl Matthews, AIA, Page Southerland Page, Houston, TX

As I read thru the different chapters in the BIM Standard, my first impressions are that it is a series industry white papers written by different groups and connected together. An editor will need to bring some continuity to this group of documents. While doing this, the editor should remove the fluff in them which includes multiple and sometimes conflicting definitions, remove the "hopes" of the committees and coordinate common terms like NBIMS (not NBIM Standard or National BIM Standard). A complete list of acronyms should be in the Index.

Many thanks to all who have worked hard on this document and are making it a reality.

My favorite diagram in the National BIM Standard is Figure 5.1-1.

Carl Matthews, AIA, Page Southerland Page, Houston, TX

The scope of NBIMS in this Part 1 document causes me concern in the way it addresses MVD - specifically NBIMS apparent goal of being in charge of MVD. The concern is that NBIMS seems to be usurping control of processes currently controlled by others, and in the process is stepping on existing toes. I believe the majority of the international technical leadership of IAI feels that MVD should not be an NBIMS controlled activity; that should be the responsibility of other existing organizations under the international buildingSMART umbrella. Improvements to the existing processes could be made, and input to this effect is welcome. However, the way NBIMS (current text) seems to usurp the right to control MVD will not be welcome. So, if NBIMS has a strong desire, and resources to match, to take control of MVD this issue has to be introduced and managed very carefully and sensitively with the international community. I argue that NBIMS has so much to do that it should not attempt to control MVD. On the other hand, NBIMS could become a valued international leader to unify and coordinate regional user exchange requirements and support software testing from an end-user perspective.

The process of IFC model view definitions depends on input from user requirements, software capabilities and IFC model characteristics. Clearly NBIMS represent the users and should define exchange requirement in user language, based on user business processes. The organization currently representing the interests of the IFC-BIM software vendors is IAI ISG (Implementer Support Group). The IFC Model capabilities are cared for by MSG (Model Support Group). Both these groups fall under ITM (International Technical Management) of the IAI. NBIMS and other IDM organizations are welcomed and encouraged to provide input in the MVD process, but for international MVDs the control should remain with the existing international IAI groups.

The issue is the global reach of the large software vendor companies vs. smaller regional firms serving local software needs. Requiring large firms to implement regional solutions (end user exchange requirements as expressed by NBIMS and other IDM effort) puts unnecessary strain on their implementation resources. These firms should be allowed to implement global solutions and make local adjustments/templates etc. available as their markets require and they can implement. From an international perspective NBIMS is viewed as a regional effort and therefore not appropriate to define MVD of global scope. On the other hand regional IDM efforts (Such as NBIMS) should define local exchange requirements and then work with regional ISGs to define MVDs that are not intended to become global.

The kind of testing NBIMS should control is the exchange between user and user – to test if the software actually exchanges what NBIMS user requirements had in mind. This has little to do with how MVDs are defined as long as the user requirements carefully note specific processing requirements such as aggregations and application of formulae for calculated. And it would be appropriate for NBIMS to issue certification to software upon passing compliance tests. The IAI with software vendors in ISG have established testing and compliance at the MVD level. I believe supportive input into this testing from the user community including NBIMS will be welcomed and appreciated.

Example references:

Page 9, line 25:

“MVD is conceptually the process which integrates Exchange Requirements (ER) coming from many IDM processes to the most logical Model Views that will be supported by software applications.”

Page 9, line 32:

”The Committee will work with software vendors and the Testing task team to plan and facilitate pilot implementations, testing, and use in pilot projects. After the pilot phase is complete, the committee will update the MVD documents for use in the consensus XE "consensus standard" process and ongoing commercial implementation. Finally, after consensus is reached, final updates will be made to the MVD documents for inclusion in the next NBIMS release.”

Page 125, line 3

“NBIMS XE "NBIMS (The NBIMS Committee)" MVD will be developed using the following process:”

If we only mean our regional requirements, met by regional MVD the text should make that clear

Francois Grobler