interoperability

Interoperability for AEC Computational Design

1. The Interoperability Challenge in AEC

1.1 Why Interoperability Matters

Interoperability -- the ability to exchange data between software tools without loss of meaning, geometry, or relationships -- is the single most critical infrastructure problem in the AEC industry. Every building project involves dozens of software tools, hundreds of files, and thousands of data exchanges. When those exchanges fail, the consequences are measured in millions of dollars and months of delay.

The AEC industry loses an estimated $15.8 billion annually in the United States alone due to inadequate interoperability (NIST GCR 04-867). This figure accounts for redundant data entry, manual format conversion, error correction from data loss, and delayed decision-making caused by information silos.

Unlike the manufacturing or aerospace industries, which converged on STEP/IGES decades ago, the AEC sector remains fragmented across proprietary ecosystems. Autodesk, Bentley, Trimble, Nemetschek, and dozens of smaller vendors each maintain walled gardens with varying degrees of openness. The result is a landscape where a single design decision may need to be re-entered into five or more tools before it reaches a construction site.

1.2 Single-Source-of-Truth vs. Federated Model Approaches

Single-Source-of-Truth (SSOT):

• One authoritative model from which all views and deliverables derive
• Revit-centric workflows often attempt this, with one central model containing architecture, structure, and MEP
• Advantages: no synchronization burden, clear ownership, simpler version control
• Disadvantages: tool lock-in, performance limits at scale, inability to leverage best-of-breed tools
• Practical limit: SSOT breaks down beyond approximately 200-300 MB models or when disciplines require specialized solvers

Federated Model Approach:

• Multiple discipline-specific models linked through coordination mechanisms
• Each discipline uses its optimal tool (Revit for documentation, Rhino for complex geometry, Tekla for steel detailing, ETABS for structural analysis)
• Coordination via shared coordinates, reference planes, and clash detection (Navisworks, Solibri, BIMcollab)
• Advantages: best-of-breed tooling, team autonomy, distributed workload
• Disadvantages: synchronization overhead, version mismatch risk, coordinate alignment complexity
• Industry trend: federated approaches are winning, especially with Speckle and IFC enabling richer exchange