icon picker
Assignment 1: On-Site Technology Exploration-ArchiDex 2025

Assignment Objective

This assignment aims to develop students’ ability to critically evaluate BIM technologies by engaging directly with industry innovations at ARCHIDEX 25. Through hands-on exploration and analysis, students will assess the features, capabilities, and platform compatibility of selected BIM applications, and present their findings in a structured manner.
CLO 1: ​Evaluate various BIM applications based on their features, capabilities, and compatibility with different platforms and file formats

23-26 July 2025

Tasks:

Attend the ARCHIDEX 25
Attend ARCHIDEX 25 and engage with at least two BIM-related technologies or applications.
Collect detailed information through:
Product demos
Exhibitor interviews
Brochures, technical sheets, or photos
Focus on understanding how each technology operates and integrates within BIM workflows.
Evaluation & Analysis
Analyse each selected technology based on:
Distinctive features and innovations
Capabilities in enhancing design, documentation, or collaboration
Compatibility with various platforms and file formats
Compare the two technologies to highlight strengths, limitations, and potential use cases.
Presentation
Create a slide presentation that clearly and professionally communicates your evaluation, and prepare for a 10-minute presentation.
The presentation should include:
Visuals from ARCHIDEX (pictures, brochures, videos)
Technical descriptions
Comparative insights
Reflections on practical applications in architectural practice or education
Assessment Criteria-Assignment 1
Criteria
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Identification of BIM Technologies
Clearly identifies two relevant BIM technologies with accurate context and source
Identifies two BIM technologies with minor gaps in context or relevance
Identifies two technologies, but relevance to BIM is unclear or weak
Identifies one or no BIM-related technologies
Feature Analysis
Thorough and insightful analysis of key features for both technologies
Good analysis with some depth; may miss minor details
Basic description of features with limited analysis
Minimal or inaccurate feature descriptions
Capability Evaluation
Clearly explains how each technology enhances workflows or solves problems
Explains capabilities with some clarity and examples
Mentions capabilities but lacks depth or examples
Capabilities are unclear or not discussed
Comparative Insight
Offers thoughtful comparison between the two technologies with clear reasoning
Provides comparison with some insight and clarity
Basic comparison with limited reasoning
No meaningful comparison provided
Visual & Verbal Presentation
Slides are well-designed, clear, and engaging; presentation is confident and articulate
Slides are clear with minor design issues; presentation is mostly confident
Slides are basic; presentation lacks clarity or engagement
Slides are cluttered or unclear; presentation is difficult to follow
References & Documentation
All sources and exhibitors are properly cited and acknowledged
Most sources are cited with minor omissions
Few sources cited; lacks proper format
No sources cited or acknowledged
There are no rows in this table
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.