Almost a month ago, CIDB (Construction Industry Development Board) had successfully organised BIM Day 2018, with participants reaching more than 400pax.

In conjunction with that BIM Day 2018, CIDB and UMP had carried out a BIM Design Competition for students from various academic institutions. Being a BIM Practitioner, it is always our best interest with enthusiasm to see the progress of BIM adoption in this country. Nevertheless, despite the success of the event, the BIM Competition, was being heavily questioned by observers, whose comments and concerns make a lot of senses for the well-being of the industry in the future.

For a national-level competition like this (organised by the statutory body for the construction industry), never ever jeopardize any of the participants’ efforts by having an unprofessional program setup with:

1) A Program Director from the same Institution with the participant, which may clearly promote Bias. UMP as the Program Director should not be allowed to participate in this competition. Similar to any high-profile competitions, those related to the organiser or committee members is not allowed to participate. In this competition, the participants had spent a lot of time and effort preparing for the competition. When the students take the competition seriously…. the organiser should too.

2) The evaluation was separated into two parts, where the organiser only announced publicly who the judges were for the first-part only, through live-feed on FB and more. During the 2nd part of judging, the judges’ information were not disclosed at all. It was later found out that one of the judges for the 2nd part evaluation was UMP’s industry partner and software trainer for their students. In fact, one of the judge from the First-round evaluation also consists of UMP’s software vendor and trainer. (can you see how this competition is being FIXED?)

3) The judging criteria were not made known to the participants as well (perhaps the judges used the Self Reference Criteria (SRC) method for the evaluation).

With this arrangement (Program Director and Judges were from the participating institutions) more often than not, bias is inevitable. We are only human… at times, we fail to act according to our required role.

The biasness was proven when a conversation with two of the First-Round judges revealed that UMP and PUO were evaluated as the 4th and 5th places. However, after the 2nd round of judging (which the judges were UMP’s industry partner), the first prize winner suddenly went to UMP. We never knew what happened during the 2nd Round judging. While, the 1st Runner up went to PUO (who also trained by UMP’s trainer).

I hope CIDB will look into this seriously and that such mishap will not recur. There are many professional BIM Experts in this country who will be able to support this initiative by CIDB. For competition like this which involves university/college students, the academicians should NOT be considered as the panel of judges.. especially if their students are also the participants!

For this First BIM Competition in Malaysia, the industry deserves to be introduced to the REAL winners!!


Wonder if the term "BIM Competition" was rightly used for the contest. Seem like it was a Modelling Competition, as the participants is merely converting a 2D CAD drawing to a 3D revit model.