BIM Is Not a Model: It’s a Series of Intentional Lies Told at Different Times

BIM models are often spoken about as if they are neutral, objective representations of reality, but that framing misses something fundamental. Every model is an intentional simplification, shaped by time, fee, scope, and the specific questions it is meant to answer at that moment. What gets modeled, what gets omitted, and what gets approximated are all conscious decisions. In that sense, a BIM model is less a mirror of the building and more a structured argument about what matters right now.

These simplifications are not mistakes, they are what make modeling possible at all. Early models exaggerate clarity by fixing dimensions that are still fluid. Later models hide uncertainty behind clean geometry that masks tolerance, constructability, or sequencing issues. Even highly developed models embed assumptions about products, interfaces, and responsibilities that may never be explicitly stated. The model looks precise, but its precision often exceeds the certainty of the underlying decisions.

Problems arise when downstream users treat these assumptions as facts rather than hypotheses. Schedules are extracted from geometry that was never intended to drive procurement. Coordination decisions are made based on elements that were placed for spatial intent, not fabrication accuracy. Because the model appears coherent, it invites trust, even when that trust is not warranted. The danger is not that the model is wrong, but that its limits are invisible.

Mature BIM practice is not about eliminating these distortions, it is about acknowledging and managing them. Teams that work well with BIM understand that every model carries embedded intent, shortcuts, and provisional truths. They ask what a model was built to answer before asking it new questions. When that mindset is missing, the industry ends up blaming the tool for failures that are really about misplaced certainty.