I work as a BIM consultant, usually getting involved when projects feel technically “correct” but still aren’t working the way anyone expected. Models exist, processes are in place, and yet teams are misaligned on what the information actually means, who can rely on it, and where the risk really sits. That gap between what BIM promises and what it delivers in practice is where I tend to focus.
Most of my work starts with projects that are already underway. Design teams are modeling in good faith, contractors are asking reasonable questions, and owners are expecting clarity that the current setup can’t quite provide. Common triggers are vague BIM execution plans, LOD language that’s being interpreted differently by different parties, or models that look authoritative but were never meant to support the uses being demanded of them.
My approach is less about tools and more about intent. I help teams slow down and make explicit decisions about what the model is for at each stage, what it is not for, and what assumptions are being carried forward. That often means translating BIM language into terms that commercial, legal, and delivery teams can actually act on, and identifying where expectations need to be reset before they harden into disputes.
Engagements vary, but they typically involve reviewing BIM documentation, stress-testing proposed model uses, clarifying responsibility and reliance, or advising on how information should transition from design into construction. The goal is not to add process for its own sake, but to reduce friction and false certainty before they become expensive.
If you’re working on a project where BIM feels like it should be helping more than it is, I’m always open to a conversation.