Comparing IT tools used by a sample of BIM- and PLM-supported industries for design/engineering change management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BIM and PLM are two holistic 3D-based approaches that support the construction and manufacturing industries, respectively. Recently, research studies have emphasised the importance of comparing these two approaches, as it can lead to cross-pollination and mutual improvement. This paper aims to evaluate the functionalities offered by the IT tools adopted by a sample of BIM- and PLM-supported industries during a design/engineering change management (D/ECM) process to identify potential opportunities for improvement. Four case studies with partners from both industries are presented. Firstly, the D/ECM processes of the industrial partners are described. Secondly, the tools used to control documents are identified and explored. Finally, the functionalities offered by these tools are compared, highlighting their main similarities and differences. Through this study, it was found that the PLM tools presented in the case studies offer some advanced functionalities, particularly related to revision management, impact analysis, and workflow management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it