ABSTRACT
Misinformation about BIM is rife. BIM has been claimed to be a tool, a software, a philosophy, a system, a platform, and a set of interacting policies, processes and technologies. BIM has been espoused as though it is revolutionary; a dedicated practice for object-oriented design and accurate [or automated] estimating, and a virtual planning tool that is reliable for construction contracts. This chapter argues that the attributes often credited to BIM are not entirely accurate and thus could jeopardize the very foundation of BIM understanding in construction law education. The practical drawback regarding this is that BIM is not shaped by actual contract data but by virtual (imaginary) project data, bounded by software cognition protocols. In addition, BIM is not supported by an established contract instrument either. Although a section from the recent construction literature has shown significant excitement about BIM in the political space, business communications, teaching and learning (praxis inclusive), and, not least, for theory formulation, the reality is that not all the information about the potentiality or actual attributes of BIM is legally correct. Neither useful education nor training or research should be based on misinformation. Therefore, it is important to correct extant claims and distil extant knowledge about the legal implications of BIM’s actual deliverables. This chapter explains key realities and the challenges in legal constructs around BIM, and elicits appropriate directions for future research and for curriculum development regarding various aspects of professional and business liabilities in BIM. The implications of these are important for the development of students and graduates, as well as for politics, construction professional practice, and educational management.
