BIM structure for architects: comparison of three approaches to organize technical deliverables

Approach 1: BIM structure by project phase

This is the most common approach. It organizes technical workflow according to the classic project stages: schematic design, permitting, construction documents, and construction. For each phase, a set of deliverables, views, and models is defined with specific criteria for depth and review.

How it works:

• A template is created with views named by phase (e.g., ARC_PL_SD for schematic design floor plan).

• Each phase has its checklist, scale, and required information depth.

• Models are saved by version or updated with controlled changes.

Advantages:

• Intuitive for teams used to traditional processes.

• Controls model evolution without losing previous versions.

• Aligns technical workflow with what clients and regulations expect.

Risks:

• Without clear naming, files can be duplicated or confused.

• Requires the team to clearly understand expectations at each phase.

Best for: firms working with sequential processes and clients that demand formal stage-by-stage deliverables.

Approach 2: BIM structure by deliverable

This approach starts from the end product. Instead of organizing by phase, the model is structured by deliverable type: general drawings, construction details, coordination sheets, 3D visuals, quantity take-offs, etc.

How it works:

• Views are grouped by deliverable type (e.g., all drawings that feed technical plans go together).

• Parameters are defined per deliverable type (what to show, at what detail, with what symbols).

• Sheets are generated from those sets and linked to a review and publishing workflow.

Advantages:

• Keeps the team focused on results—each model element has a purpose.

• Facilitates quality control by deliverable type.

• Allows simultaneous work without overlap.

Risks:

• Can become disconnected from project schedule if not coordinated properly.

• Requires very clear folder structure and version control.

Best for: firms with high production, collaborative work, and multiple simultaneous deliverables.

Approach 3: BIM structure by discipline

This approach is the most technical and is common when architecture interacts with structure, MEP, and other specialties. Here, BIM structure organizes models and deliverables by discipline: architecture, structural, MEP, coordination, etc.

How it works:

• Each discipline has its own template and parameters.

• Models are linked in federated or centralized files.

• Coordination is done in platforms like Navisworks, BIM 360, Revizto, etc.

• Cross-check reviews are mandatory before delivery.

Advantages:

• Absolute clarity on responsibilities.

• Scales to large and remote teams.

• Favors traceability and clash detection.

Risks:

• Higher learning curve.

• Requires strict communication protocols.

• May create dependency on external platforms if not well managed.

Best for: firms working in consortiums, with external consultants, or in multidisciplinary projects.

Quick comparison between the three approaches

Which approach should you apply in your firm?

There’s no single right answer. It depends on:

• Team size

• Type of projects

• Number of deliverables per week/month

• If you collaborate with other disciplines

• Current maturity of your team and template

The key is not to apply all three at once. Start with one. Test it. Adjust. If needed, combine elements of another.

Suggested link: 3X BIM System

Real cases: how deliverables change with proper BIM structure

Firms that switched from “as it comes” delivery to a structured deliverable-based approach report:

• 40% reduction in client comments

• Up to 30 hours saved per week in internal reviews

• Ability to delegate modeling without losing control

• Better communication with contractors and consultants

• And most importantly: peace of mind—knowing every delivery is based on a reliable system

Suggested link: BIM Success Stories

Conclusion: structure is the bridge between BIM as an idea and BIM as reality

You may know Revit, ArchiCAD, or any other platform. But without a clear BIM structure, everything still depends on effort, intuition, and individual talent. And that doesn’t scale.

Choosing and applying a BIM structure for architects is not about filling forms. It’s about deciding how your team will work from now on.

Do it once. Adjust. Document. Replicate. Deliver better.

Supporting Links

• 3 Step BIM System – Exclusive method by Andreina López to transform technical offices into organized, reliable studios.

• BIM Success Stories with ActivoBIM – Real client stories of professional deliverables, order, and technical recognition.

• Florida Building Code (FBC) – Official requirements relevant to BIM standards and deliverables.