In 2014, the European Union introduced the so-called BIM at the attention of the Member States with the European Directive 24/2014/EU to spread this method throughout Europe. Alongside the generally recurrent motivations (education, maturity in the construction sector, technical approaches) to understand the causes of the laborious and not yet wide diffusion of BIM in Europe, this work introduces an original way that still appears not explored well enough in the current research scenario: the analysis of the correctness of the technical terms used in the native text of the ED and the translated texts in the national languages. The goal is to demonstrate that incorrect technical terms can be misunderstood and interpreted, and they move away from the specific and original contents of Charles Eastman’s method. The misunderstanding of the real technical content of the legal obligation has conditioned the clarity, speed and effectiveness of the diffusion of BIM. It is necessary to include the acronym BIM in legal texts instead of the current generic expression “building information electronic modelling”. The strength of the article is to recover clarity with the original indication and definition of BIM and the limit is that, in general, all laws can be interpreted.
Critical Approaches on the Changes Taking Place after 24/2014/EU in BIM Adoption Process
Fiamma, Paolo
;Biagi, Silvia
2023-01-01
Abstract
In 2014, the European Union introduced the so-called BIM at the attention of the Member States with the European Directive 24/2014/EU to spread this method throughout Europe. Alongside the generally recurrent motivations (education, maturity in the construction sector, technical approaches) to understand the causes of the laborious and not yet wide diffusion of BIM in Europe, this work introduces an original way that still appears not explored well enough in the current research scenario: the analysis of the correctness of the technical terms used in the native text of the ED and the translated texts in the national languages. The goal is to demonstrate that incorrect technical terms can be misunderstood and interpreted, and they move away from the specific and original contents of Charles Eastman’s method. The misunderstanding of the real technical content of the legal obligation has conditioned the clarity, speed and effectiveness of the diffusion of BIM. It is necessary to include the acronym BIM in legal texts instead of the current generic expression “building information electronic modelling”. The strength of the article is to recover clarity with the original indication and definition of BIM and the limit is that, in general, all laws can be interpreted.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
