Coulter BIM Information Management

(A slightly sarcastic rant about the latest LinkedIn trends)

If you’ve spent any time on LinkedIn lately, you’ve probably noticed a particular type of post that keeps appearing like clockwork: “BIM is dead.” “Geometry is dead.” “Files are dead.” “The Common Data Environment is dead.” “Drawings are dead.” Apparently, the AEC industry is experiencing more fictional deaths than a Game of Thrones season. These posts usually have two goals: (1) Get attention, because nothing grabs eyeballs like declaring the thing everybody uses every day is suddenly obsolete, and (2) quietly sell you the author’s preferred replacement, which is always conveniently alive, thriving, and on sale this quarter. But here’s the truth nobody seems to write anymore because it doesn’t farm reactions: None of these things are dead. They’re just evolving. And some of them aren’t even evolving that much.

Let’s go through a few of the usual “RIPs”:

1. “Geometry is dead.”

This one pops up a lot. Usually followed by: “It’s all about data now.” Except… we still deliver drawings. We still model things. We still use geometry for federated coordination, clash detection, visual reviews, design iterations, sectional studies, procurement drawings, and communicating design intent. Without geometry, your “data-driven digital twin blockchain metaverse platform” has nothing to anchor itself to.

2. “BIM is dead.”

This one usually comes from people who want to rebrand BIM as their new platform, product, or methodology. The reality? BIM hasn’t died. It hasn’t retired. It hasn’t packed its bags and moved to Spain. It’s just grown up. We place more importance on structured data, classification, asset information, O&M deliverables, Uniclass, IFC, ISO 19650 processes, and information exchange requirements. But that’s exactly what BIM always aimed for — it’s just that the industry only recently started catching up.

3. “File types are dead.”

No they aren’t. Unless someone magically converts every construction team, FM department, and supply chain actor to 100% cloud-native, interoperable, schema-based workflows tomorrow. Even the most hyped openCDEs still operate on… you guessed it… files. IFC is fantastic, but IFC alone does not handle: marked-up PDFs, reports, fire strategies, schedules, tender packages, O&M attachments, RFI logs, programmes, site reports. Most of the built environment is still communicated through documents and files — and that’s okay. Because the goal isn’t to kill file types; it’s to make them less painful.

4. “COBie is dead.”

This one deserves an honourable mention. Then along comes Bill East releasing COBieOM — a royalty-free, subscription-free way for clients to receive an HTML-based project handover website that includes all installation dates, rooms, components, manufacturer data, and more. If anything, that proves COBie is still alive enough that people feel the need to kill it loudly.

Why these posts are unhelpful

Declaring something “dead” shuts down the nuance of the conversation. It pretends you can replace decades of workflows with a simple slogan. It ignores the messy, pragmatic reality of design teams, contractors, FM teams, legal requirements, procurement frameworks, and legacy systems. And most importantly, it makes the industry think change is instantaneous, when in reality it is gradual, layered, and collaborative. We don’t need to declare things dead to improve them.

The truth: Nothing is dead. Everything is evolving.

Geometry still matters. Data matters more than ever. File types still exist. Open formats are growing. Information management is becoming more structured. COBie is still delivering actual value on real projects. IFC is genuinely maturing (even if it still has limits). Platforms come and go. Standards progress slowly but steadily. And the one thing that always survives? Good information. In the right place. At the right time. In the right format. For the right people. No hype needed.

A better headline would be:

“Everything Isn’t Dead — It’s Just Getting Better (Slowly).”
But that wouldn’t get as many likes on LinkedIn.