Why most BIM Models are not actually that useful

For more than a decade, Building Information Modelling has been celebrated as the future of coordinated design, efficient delivery and data-driven asset management. In theory, BIM promises seamless collaboration, real-time decision-making and a single source of truth carried from concept to demolition. Yet on real projects, the lived experience often looks very different. Many BIM models are too complex for practical workflows, fail to serve the needs of facilities managers, or end up as impressive, but unusable digital sculptures. All this means that understanding why BIM so often falls short is essential if the industry truly wants to unlock its potential, writes John Ridgeway.

One of the biggest flaws lies in the purpose behind model creation. Designers build models to communicate geometry, coordinate clashes and meet planning requirements. Engineers focus on disciplines, simulations and compliance. Contractors want data for sequencing, costing and temporary works. By the time the model reaches the end of construction, the information inside it mirrors design assumptions and build conditions rather than real-world usage. Facilities managers, who inherit the model for decades of operation, frequently find themselves staring at a dense, overly technical labyrinth that has little relevance to maintenance. The absence of serviceable tags, asset IDs, replacement schedules or performance parameters leaves them with digital data that cannot inform preventive maintenance or lifecycle planning. The result is a model optimised for delivery rather than long-term usability.

The industry has developed a fascination with detail, equating more data with more value. In practice, over-modelling creates unnecessary complexity. Every bracket, screw and fitting might be captured to an extraordinary level of visual realism, but these micro-details obscure the metadata that matters. Teams spend time generating high fidelity objects without clarifying which information is actually needed. When a facilities manager opens a model and is confronted with excessive granularity, the value of BIM evaporates because retrieving meaningful data becomes slow and confusing. Instead of being a useful tool, the model becomes a liability that takes more time to interpret than a traditional drawing set.

The lack of standardisation still holds the industry back

Despite advances in BIM standards and frameworks, there is still inconsistency across platforms and supply chains. Models created by different consultants rarely align in structure, naming or file formats. This fragmentation prevents smooth handover and makes integration with asset management systems painful. Without consistent data schemas, object libraries or naming conventions, every model becomes bespoke, meaning each client has to decipher a new system on every project. True value depends on interoperability, but the reality is that BIM too often functions in silos rather than as a unified ecosystem. Until the industry standardises not only the software, but also the outputs, the promise of reusable digital information will not be realised.

To complicate matters still further, at the end of construction, the priority is completion, certification and occupation. The digital model, however, is often left to the final weeks when pressure is high and the focus is already shifting toward practical completion. Information is rushed, mislabelled or simply missing. Manuals, warranties and product data are added haphazardly or delivered separately in formats incompatible with the model. Because handover is treated as a compliance step rather than a curated process, the final model rarely reflects actual installed conditions. The resulting disconnect between design intent and operational reality renders the model outdated as soon as occupants arrive.

For BIM to be useful across a building’s life, it must link digital assets to real maintenance activities. Most models omit vital information such as service intervals, product lifespan, energy consumption or the procedures required to maintain specific equipment. Without these parameters, the model remains a static representation rather than a dynamic tool. Facilities managers need simplified access, hierarchical views and clear asset relationships, not dense mesh geometry or design simulation data. If the information cannot drive scheduling, procurement or compliance, it will not support operational decision-making, and the model will fall into disuse.

The workforce gap undermines adoption

Another major factor is capability. While BIM specialists and designers are comfortable working in complex digital environments, the professionals who inherit these models often lack training. Facilities management teams are skilled at maintaining assets, but not necessarily navigating advanced modelling software. Without accessible interfaces, simplified views or integration with everyday tools, BIM stays locked within a niche rather than democratised across the lifecycle. Training, upskilling and user-friendly interfaces are essential if BIM data is to move beyond the domain of modellers and become a routine operational resource.

This is because clients commission buildings to meet business goals, whether those involve sustainability, productivity, experience or resilience. Yet BIM deliverables too frequently prioritise form, structure and compliance rather than the metrics clients care about most. Lifecycle costing, energy modelling, space utilisation, adaptability and long-term asset value are rarely embedded in the model. If BIM is to be genuinely useful, it must align with client drivers rather than reflect only the priorities of designers and contractors. When the model fails to support business decision-making, its value is diminished and the motivation to maintain it declines.

All this means that a BIM model is only as good as the data entered into it. Missing tags, inaccurate geometry, mismatched specification information and abandoned placeholder objects are common. Poor data governance means errors are inherited through every project stage. Without rigorous quality control, validation checks or responsible ownership, the model becomes unreliable. Users quickly lose trust in the information and when trust declines, so does usage. High-quality models require rigorous input, auditing and accountability, not simply software capability.

To make BIM genuinely useful, the industry needs to change its mindset. The goal should not be to produce visually impressive models, but to create operationally relevant digital assets that endure beyond handover. Simplicity must replace complexity, usability must outweigh visual realism and long-term value must take precedence over short-term deliverables. When models are curated around maintenance, sustainability, lifecycle costing and efficient asset management, they become indispensable tools rather than trophies of digital proficiency.

Ultimately, the failure of BIM lies not in its technology, but in its implementation. The industry must see BIM not as a contractual requirement, a design trend or a coordination tool, but as a foundational resource for the entire building lifecycle. Collaboration should not end at completion and the voices of facilities management must influence model creation from day one. Standardisation, training and user-centric design are not peripheral improvements, but central enablers. With clarity of purpose and better alignment, BIM can evolve from an overhyped promise into a transformative asset.