Another piece of tenuous journalism has recently been making a buzz in the industry, attempting to discredit the remarkable progress of IPD.
A buzz, however, is all that this lackluster movement can muster against the force that is transforming the industry in positive directions not seen in decades. If you have not yet read the piece, you can find the link below, as well as John Tocci‘s response.
“Nadine, Nadine, why do you do the things you do? This is yet another article with a scary title but vacuous text which fails to support the title’s chilling claim and sends the unknowing screaming down the road like an Edvard Munch painting. We know at heart you are not an enemy of professional progress and collaboration (quite to the contrary) but it’s hard to see this from the steady diet of fear-filled articles such as last May’s “IPD…Flashing Red Lights” (complete with a toxic IPD cover page) and webinars like “Goodbye IPD, Hello ID”. Citing unspecified IPD risks and fears, the webinar promised a fairy world of IPD benefits while maintaining conventional (defective) contracts. Not.
Back to this article, one has to ask, why would any author rely on a ‘fact set’ from a single, non-expert source such as the PL carrier, especially this one? The other commentators (who responded to the web posting) rightly observe the true facts; this case (at least as presented here) has little or nothing to do with BIM and everything to do with disciplines continuing to act in silos of isolation, blame, and self-interest. Moreover, we fully agree with the commentator who laments the article’s probable effect on liability insurers and others (“…running scared from BIM”).
The devil needs no additional advocates. Unfounded fear abounds in the oceans of ignorance. And the status quo needs no defense. What we do need is solid journalism with validated facts to help us restore a once noble profession and join our industry’s efforts to emerge from litigation and dismal performance– not another horror title. Help us will ya?!”