The Reality in Practice

<sup>Despite years of investment in design-phase BIM, operational adoption remains limited.

Models aren't maintained. Construction BIM models are rarely updated to reflect as-built conditions, let alone ongoing changes during operations. Tenant fitouts, plant replacements, and minor works accumulate without model updates. Within a few years, the model no longer represents the building.

Models aren't connected. Static 3D geometry has limited operational value. The promise of BIM for operations requires integration with live systems—BMS, CMMS, metering, access control. These integrations are complex, expensive, and rarely implemented. Most "operational BIM" remains disconnected from the systems that actually run the building.

Facilities teams don't use them. Even when models exist and are reasonably current, facilities teams often don't engage with them. The tools are unfamiliar. The interfaces are cumbersome. Traditional approaches—paper drawings, tribal knowledge, spreadsheet asset registers—persist because they're simpler and more accessible.

The business case is unclear. Vendors cite maintenance savings, reduced downtime, and improved decision-making. But credible, independently verified case studies demonstrating return on investment in typical commercial buildings are scarce. The benefits are often theoretical or extrapolated from pilot projects with atypical investment levels.

Handover quality varies dramatically. BIM deliverables at handover range from comprehensive, well-structured models to geometry dumps with minimal asset data. Without rigorous specification and verification during construction, owners receive models that aren't fit for operational purpose—regardless of contractual requirements.</sup>

Commercial Real Estate: Does It Stack Up?

<sup>For most commercial office buildings, BIM for operations does not deliver value proportionate to its cost.

Building complexity doesn't justify it. A typical commercial office—even a premium tower—has relatively straightforward systems. Centralised plant, standard air handling, conventional tenancies. The spatial complexity that makes BIM valuable during construction doesn't translate to operational complexity that justifies ongoing model investment.

Simpler tools deliver equivalent value. Asset registers, 2D floor plans with equipment locations, well-organised documentation, and competent facilities management address most operational requirements. The incremental value of 3D spatial context is marginal for routine maintenance and operations.

Tenant churn undermines model currency. Commercial buildings experience regular tenancy changes. Each fitout modifies the building. Maintaining BIM currency across frequent tenant works is expensive and rarely prioritised. Models quickly diverge from reality.

Ownership and responsibility are fragmented. Who maintains the operational BIM? The landlord? The facilities manager? The tenant? In multi-tenanted commercial buildings, responsibility fragments across parties—and typically defaults to no one.

Investment competes with higher priorities. The capital and operational budget required to maintain BIM for operations competes with investments that deliver clearer returns—BMS upgrades, energy efficiency projects, tenant amenity improvements. For most commercial owners, these alternatives win.

There are exceptions. Large owner-occupied headquarters, complex mixed-use developments with significant retail and infrastructure components, or buildings with unusual technical complexity may justify BIM for operations. But these are not typical commercial assets.</sup>

Healthcare: A Different Equation

^{Healthcare facilities present a stronger case for BIM in operations—though challenges remain.}

^{Genuine complexity. Hospitals contain thousands of assets across dozens of systems—medical gases, nurse call, duress, infection control ventilation, critical power, specialised clinical environments. The density and interdependency of systems creates real operational complexity that benefits from spatial context.}

^{Long asset lifecycles. Healthcare facilities operate for decades with ongoing capital works, refurbishments, and expansions. Accurate spatial and asset data supports capital planning, reduces construction risk, and improves coordination across successive projects.}

^{Critical environments. Operating theatres, ICUs, pharmacies, and isolation rooms have precise environmental requirements. Understanding the relationship between building services and clinical spaces—and the impact of changes—has genuine operational value.}

^{Regulatory and accreditation requirements. Healthcare facilities must demonstrate compliance with building codes, clinical standards, and accreditation requirements. Comprehensive asset data and documentation supports compliance—though this doesn't necessarily require 3D BIM.}

^{Asset intensity. The sheer volume of maintainable assets in hospitals—often 10–20 times the density of commercial buildings—increases the value of structured asset data. Whether this data needs to live in a 3D model versus a well-structured CMMS is a separate question.}

^{However, healthcare also faces barriers.}

^{Clinical priorities dominate. Hospital facilities teams are stretched thin, focused on keeping clinical services operational. Maintaining BIM models competes with immediate operational demands—and usually loses.}

^{Integration complexity. Healthcare facilities have more systems to integrate—and many are clinical systems outside facilities management scope. Achieving meaningful integration between BIM, BMS, CMMS, and clinical systems is technically complex and organisationally difficult.}

^{Legacy estate. Most healthcare portfolios include buildings of varying age and documentation quality. Applying BIM for operations to a 1970s ward block that was never modelled is a different proposition to a new build with comprehensive BIM deliverables.}

What's Actually Needed vs What's Being Sold

^{Before investing in BIM for operations, building owners should distinguish between what vendors are selling and what operations actually require.}

^{What operations actually need:}

^{• Accurate, current floor plans showing equipment locations}

^{• Comprehensive asset registers with consistent naming and classification}

^{• Accessible documentation—O&M manuals, as-built drawings, schematics}

^{• Reliable integration between CMMS and building systems}

^{• Clear data governance and update processes}

^{These requirements can be met without 3D BIM. Well-structured 2D documentation, properly configured CMMS platforms, and disciplined data management often deliver more operational value than sophisticated 3D models that aren't maintained.}

^{What vendors are selling:}

^{• 3D visualisation platforms with impressive demonstrations}

^{• Integration promises that require significant additional investment}

^{• AI and predictive capabilities that depend on data quality most buildings lack}

^{• Platforms designed for design-phase workflows adapted for operations}

^{The gap between vendor demonstrations and operational reality is significant. Demonstrations show polished models with comprehensive data, seamless integration, and intuitive interfaces. Operational reality involves incomplete handovers, constrained budgets, and facilities teams with limited capacity to adopt new tools.}

^{The honest question: Will your organisation actually use a 3D operational model? Will you invest in maintaining it? Do you have the integration infrastructure to connect it to live systems? If the answers are uncertain, the investment is unlikely to deliver.}

^‍

Practical Recommendations

^{For commercial real estate owners:}

^{Focus investment on data foundations rather than 3D visualisation. Implement robust asset registers with consistent naming conventions. Ensure CMMS is properly configured and integrated with contractor workflows. Maintain current 2D documentation. Invest in BMS data quality and analytics platforms. These foundations deliver operational value immediately—and position you for future BIM adoption if the business case strengthens.}

^{If you're developing new commercial buildings, specify BIM deliverables carefully and verify quality at handover. Even if you don't plan to use BIM operationally, accurate as-built models support future capital works and have value if ownership changes.}

^{For healthcare owners:}

^{The case for BIM in operations is stronger, but approach with realism. Pilot implementation in new facilities where handover quality can be controlled. Define specific operational use cases—capital planning, compliance documentation, complex maintenance coordination—before investing. Budget for ongoing model maintenance and integration.}

^{For existing healthcare portfolios, prioritise asset data quality over 3D modelling. Many operational benefits attributed to BIM can be achieved through well-structured CMMS data, consistent asset classification, and improved documentation—without the overhead of 3D model maintenance.}

^{For both sectors:}

^{Be sceptical of vendor business cases. Demand reference sites with comparable buildings and operational maturity. Ask what ongoing costs and resources are required. Understand what happens when the model diverges from reality—because it will.}

^{Match investment to organisational capacity. A sophisticated BIM platform that facilities teams won't use delivers no value. Simpler tools that are actually adopted outperform advanced tools that sit idle.}

^{Consider BIM for operations as a long-term aspiration rather than an immediate priority. Invest in foundations now. Evaluate BIM platforms when data quality, integration infrastructure, and organisational capacity justify it.}