Perhaps this little example helps to ensure that the undecided or opponents of BIM review their positions or change their minds completely.
The Penrose triangle is a small example of what we can construct everything in two dimensions. If we succeed then, to convince customers that there is a great solution that takes their minds the next, we obtain the job as a planner and are looking for a construction company, which implements our design into action. As we all can see, it is not possible.
If we use during the planning a three-dimensional tool, we are not able to produce according to the vision of the customer model. So all parties recognize early that the desire can not be realized. This saves everyone time, money and nerves.
Granted, the example is somewhat trivial and the Penrose triangle can not be so readily with a complex building compare. Components are dependent on other components. Changes a component, the adjacent components must be change with. Everything can be very confusing. Two-dimensional can draw and design and redesign until it all fits. For a large project, there are many two-dimensional plans, which are all made to fit independently. Only at the site it is striking, then, that there is something wrong. The decisions are then taken spontaneously at the construction site, the project to make more expensive and lead to further problems, which in turn have to be resolved spontaneously. So why should we not all a priori construct together in 3D in order to detect errors in time and not to let be only real problems that avoidable problems.
BIM means in this context that all planners organized jointly working on a 3D model and not everyone made two-dimensionally or three-dimensionally well on their own.