Before the IFC: define the handover
A model can open successfully and still lack the information its recipient needs. A small IDS trial makes that gap visible.
A consultant opens the IFC and sees the building, but cannot prepare a door schedule: identifiers are missing, classifications differ or a property was lost during export. Geometry arrived; the information needed for the next task did not.
Agree on the information
buildingSMART’s Information Delivery Specification, or IDS, expresses IFC information requirements in a machine-readable form. It identifies the elements in scope and the attributes, properties or classifications they should carry. A requirement for a door identifier is different from a geometric clearance check.
For a first office trial, we would choose one exchange: door identifiers and an agreed classification for a coordination schedule. The author and recipient should agree on the required fields, accepted values and delivery stage before choosing a checker.
Test the file that will be delivered
- Prepare a small reference model with a correct door, a door without an identifier and a wrongly classified door.
- Export from the authoring application and check that IFC file. Checking only the source model can miss information lost in translation.
- Review the report with the recipient. Can they locate the element, understand the missing information and describe a correction?
Read a pass carefully
First, the IDS document must be valid. Then the IFC can be assessed against its requirements. A passing report establishes neither that the requirements are sufficient nor that every underlying design decision is approved.
AI could help draft a requirement or explain a failure. A person still approves the requirement, and appropriate tools check the document and model. Our proposed research would keep the requirement, sample IFC, expected report and purpose together, so another office could repeat the handover test.