Historically, project documentation workflows were aligned with the AEC (UK) BIM Protocol (circa 2010–2012), as documented in UK_BIM_PROTOCOL_REVIT_V1 and UK_BIM_PROTOCOL_REVIT_V2, which define structured information states within the Common Data Environment (CDE), including Work In Progress (WIP), Shared, and Published data exchanges.

In accordance with these principles, Revit view management was implemented using a shared instance parameter applied at the view level. This parameter functioned as a metadata classifier to explicitly distinguish between WIP views and formally issued (Published) views, thereby supporting controlled information release and alignment with stage-based deliverables.

Subsequently, this methodology was superseded by a more streamlined and system-driven approach leveraging Revit’s native functionality. Instead of relying on shared parameters for view state classification, view categorisation is now achieved using dedicated View Type Families representing discrete documentation states (e.g., Work In Progress and Published).

In addition, the introduction of Revit’s visual indicator (blue sheet icon) for views hosted on sheets has materially reduced the need for supplementary metadata to track publication status. This native visual feedback mechanism provides immediate, unambiguous identification of views that have been placed on sheets, effectively serving as a proxy for “published” status.

As a result, the workflow has been rationalised as follows:

• View Type Families are used to define the intended purpose or lifecycle state of views at creation.
• Once views are placed on sheets, they are systematically excluded from Project Browser organisational structures to declutter the working environment.
• The reliance on shared instance parameters for view state classification has been eliminated, reducing model complexity and administrative overhead.

This approach maintains compliance with the underlying intent of the BIM protocol – namely, the clear segregation and identification of information states – while optimising usability through alignment with native Revit behaviours and reducing dependency on custom parameter-driven control mechanisms.

With the adoption of ISO 19650, the focus of BIM information management has shifted towards structured information delivery planning, primarily through the implementation of Task Information Delivery Plans (TIDPs) and the Master Information Delivery Plan (MIDP). These instruments establish clear definitions of what information is to be delivered, by whom, and at which project milestones, thereby formalising accountability and aligning outputs with project information requirements.

Within this framework, individual task teams (BIM authors) are responsible for producing discipline-specific information deliverables as defined within their respective TIDPs, while the MIDP consolidates these into a coordinated, project-wide delivery schedule administered by the lead appointed party or information manager.

In this context, the responsibility for structuring and orchestrating deliverables should reside with the project’s information management function. Accordingly, BIM managers or lead appointed parties should predefine the required documentation outputs—such as sheet sets—through the creation of placeholder sheets aligned with the MIDP deliverables. This establishes a clearly defined information container structure prior to production activity.

BIM authors are then tasked with populating these predefined containers with the appropriate model views and documentation outputs, ensuring that production activities are directly aligned with the agreed deliverables rather than being driven by ad hoc model development.

This approach reinforces an outcome-driven delivery model, whereby:

• Information containers (e.g., sheets) are defined upfront in accordance with MIDP requirements
• Responsibilities for information production are clearly assigned through TIDPs
• Model authors focus on fulfilling predefined deliverables rather than determining deliverable structure
• Project outputs remain aligned with exchange information requirements and milestone-based submissions

Ultimately, this methodology strengthens compliance with ISO 19650 by ensuring that information production is planned, structured, and governed by defined delivery outcomes, rather than emergent or author-driven workflows.

If you need help adopting the AEC Collection or Autodesk Forma in your practice or you are looking to invest in hardware, please contact Micrographics so that we may be of assistance.