a characterization framework to document and …yj761rc6510/...in scope and quality as a...

A CHARACTERIZATION FRAMEWORK TO DOCUMENT AND COMPARE BIM

IMPLEMENTATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL

ENGINEERING AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES

OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Ju Gao

September 2011

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/

This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/yj761rc6510

© 2011 by Ju Gao. All Rights Reserved.

Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

ii



http://purl.stanford.edu/yj761rc6510

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Martin Fischer, Primary Adviser


John Haymaker


John Kunz

Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies.

Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education

This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file inUniversity Archives.

iii

iv

ABSTRACT

Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a new way of working and AEC professionals

and researchers are trying to understand its implementation and impacts. To develop this

understanding, one of the approaches is to study what happened on past projects that have

implemented BIM and to synthesize the differences and commonalities. However, the

current BIM stories typically present fragmented project data that cannot capture BIM

implementations in a structured, sufficient, and consistent way. In addition, the currently

available BIM guidelines lack validation by a large number of projects. Given these

shortcomings, AEC professionals and researchers cannot achieve knowledge that guides

them towards well-defined, measurable, and monitored BIM implementations. A

framework to characterize BIM implementations is needed to link the broken chain “from

data to knowledge”.

Through case studies on 40 construction projects, this research provides a framework to

characterize why, when, for whom, in what level of detail, with which tools, how, for

how much, and how well BIM implementations are done on projects. With the

characterization framework, past projects can be documented sufficiently and

consistently so that BIM managers or BIM researchers can compare a group of BIM

projects to gain insight into how to maximize the benefits of BIM.

The contribution of this research is a characterization framework that:

• Organizes project data of BIM implementations into categories, factors, and

measures with an increasing levels of detail;

• Sufficiently and consistently captures why, when, for whom, at what level of

detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM implementations

were done on the 40 case projects; and

• Supports cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations to gain insights into

implementation patterns (i.e., how to plan a BIM implementation to maximize

benefits).

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I dedicate this dissertation to my family – my mom and dad who have been giving me so

much love and support and have always encouraged me to follow my passion and live a

fulfilling life.

My deepest gratitude goes to my advisor – Professor Martin Fischer. Martin has guided

me on the path of scholarship with patience, conscientiousness, and a sense of humor. His

advice, from research strategy to writing styles, has always been thoughtful and sharp.

I thank my Ph.D. committee members – Dr. John Kunz (Executive Director of CIFE), Dr.

John Haymaker (Founder at DPI), and Dr. Calvin Kam (Director of Industry Programs,

CIFE) – for their insightful comments on my research.

At Stanford University’s Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), I enjoyed the

challenges and collaborations with my colleagues, including Tony Dong, Dr. Victor

Gane, Wendy Li, Dr. Reid Senescu, and many other wonderful colleagues. Special thanks

also go to Teddie Guenzer for all her administrative support.

I thank CIFE and its member companies for the funding support in the Academic Years

2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2008-2009.

I acknowledge the Technology Agency of Finland (Tekes) and Prof. Arto Kiviniemi for

supporting my case studies on the BIM implementations on projects in Finland.

I wish to thank Tongji University and Prof. Guangbin Wang for supporting my case

studies on the BIM implementations on projects in China.

In particular, I wish to thank those AEC professionals, researchers, and organizations

who participated in the case studies. Without their sharing of time and expertise, this

study would not have been possible. The list includes but is not limited to these people.

• Dr. Airaksine, Miimu (OptiPlan)

• Dr. Akbas, Ragip (Autodesk)

vi

• Dr. Fox, Stephan (VTT)

• Mr. Hahl, Tuomo (Senate Properties)

• Dr. Hartmann, Timo (Twente University)

• Mr. Heikkilä, Sami (Skanska)

• Mr. Hietanen, Jiri (TUT)

• Mr. Hörkkö, Jukka (Skanska)

• Mr. Iso-Aho, Jyrki (A-KONSULTIT)

• Mr. Järvinen, Tero (Olof Granlund)

• Dr. Jongeling, Rogier (Luleå University of Technology)

• Ms. Karjalainen, Auli (Senate Properties)

• Dr. Khanzode, Atul (DPR Construction)

• Dr. Kim, Jonghoon (DPR Construction)

• Dr. Koo, Bonsang (then at Strategic Project Solutions)

• Mr. Kunz, Alex (then at Strategic Project Solutions)

• Mr. Laine, Tuomas (Olof Granlund)

• Dr. Laitinen, Jarmo (TUT)

• Ms. Liston, Kathleen (Liston Consulting)

• Mr. Lyu, Seungkoon (then at CIFE, Stanford University)

• Mr. Niemioja, Seppo (Innovarch)

• Dr. Staub-French, Sheryl (University of British Columbia)

• Ms. Suojoki, Anne (Skanska),

• Mr. Toivio, Teemu (JKMM)

• Mr. Tollefsen, Terje (Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

• Mr. Törrönen, Ari (NCC)

• Mr. Valjus, Juha (Finnmap Consulting)

• Mr. Zhou, Kai (China Steel Group - Central Southern China Design Institute)

A final thanks is given to anyone that I may have missed in these acknowledgements.

Your omission was purely unintentional.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ v

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii

TABLE OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... x

TABLE OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH MOTIVATION AND READER’S

GUIDE ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Research Motivation .................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Reader’s Guide – Key Points of the Thesis ............................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2 – PRACTICAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE, INTUITION, AND

RESEARCH QUESTION ............................................................................................... 7

2.1 Observed Problems .................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Intuition ................................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Research Question and Scope Definition ................................................................ 21

CHAPTER 3 – THEORETICAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE ........................................ 24

3.1 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Demonstrate Why a Framework is Needed ...................... 24

3.2 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Demonstrate the Observed Problems in Practice .............. 26

3.3 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Illustrate BIM-related Frameworks and Guidelines ......... 29

3.4 Theoretical P.O.Ds for Developing the Characterization Framework .................... 37

viii

CHAPTER 4 – RESEARCH METHOEDS ...................................................................... 44

4.1 Criteria for Research Methods ................................................................................. 44

4.2 Multiple Case Studies .............................................................................................. 44

4.3 Grounded Theory ..................................................................................................... 45

4.4 Techniques to Improve the Methodological Rigor .................................................. 46

CHAPTER 5 – RESEARCH TASKS ............................................................................... 50

5.1 Three Phases of Case Studies .................................................................................. 50

5.2 Data Collection, Analysis, and Framework Development ...................................... 56

CHAPTER 6 – RESEARCH RESULTS .......................................................................... 95

CHAPTER 7 – RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION AND VALIDATION .......................... 98

7.1 Requirements of a Good Characterization Framework for BIM Implementations

and an Overview of Validation Metrics and Methods ............................................. 98

7.2 Validation Results ................................................................................................. 102

7.2.1 Validating the documentation power of the characterization framework for

BIM implementations ................................................................................... 102

7.2.2 Validating the capability of the characterization framework for BIM

implementations to support the comparison of BIM implementations across

projects and gain insights on implementation patterns ................................ 108

7.2.3 Validating the methodological rigor of the characterization framework for

BIM implementations ................................................................................... 135

CHAPTER 8 – SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ........................................................ 139

ix

8.1 Practical Significance of the Framework............................................................... 139

8.2 Intellectual Merits of the Framework .................................................................... 140

8.3 Future Work ........................................................................................................... 141

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 144

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY .......................................................................................... 157

x

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Examples of decisions to be made in setting up a BIM implementation .......... 7

Table 2-2: Examples of decisions in planning a BIM implementation that maximizes the

benefits on a project ............................................................................................. 8

Table 2-3: By learning BIM implementations on individual projects, AEC professionals

obtain bits and pieces of unstructured and fragmented information that captures

the ad-hoc experience pertinent to one or a few factors in setting up a BIM

implementation. ................................................................................................... 9

Table 2-4: It is difficult to compare BIM implementations across the 12 cases presented

at the IAI conference because presented project data are neither sufficient nor

consistent in capturing the factors professionals need to know to set up an

implementation and understand the benefits realized from the implementation.

............................................................................................................................ 13

Table 2-5: A list of guidelines for BIM implementations................................................. 18

Table 2-6: The research scope of the characterization framework for BIM ..................... 23

Table 3-1: Theoretical points of departure (P.O.Ds) that demonstrate why a framework is

needed ................................................................................................................ 25

Table 3-2: An overview of twenty-two papers that document BIM implementations on

individual projects .............................................................................................. 27

Table 3-3: It is difficult to compare the 12 individual cases on using 4D models for

construction sequencing because these cases are neither sufficient nor consistent

in capturing the factors in setting up an implementation and benefits realized

from it................................................................................................................. 28

Table 3-4: An overview of BIM related guidelines and frameworks ............................... 32

xi

Table 3-5: A comparative analysis of BIM related frameworks and guidelines that are

targeted at the industry level .............................................................................. 34


targeted at the enterprise level ........................................................................... 35


targeted at the project level ................................................................................ 36

Table 3-8: Theoretical points of departure (P.O.Ds) that are stepping stones towards

developing the characterization framework for BIM implementation .............. 37

Table 3-9: Labeling the measures in Framework-1 .......................................................... 41

Table 4-1: Five techniques the researcher used to improve the methodological rigor in

developing the characterization framework for BIM implementations ............. 47

Table 5-1: An overview of the 21 projects in the first phase of case studies ................... 52

Table 5-2: An overview of the 11 projects in the second phase of case studies ............... 55

Table 5-3: An overview of the 8 projects in the third phase of case studies .................... 56

Table 5-4: The question list for the first phase of case study interviews .......................... 59

Table 5-5: The additional questions in the revised interview questionnaire for the second

and third phase of case study interviews............................................................ 60

Table 5-6: An example of case narrative for Case 6 (Baystreet Retail Complex) ........... 63

Table 5-7: An example showing how the measures are replicated across cases in

Framework-3 ...................................................................................................... 65

Table 5-8: An example showing the process of discovering new measures and factors .. 69

xii

Table 5-9: Factors and measures found or revised after using Framework-1 to document

21 case projects .................................................................................................. 70

Table 5-10: Framework-2 (The text in blue indicates the factors and measures that are

newly found or revised. The bullets are the descriptive features for a particular

measure.) ............................................................................................................ 76


11 case projects .................................................................................................. 84


newly found or revised for Framework-1; and the text in red indicates the

factors and measures that are newly found or revised for Framework-2. The

bullets are the descriptive features for a particular measure.) ........................... 86


8 case projects .................................................................................................... 94

Table 6-1: A characterization framework to document BIM implementations on

construction projects .......................................................................................... 96

Table 7-1: Validation metrics and methods for the characterization framework for BIM

implementations ............................................................................................... 101

Table 7-2: Calculating the sufficiency of the three versions of the characterization

framework for BIM implementations .............................................................. 104

Table 7-3: Examples of calculating the consistency (occurrence) of measures across the

40 cases ............................................................................................................ 105

Table 7-4: Calculating the consistency of the characterization framework for BIM


Table 7-5: Factors and measures used to develop crosswalk 1 ...................................... 109

xiii

Table 7-6: Crosswalk 1 links BIM uses to the corresponding impacts on product, process,

and organization and the related benefits to project stakeholders. (The text in

italic indicates case examples which are listed in Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and

Table 5-3.) ........................................................................................................ 111


Table 7-8: Crosswalk 2 links BIM uses with the impacts on product, organization, and

process along the project timeline.................................................................... 118


Table 7-10: Crosswalk 3 links the key stakeholders’ roles in the BIM process with the

benefits to them as individual stakeholders ..................................................... 125

Table 7-11: Factors and measures used to develop crosswalk 2 .................................... 130

Table 7-12: Crosswalk 4 (part II) links the timing of developing the level of detail in BIM

with the corresponding benefits. ...................................................................... 134

Table 7-13: A summary of the validation results............................................................ 138

Table 8-1: Implementation patterns confirm or adjust the general beliefs about BIM


xiv

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Individual BIM stories only provide unstructured and fragmented capture of

BIM implementations and cannot help AEC professionals how to set up a BIM

implementation consistently. ............................................................................. 12

Figure 2-2: Comparing BIM stories with insufficient and inconsistent project data to

capture BIM implementations cannot help AEC professionals understand the

implementation patterns (i.e., how to set up a BIM implementation to maximize

benefits).............................................................................................................. 15

Figure 2-3: The “data to knowledge” chain is broken without a formalized framework. 16

Figure 2-4: A formalized framework is an indispensable step in linking the broken chain

of “data to knowledge.” ..................................................................................... 20

Figure 3-1: The structure of Framework-1 ....................................................................... 38

Figure 3-2: Labeling the categories in Framework-1 ....................................................... 39

Figure 3-3: Labeling the factors in Framework-1 ............................................................. 40

Figure 5-1: Three phases of case studies for the development of the characterization

framework for BIM implementations ................................................................ 50

Figure 5-2: Research activities and deliverables involved in data collection, analysis, and

framework development .................................................................................... 58

Figure 7-1: Requirements of a good characterization framework for BIM

implementations ................................................................................................. 99

Figure 7-2: Overview map of the characterization framework for BIM implementations

.......................................................................................................................... 103

xv

Figure 7-3: Three levels (high, medium, and low) of occurrence of the measures in the

framework ........................................................................................................ 107

Figure 7-4: The trend line correlates the number of model uses to the number of benefits

for the 40 cases (each case is represented by a dot). ........................................ 116

Figure 7-5: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the “owner

leading” situations ............................................................................................ 127

Figure 7-6: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the “GC

leading” situations ............................................................................................ 128

Figure 7-7: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the

“designer leading” situations ........................................................................... 129

Figure 7-8: Crosswalk 4 (part I) links the level of detail in BIM with the timing of BIM.

.......................................................................................................................... 131

Figure 7-9: Framework applied to different project types, delivery methods, and sizes 135

1

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH MOTIVATION AND READER’S

GUIDE

Teicholz (2004) suggests that the introduction of 3D object-based CAD is one of the most

important new approaches to construction productivity improvement to allow improved

design, team collaboration, construction bidding, planning and execution, and real owner

value at all stages of a project’s life cycle. Despite this vision, few project teams avail

themselves of the continued and widespread use of building information modeling1

(BIM) to the extent possible and economical. One challenge of crossing the “chasm”

(Moore 1999) from “early adopters” (a few visionaries) to “early majority” (most

pragmatists) lies in the lack of concrete and formal understanding of implementations and

impacts of BIM on projects. To develop this understanding, one of the approaches is to

study what happened on past projects that have implemented BIM and to synthesize the

differences and commonalities.

The objective of the research is to provide a framework to characterize why, when, for

whom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM

implementations are done on projects. With the characterization framework, past projects

can be documented sufficiently and consistently so that BIM managers or BIM

researchers can compare a group of BIM projects to gain insight into how to maximize

the benefits of BIM.

1.1 Research Motivation

The idea of this research started from the researcher’s experience visiting Finland,

Norway, the Netherlands, India, and China. The researcher talked to many AEC

professionals and learned their stories in the world of virtual design and construction. The

researcher also attended conferences and workshops where AEC practitioners presented

1 The definitions of the terms underlined and formatted in bold and italic are in Appendix A.

2

their visions, experiences, and beliefs. While it was fascinating to learn about these

stories, it quickly became overwhelming. Can BIM professionals and researchers put

together these anecdotes, compare BIM implementations across different projects, and

understand them collectively? This frustration provided the motivation for the research

efforts presented here.

1.2 Reader’s Guide – Key Points of the Thesis

The contribution of the research is a characterization framework (as shown in Chapter 6 –

Research Result) that:

• Organizes project data of BIM implementations into a classification scheme of 3

categories, 14 factors, and 74 measures with an elaborating level of detail.

• Sufficiently and consistently captures:

o why (building information models (BIM) uses),

o when (timing of BIM),

o for whom (stakeholders involvement),

o at what level of detail (modeled data),

o with which tools (BIM software),

o how (BIM work flow),

o for how much (effort and cost), and

o how well (benefits) BIM implementations were done in 40 case projects.

• Supports cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations to gain insights into

implementation patterns).

The current BIM stories (as discussed in Chapter 2 – Practical Points of Departure) often

present fragmented project data that cannot capture BIM implementations in a structured,

sufficient, and consistent way. In addition, the currently available BIM frameworks and

guidelines (as discussed in Chapter 3 – Theoretical Points of Departure) lack validation

by a large number of real projects. From these two points, AEC professionals cannot

achieve knowledge that guides them towards well-defined, measurable, and monitored

BIM implementations. To link the broken chain “from data to knowledge” (Ackoff

3

1989), a framework (which characterizes BIM implementations sufficiently, consistently,

and in a structured way) is needed to compare BIM implementations across projects and

to facilitate the understanding of how to plan a BIM implementation to maximize

benefits.

The quality of the characterization framework manifests itself in three aspects.

1. A good framework has documentation power.

• Structured organization: The framework organizes the project data of BIM

implementations in a structured way;

• Sufficient and consistent capture: The framework captures the project data of

BIM implementations as sufficiently and consistently as needed for

comparing why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools,

how, for how much, and how well BIM is implemented across different

projects.

2. A good framework supports the comparison of BIM implementations across

projects to gain insights on implementation patterns.

3. A good framework has the methodological rigor that is embedded in research

design and data analysis.

• Generality: The framework should be applicable to a number of case projects

with variations in project type, size, delivery method, time period of design

and construction, and project location.

• Validity: The validity of the framework depends on how well the framework

reflects the BIM implementations which it intends to document.

Validation studies (as discussed in Chapter 7 – Research Validation) show that the

characterization framework for BIM implementations presented in this thesis:

• Enables the organization of a BIM implementation in a structured way.

• Facilitates the capture of a BIM implementation sufficiently and consistently.

4

o Sufficient capture: The fewer new measures that have to be added to the

framework as more case are carried out, the more confidence the

researcher can have that the framework is sufficiently developed. After

the study of BIM on 40 cases, the degree of saturation of the framework is

100%. That is to say, within the scope of 40 case projects, the framework

captures all the major characteristics related to why, when, for whom, at

what level of detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how well

BIM implementations are done.

o Consistent capture: The more measures (related to factors, e.g., model

uses, etc.) occurred in 40 cases, the more confidence the researcher has

that this framework is consistent. After applying the framework to 40 case

projects, I found that:

� 1) 56% of the 74 measures are observed in more than 75% of the

40 case projects;

� 2) 20% of the 74 measures are observed in 25% - 75% of the 40

case projects; and

� 3) 24% of the 74 measures are observed in fewer than 25% of the

case projects.

• Supports the comparison of BIM implementations across projects to gain

insights on implementation patterns. The researcher found four significant

implementation patterns from documenting and comparing 40 case projects with

the framework.

o The higher the number of BIM uses on a project, the higher the number

of benefits.

o The earlier BIM is created and used, the more lasting the benefits of

BIM.

o The benefits to each individual stakeholder and to the whole project team

are maximized when the key stakeholders are all involved in creating and

using BIM.

5

o Projects that maximized benefits have created BIMs at the appropriate

level of detail that matches a particular model use and is just in time with

the information available at different design and construction stages.

In addition, the generality of the framework is demonstrated by being applied to a wide

spectrum of projects (40 cases) with variations in project type, size, delivery method and

contract, time period of design and construction, and project location.

The validity of the framework is demonstrated by the use of four techniques in research

design (as discussed in Chapter 4 – Research Methods and Chapter 5 – Research Tasks).

• Ethnographic interviews: The interview questions became refined and more

specific over the course of data collection and analysis.

• Triangulation: The researcher used multiple data sources (i.e., primary data from

face-to-face interviews and secondary data from available project documents) as

opposed to relying solely on one avenue of collecting data.

• Selection of interviewees: To collect accurate and concrete project data, the

researcher selected key persons who were directly responsible for BIM practices

on projects.

• Interviewee validation: The researcher requested the interviewees to double-

check the project data documented in the framework.

Based on the evidence shown in the validation, the researcher claims that the contribution

to knowledge in the fields of AEC is a characterization framework which enables

structured documentation as well as sufficient and consistent capture of BIM

implementations.

The practical significance of the framework (as discussed in Chapter 8) includes:

• A framework that organizes BIM implementations in a structured way can help

AEC professionals decide upon how to implement BIM on their projects.

• A framework that captures BIM implementations sufficiently and consistently as

well as supports cross-project comparisons can help AEC professionals examine

6

the implementation patterns (i.e., how to plan a BIM implementation to maximize

benefits).

• These implementation patterns, in turn, can guide AEC professionals to set up

goals and plans of BIM implementations and guide management of ongoing

implementations.

The intellectual merits of the framework (as discussed in Chapter 8) include:

• Compared to BIM guidelines, the characterization framework for BIM

implementations focuses on project-level implementation of BIM and is validated

through 40 case studies.

• Implementation patterns discerned from applying the framework to compare BIM

across projects confirm or adjust general beliefs, hypotheses, and anecdotes of

BIM implementations and impacts.

• The framework provides a foundation for identifying new knowledge, such as

additional implementation patterns and effects of certain conditions.

7

CHAPTER 2 – PRACTICAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE, INTUITION, AND

RESEARCH QUESTION

This chapter presents the practical points of departure, the researcher’s intuition, and the

research question.

2.1 Observed Problems

When AEC professionals start to design and model their projects in BIM, they have to

decide how to set up a BIM implementation, e.g., why, when, for whom, at what level of

detail, with which tools, how, and for how much a BIM implementation will be done on a

project (Table 2-1). Besides, researchers and practitioners are also looking for how to

plan a BIM implementation that maximizes the benefits on their projects (Table 2-2). For

example, whether there are particularly beneficial BIM uses and whether more BIM uses

equate to more benefits or whether a plateau of benefits is reached with a certain number

of uses. They also wonder whether there are particularly critical windows of time or

organizational configurations that lead to provide the most benefits for the required level

of investment.

Table 2-1: Examples of decisions to be made in setting up a BIM implementation

Decisions in Setting up a BIM Implementation on a Project

• Why will BIM be used?

• When will BIM be created and used?

• Who will be involved in a BIM implementation?

• At what level of detail will a project be modeled in BIM?

• With which software tools will BIM be created and analyzed?

• How will BIM implementations be carried out?

• For how much effort/cost will BIM be needed to implement?

8

Table 2-2: Examples of decisions in planning a BIM implementation that maximizes the

benefits on a project

Some Decisions to Plan a BIM Implementation that Maximizes the Benefits on a

Project

• How will BIM uses impact project design, processes, and organization?

Model uses refer to the purposes of implementing BIM. Each model use plays a part in supporting the project team to accomplish a particular professional task the team is expected to do. With a better understanding of the relationship between model uses and their benefits to a project, AEC professionals can identify the appropriate BIM uses based on project and team goals.

• How will the timing of creating and using BIM affect the timing of reaping

benefits?

With a better understanding of the relationship between the timing of BIM and the timing of benefits, AEC professionals can look at each phase and determine whether and how BIM improves the existing processes, and what investments to make for future phases.

• How will different situations of stakeholder involvement impact the benefits

to them?

Key stakeholders on a project include the owner/developer and AEC service providers, i.e., the designers, general contractors, and subcontractors. With a better understanding of key stakeholders’ roles in the BIM process and the benefits to individual stakeholders and the whole project team, AEC professionals can determine which key stakeholder to get involved and how to assign the roles and responsibilities according to different model uses and business objectives of each key stakeholder.

• How will the timing of developing levels of details in BIM correlate to the

benefits reaped on a project?

AEC professionals have to decide the level of detail of the 3D/4D models. There are two common issues in developing the appropriate level of detail: 1) how to define the “level of detail”; 2) how to determine whether the level of detail is appropriate. With a better understanding of the relationship between the levels of detail and the benefits, AEC professionals can identify the situations when a particular level of detail in BIM is created too early or too late and thus analyze the corresponding reasons.

In an attempt to determine how to set up a BIM implementation, AEC professionals often

look to stories of BIM implementations on past projects and try to learn about best

practice from these stories. Many researchers and practitioners have reported on the use

of BIM on single projects (e.g., Collier and Fischer 1995; Griffis et al. 1995; Fischer et

1998; Koo and Fischer 2000; Coble et al. 2000; Riley 2000; Schwegler et al. 2000;

9

Bergsten and Knutsson 2001; Whyte 2001; Rischmoller et al. 2001; Messner and Lynch

2002; Roe 2002; de Vries and Broekmaat 2003; Kam et al. 2003; Hastings et al. 2003;

O’Brien 2003; Staub et al. 2003; Haymaker et al. 2004; McQuary 2004; Webb and Haupt

2004; Sersy 2004; Cunz and Knutson 2005; Bedrick and Davis 2005; Eberhard 2005;

Gonzales 2005; Hagan and Graves 2005; Hamblen 2005; Holm et al. 2005; Joch 2005;

Jongeling et al. 2005; Khanzode et al. 2005; Koerckel 2005; Sampaio et al. 2005; Sawyer

2005; Majumdar and Fischer 2006).

Some of these stories might inform AEC professionals about the purpose of BIM, the

timing of BIM model creation and use, or the level of detail in BIM. Some stories might

tell AEC professionals some specifics such as the software tools for creating and

analyzing BIM or the workflow to implement BIM. Other stories might explain the

benefits realized and lessons learned on individual projects. These stories create a

repository of unstructured and fragmented information that captures the ad-hoc

experience of implementing BIM on projects (Table 2-3).

Table 2-3: By learning BIM implementations on individual projects, AEC professionals

obtain bits and pieces of unstructured and fragmented information that captures the ad-

hoc experience pertinent to one or a few factors in setting up a BIM implementation.

Bits and Pieces of Fragmented Information Obtained from Learning

about BIM Implementations on Individual Projects

Factors

Captured

Sequus Pharmaceuticals Pilot Plant (Staub et al. 2003)

• 3D models were used to leverage design information and support a variety

of project management functions, e.g., MEP design coordination,

automated quantity takeoffs for cost estimation, and 4D modeling.

• A detailed 4D model was used in this project to coordinate the

mechanical, electrical, and piping work with the equipment installation on

the mechanical platform.

Model uses

Disney Concert Hall (Haymaker et al. 2004)

• 3D models were generated by the architect during the schematic design

phase and used throughout the design phases.

• The general contractor built 4D models prior to construction, and updated

them throughout the construction phase.

Timing of BIM

10

Table 2-3 (cont’d): By learning BIM implementations on individual projects, AEC

professionals obtain bits and pieces of unstructured and fragmented information that

captures the ad-hoc experience pertinent to one or a few factors in setting up a BIM

implementation.

Bits and Pieces of Fragmented Information Obtained from Learning BIM

Implementations on Individual Projects

Factors

Captured

GSA Jackson Courthouse (Majumdar and Fischer 2006)

• GSA collected requirements from court representatives.

• GSA conveyed the requirements to the architect.

• The architect provided 2D CAD drawings to CIFE.

• CIFE provided the 3D CAD model to WDI.

• GSA reviewed the 3D CAD model with CIFE.

• GSA reviewed the VR model with WDI.

Stakeholder involvement

Experience Music Project (Fischer et al. 1998)

• The product model contains objects for each of the steel ribs (e.g., Rib_A_1

and Rib_A_2) and the skin. The designers have specified the following

information for each component: what type of component it is, what material

it consists of, where it is, what dimensions it has, and what supports it.

Modeled data

Helsinki University of Technology Auditorium-600 (Kam et al. 2003)

• ArchiCAD from Graphisoft11 used by the architect;

• Progman Oy’s MagiCAD12 used by the mechanical engineers;

• LIGHTSCAPE20 (developed by Autodesk) used by the lighting designer;

• Riuska used for thermal simulation;

• BS-LCA used for environmental assessment;

• COVE used for cost estimate and value engineering;

• CPT 4D used for schedule visualization.

Software

Camino Medical Campus (Khanzode et al. 2005)

• Identify the potential uses of the 3D models

• Identify the modeling requirements

• Establish the drawing protocol

• Establish the design coordination process

• Develop a protocol for addressing design questions

• Develop discipline-specific 3D models

• Integrate discipline-specific 3D models

• Identify conflicts between components/systems

• Develop solutions for the conflicts identified

• Document conflicts and solutions

Workflow

11

Table 2-3 (cont’d): By learning BIM implementations on individual projects, AEC

professionals obtain bits and pieces of unstructured and fragmented information that

captures the ad-hoc experience pertinent to one or a few factors in setting up a BIM

implementation.

Bits and Pieces of Fragmented Information Obtained from Learning BIM

Implementations on Individual Projects

Factors

Captured

McWhinney Office Building in Colorado (Koo and Fischer 2000)

• Modelers spent 12 man-hours (10% of the total effort) on preparing the

appropriate schedule data, 69 man-hours (58% of the total effort) on

converting the 2D drawings into 3D CAD models, 23 man-hours (19% of the

total effort) on learning to use the Schedule Simulator and establishing

relationships between CAD objects and activities in the master schedule, and

15 man-hours (13% of the total effort) on reviewing the 4D model for the

constructability analysis.

Effort/cost

From such chunks of BIM stories AEC professionals can only obtain unstructured,

fragmented and granular information that captures one or a few implementation factors

(i.e., factors in setting up a BIM implementation such as model uses, timing of model

uses, stakeholder involvement, modeled data, software, workflow, and effort/cost).

Without structured documentation, AEC professionals can be overwhelmed in the sea of

project data. They will find it very difficult or even impossible to blend the fragmented

information from one project to another and align it into a structured picture of why,

when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, and for how much a BIM

implementation can best be done (Figure 2-1).

Figure 2-1: Individual BIM stories only provide unstructured and fragmented capture of


implementation consistently.

Besides reading or listening to individual BIM stories, AEC professionals often attempt

to put together these individual stories and compare BIM implementations across

They wonder, from the cross

to set up a BIM implementation to maximize benefits. The following example (Table 2

illustrates the difficulty in comparing 12 industry cases presented at the IAI’s first

Unstructured and Fragmented

Capture of a BIM Implementation

: Individual BIM stories only provide unstructured and fragmented capture of


implementation consistently.



They wonder, from the cross-project comparisons, whether they can gain insight

to set up a BIM implementation to maximize benefits. The following example (Table 2


Unstructured and Fragmented

Capture of a BIM Implementation

A structured way to set up a BIM implementation:

• why,

• when,

• for whom,

• at what level of detail,

• with which tools,

• how,

• for how much

12

: Individual BIM stories only provide unstructured and fragmented capture of




project comparisons, whether they can gain insights on how

to set up a BIM implementation to maximize benefits. The following example (Table 2-4)


structured way to set up a BIM implementation:

why,

when,

for whom,

at what level of detail,

with which tools,

how,

for how much.

13

Building Smart International Conference for Government and Industry in Oslo, Norway,

in 2005.

Table 2-4: It is difficult to compare BIM implementations across the 12 cases presented

at the IAI conference because presented project data are neither sufficient nor consistent

in capturing the factors professionals need to know to set up an implementation and

understand the benefits realized from the implementation.

Industry

Cases Model

Uses Timing

of BIM Stake-

holders Level of

Detail Soft-

ware Work

-flow Effort

/ Cost

Bene

-fits

Fair Oaks Clinic

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Aurora 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

DIGI Building

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

TUT Building

1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

Music Hall 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Akershus Hospital

1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1

HUT 600 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

Pump Station 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

Aalborg Concert Hall

1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Basin 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

Margrethe Opera

1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Pharma-ceutical Factory

1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Consistent capture

Sufficient Capture

Insufficient

Capture Inconsistent Capture

14

In Table 2-4, the symbol “1” represents the situation where a particular factor in setting

up a BIM implementation or the benefits from carrying out the implementation is

captured by project data. Meanwhile, the symbol “0” represents the situation where

nothing from the case projects is captured for these implementation factors and benefits.

What causes the difficulty to compare the 12 cases presented on the IAI conference?

• Insufficient capture: Comparing the 12 cases row by row, not every case has

information to capture all the seven factors in setting up an implementation plus

benefits realized from the implementation. For instance, the “Fair Oaks Clinic” case

captured all the seven implementation factors as well as benefits, which illustrates an

example of “sufficient capture.” On the other hand, the “Pharmaceutical Factory”

case only captured BIM model uses, software, and stakeholders while lacking the

documentation of the timing of BIM, level of detail, and effort/cost. This is an

illustration of “insufficient capture.”

• Inconsistent capture: Comparing the 12 cases column by column, not each

implementation factor or benefit can be captured throughout the 12 cases. For

instance, the implementation factor “model uses” was captured in all the 12 cases,

which indicates “consistent capture.” However, the implementation factor “level of

detail” was captured in merely 3 cases, which demonstrates an example of

“inconsistent capture.”

Without sufficient and consistent capture of BIM implementation factors and benefits, it

is hard to examine the implementation patterns (i.e., the relationships between

implementation factors and benefits realized on projects) from cross-project comparisons

and understand how to plan a BIM implementation in order to maximize benefits (Figure

2-2).

Figure 2-2: Comparing BIM stories


implementation patterns (i.e., how to set up a BIM implementation to maximize benefits).

Figure 2-3 shows that there are three realms that are involved in the research. The first

row, on the top, is the realm of theory in the domain of social science. It is what goes on

inside researchers’ heads. It is where researchers keep the theories about how the world

operates. The third row, on the bottom, is the realm of observations. It is the real world

into which researchers translate their ideas and observations. When researchers conduct

research in the domain of AEC

moving back and forth between these two realms, between what people think about the

world and what is going on in it.

In the domain of social science, according to Russell Ackof

Knowledge" diagram, achieving knowledge is not easy and people must move

successively through the levels of understanding (Ackoff 1989). Information is structured

data and knowledge differs from simple information or data since it conveys

relationships among the individual pieces of information. A framework allows

Comparison of BIM

implementations across projects

: Comparing BIM stories with insufficient and inconsistent project data to



shows that there are three realms that are involved in the research. The first


heads. It is where researchers keep the theories about how the world



in the domain of AEC-BIM (reflected as the second row), they are continually


world and what is going on in it.

In the domain of social science, according to Russell Ackoff’s "From Data to



data and knowledge differs from simple information or data since it conveys


arison of BIM

implementations across projects

Understanding of BIM

implementation patterns

15

cient and inconsistent project data to



shows that there are three realms that are involved in the research. The first


heads. It is where researchers keep the theories about how the world



BIM (reflected as the second row), they are continually


f’s "From Data to



data and knowledge differs from simple information or data since it conveys the


Understanding of BIM

implementation patterns

16

information to be consistently classified to make it easier for users to know where to look

for types of documents and records. Without formalized information, the chain of

understanding “from data to knowledge” is broken (Figure 2-3).

In addition, Dave Snowden (an expert on knowledge management) argues that people

often gather fragmented information at the point of need and then blend that information

on the fly to reach conclusions and take action (Snowden 2009). He points out that the

more people structure data, the more they can summarize. Therefore, it is necessary to

organize fragmented granularity into highly structured documents by placing entries in

categories (Snowden 2009).

Figure 2-3: The “data to knowledge” chain is broken without a formalized framework.

In the conceptual domain of implementing BIM on AEC projects, there are three steps of

understanding BIM implementations (Figure 2-3):

Capture Compare

A framework to:

• Organize BIM implementations in a structured way

• Capture BIM implementations sufficiently and consistently

• Support cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations

17

• Understanding the characteristics of BIM implementations (i.e., project data) on

individual projects;

• Understanding why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools,

how, and for how much a BIM implementation is done; and

• Understanding BIM implementation patterns (i.e., how the factors in setting up an

implementation related to the benefits realized) through cross-project

documentation and comparison.

In the practical domain of implementing BIM on projects (Figure 2-3), AEC

professionals who start to implement BIM on their project often go for stories of BIM

implementations on past projects. However, two problems exist.

• Individual BIM stories only provide unstructured and fragmented capture of BIM

implementations.

• It is difficult to compare BIM stories across projects because the capture of BIM

implementations on these projects is neither sufficient nor consistent.

Besides BIM stories, AEC professionals sometimes also refer to BIM guidelines for best

practices. There is the accelerating emergence of guidelines dedicated to exploring and

defining the requirements and deliverables of BIM (Table 2-5). These guidelines,

although valuable in their own right, are mostly not project-specific and have not been

validated by a large number of case studies (see further discussion in Chapter 3).

Hence, a framework that organizes BIM implementations in a structured way can help

AEC professionals decide upon what to set up in implementing BIM on their projects. A

framework that captures BIM implementations sufficiently and consistently as well as

supports cross-project comparisons can help AEC professionals look into the

implementation patterns (i.e., how to plan a BIM implementation to maximize benefits).

These implementation patterns, in turn, will help practitioners develop BIM guidelines

that guide their work related to creating and using BIM on projects as well as monitoring

and controlling the impacts of BIM implementations.

18

Table 2-5: A list of guidelines for BIM implementations

Origin Organi-

zation

Guidelines Description

BIM guidelines targeted at the industry level

Australia CRC-CI National Guidelines & Case Studies (2008)

This guideline highlights open and consistent processes and tests selected software compatibility.

Denmark BIPS Digital Construction Guidelines (2007)

This guideline includes a 3D CAD Manual, 3D Working Method, Project Agreement, and Layer and Object Structures.

Finland SENATE Properties

BIM Requirements Guidelines (2007)

This guideline focuses on the design phase and describes general operational procedures in BIM projects and detailed general requirements of BIM.

Nether-lands

E-BOUW E-BOUW BIM Framework (2008)

This framework consists of seventeen orthogonal dimensions that describe the BIM world in general.

Norway STATS-BYGG

HITOS Documented Pilots (2006)

This document reports on experiences gained on full-scale IFC test project.

U.S. NIST National BIM Standards Guidelines (2007)

This guideline establishes standard definitions for information exchanges to support critical business contexts.

BIM guidelines targeted at the enterprise level

U.S. AGC Contractor’s Guide to BIM Guidelines (2006)

This guideline helps contractors understand how to get started with BIM.

U.S. GSA 3D–4D-BIM Program Guidelines (2006)

This guideline is intended for GSA associates and consultants engaging in BIM practices.

U.S. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

BIM – A Road Map for Implementation To Support MILCON Transformation and Civil Works Projects (2006)

This guideline focuses on the implementation of BIM in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s civil works and military construction business processes.

U.S. CIFE & CURT

CIFE/CURT survey of VDC/BIM Use (Kunz 2006 and 2007).

The survey investigates BIM uses in AEC firms as well as barriers and opportunities in BIM implementation.

U.S. CURT BIM Implementation: An Owner’s Guide to Getting Started (2010)

This guideline serves as a practical guide to help owners develop a BIM implementation process that best suits each owner’s situation and needs.

19

Table 2-5 (cont’d): A list of guidelines for BIM implementations

Origin Organization Guideline Description

BIM guidelines targeted at the project level

U.S. CIFE 3D and 4D Modeling for Design and Construction Coordination (Staub-French and Khanzode 2007)

This guideline presents what is required to apply 3D/4D modeling tools on construction projects for MEP coordination.

U.S. The State of Ohio General Service Division

The State of Ohio Building Information Modeling (BIM) Protocol (2010)

This protocol provides general guidance that ensures that building owners know what they should include in their requests for qualifications (RFQ) and contracts for their projects.

U.S. Penn State BIM Project Execution Planning Guide and Templates – Version 2.0 (2010)

The BIM Project Execution Planning Guide and template resources were developed to assist in the creation a BIM Project Execution Plan.

2.2 Intuition

According to Russell Ackoff’s "From Data to Knowledge" diagram, the chain of

understanding BIM implementations is broken (Figure 2-3) due to the lack of a

formalized framework to:

• Organize BIM implementations in a structured way,

• Capture BIM implementations sufficiently and consistently, and

• Support cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations.

The challenge of understanding implementation patterns through cross-comparing BIM

projects lies in three limitations in the current way of documenting BIM projects.

• Unstructured organization: The project data of BIM implementations are not

organized into comparable categories and are not presented in a structured way.

• Insufficient capture: The main threat to providing a valid description lies in the

incompleteness of the data (Robson 1993). The documentation of a BIM

implementation on a particular project cannot capture the implementations as

20

sufficiently as needed for comparing why, when, for whom, at what level of

with which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM is implemented across

different projects.

• Inconsistent capture: The documentation of BIM implementations on different

projects cannot capture the implementation factors and benefits as consistently as

possible and necessary across projects.

In summary, the current BIM stories often present fragmented project data that cannot

capture BIM implementations in a structured, sufficient, and consistent way. In addition,

the currently available BIM guidelines lack validation by a large number of real projects.

Given these two limitations, AEC professionals cannot achieve knowledge that guides

them towards well-defined, measurable, and monitored BIM implementations. To link

the broken chain of “data to knowledge”, a formalized framework is needed to document

BIM implementations (Figure 2-4). This framework needs to:

• Organize BIM implementations in a structured way,

• Capture BIM implementations sufficiently and consistently, and

• Support cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations so as to understand

how the factors in setting up of a BIM implementations are related to the benefits.

Figure 2-4: A formalized framework is an indispensable step in linking the broken chain

of “data to knowledge.”

21

2.3 Research Question and Scope Definition

What framework that characterizes BIM implementations on construction projects can:

• Organize project data of BIM implementations in a structured way;

• Sufficiently and consistently capture why, when, for whom, at what level of

detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM implementations

are done; and

• Support cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations so as to gain insights

(i.e., implementation patterns) on how to set up a BIM implementation with

appropriate model uses, timing in project phases, stakeholder involvement, and

modeled level of detail so as to maximize benefits?

The research scope for this thesis (Table 2-6) is:

• BIM Practice: The research looks into good practice of BIM implementations.

The researcher selected 40 case projects regardless of the success level of BIM

implementations, although many cases in the research probably represented the

best-proven practice achieved at the time the researcher studied these projects.

• Implementation target: Because the AEC industry is a project-based industry, the

research is focused on BIM implementations on building construction projects

during the design and construction phases. Although this research does not

directly address BIM implementations within an AEC company or across

organizations, the researcher regards the company background (such as their BIM

software platform choices, data standardization status, research and development

activities, external and internal organizational alignment) as the company context

of implementing BIM on a project.

• BIM perspective: In this research, BIM implementations specifically refer to the

process of creating and using BIM to support project stakeholders in

accomplishing professional tasks. This thesis excludes the discussion on

technologies and policies related to BIM implementations.

22

• BIM use level: Projects studied in the research use BIM often for visualization

(3D rendering), documentation (design/construction documents), model-based

analysis (e.g., single-discipline structural analysis, etc.), and integrated analysis

(cross-discipline collaborations, e.g., clash detection, 4D models, etc.). Projects

that use BIM for automation and optimization are not studied in the research.

• Implementation phases: The researcher studied projects that implemented BIM

during the design and construction phases, excluding the operation and

maintenance phases.

• Potential user of the framework: The characterization framework for BIM

implementations is formalized for BIM researchers and BIM program managers

who wish to synthesize BIM implementation patterns from past project

experiences. While AEC practitioners might find the framework of interest to

them, it is not for AEC professionals looking for operational guidelines to

implement BIM on a project.

• Potential application of the framework: The characterization framework for BIM

implementations captures why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with

which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM implementations are done.

These are the factors entailed in BIM implementations at the project management

level. This framework does not capture factors (e.g., personnel skills and

capabilities, staffing and training requirements, and collaboration and

communication procedures, etc.) with regards to BIM implementations at the

company strategy level. In addition, this research does not address factors with

regards to BIM implementations at the project operational level. For example,

Clevenger’s Framework (2009) characterizes BIM-based energy analysis with

factors such as problem comprehensiveness, solving efficiency, and solution

quality. However, the framework in this research did not attempt to capture

factors related to using BIM for specific design analysis on a project.

• Validation of the power of the framework: The framework is validated in terms

of its descriptive (documentation) power and is demonstrated in its explanatory

value in theorizing cross-case implementation patterns that present the

relationships between implementation factors and benefits to a project’s product,

23

organization, and process. The framework might have predictive power, but this

potential was not tested within the scope of this research.

Table 2-6: The research scope of the characterization framework for BIM

Characterization Framework for BIM Implementations

√: Within the research scope ×: Outside of the research scope

BIM practice √ Good √ Best (at the time of the collecting the case data)

Implementation

target √ Project × Enterprise

BIM Perspective √ Process × • Technology

• Policy

BIM use level √

• Visualization

• Documentation

• Model-based analysis

• Integrated analysis

× Automation and Optimization

Implementation

phases √ Design and Construction ×

Operation and Maintenance

Potential user of

the framework √

• BIM researchers

• BIM program managers

Who wish to synthesize past project experiences

×

AEC professionals looking for operational guidelines to implement BIM

Potential

application of the

framework √ Project management level ×

• Company strategy level

• Project operational level

Validation of the

power of the

framework √

• Descriptive power

• Explanatory power × Predictive power

24

CHAPTER 3 – THEORETICAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE

This chapter presents the theoretical points of departure (P.O.Ds) that demonstrate:

• Why a framework is needed?

• Whether there are other BIM-related frameworks (or guidelines) available?

• What are the stepping-stones toward the development of the framework?

3.1 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Demonstrate Why a Framework is Needed

A frame is a data-structure for representing a stereotyped situation. A framework, as a

network of taxonomic nodes and relations among the nodes, will assist in organizing

domain knowledge, elicit tacit expertise and facilitate the creation of new knowledge

(Minsky 1975).

A characterization framework is a descriptive framework comprised of common

vocabulary to describe the concepts of phenomena investigated (Holsapple and Joshi

1999). The creation of a characterization framework requires a more precise and

comprehensive understanding of the nature and characteristics of these activities

(Carzaniga et al. 1998).

In the field of knowledge management, Malafsky (2003) argues that one of the greatest

challenges to effective knowledge management is to organize a large amount of related

but disjointed information into something that is useful, accurate, and trustworthy (Table

3-1). Managing knowledge begins by defining a structure to organize information into

categories of main concepts and then by terms to group like items. To classify

information, a framework must be defined. Information is commonly organized within a

framework. This framework is a hierarchy of descriptive categories that forms a

classification scheme. A classification scheme often has a tree-like structure with nodes

branching into sub-nodes where each node represents a topic with a few descriptive

words.

25

Literature in non-construction research fields, such as production and operations

management (Forze and Di Nuzzo 1998), public policy (Jensen and Rodgers 2001), and

IT management (Mason 1984 and Alavi 1992), suggests the use of a framework to extract

information from case studies and to identify and implement implications for practice

(Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: Theoretical points of departure (P.O.Ds) that demonstrate why a framework is

needed

Literature Why a framework is needed

Dom

ain

Knowledge management

Malafsky (2003)

To organize a large amount of related but disjointed information into something that is useful, accurate, and trustworthy.

Production and operations management

Forze and Di Nuzzo (1998)

To act as an instrument for meta-analysis and help build up a relatively comprehensive picture of the phenomena being considered.

Public policy Jensen and Rodgers (2001)

To extract information from a body of case studies.

IT management

Mason (1984)

To permit (1) similar groupings of hardware, software, data, rules, procedures, and people to cluster together; and (2) different groupings to be clearly distinguishable from one another.

Alavi (1992) To help review the empirical implementation literature as a basis for providing guidelines for implementation management.

A framework can act as an instrument to extract data for meta-analysis, which is

essentially synthesis of available literature on a topic (Hedges and Olkin 1985). For

example, Forze and Di Nuzzo (1998) show the potential of applying meta-analysis to the

development of both theories and practical indications in the field of production and

operations management. They comment that this approach helps to build up a relatively

comprehensive picture of the phenomena being considered.

Jensen and Rodgers (2001) suggest that the use of a framework to extract information

from a body of case studies is the solution to address the knowledge-accumulation and

26

generalizability problem in the field of public policy. They claim that this method should

be easily useable by those seeking to identify and implement implications for policy and

practice.

In the field of management of information systems (MIS), Mason (1984) who studied IT

impacts argues, “The field needs a theory of technology and a classification scheme that

will permit (1) similar groupings of hardware, software, data, rules, procedures, and

people to cluster together; and (2) different groupings to be clearly distinguishable from

one another.” Alavi (1992) conducted a rigorous and quantitative review of the empirical

decision support system (DSS) implementation literature as a basis for providing

guidelines for implementation management.

By the same token, a characterization framework for documenting BIM implementations

on construction projects should have two features:

• The framework presents a structure to organize and classify the characteristics of

BIM implementations. The structure will permit (1) categorization of the

characteristics into comparable groups; and (2) presentation of the characteristics

at consistent levels of detail.

• The framework has a list of descriptive terms which can be used to extract project

data (pertinent to the characteristics of BIM implementations) from a collection of

case studies, group the project data into comparable categories, and analyze these

categories to gain insights about BIM implementation patterns.

3.2 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Demonstrate the Observed Problems in Practice

Twenty-two published papers from 1995 to 2006 focus on specific areas of BIM

implementations on individual projects (Table 3-2).

27

Table 3-2: An overview of twenty-two papers that document BIM implementations on

individual projects

Focus areas of BIM

implementations Individual case studies

Design review in virtual reality Kam et al. 2003; Joch 2005; Majumdar and Fischer 2006

Design coordination Rischmoller et al. 2001; O’Brien 2003; Staub et al. 2003; Hamblen 2005; Khanzode et al. 2005

Quantity takeoff and cost estimating Kam et al. 2003; O’Brien 2003; Staub et al. 2003

Project master planning Collier and Fischer 1995; Schwegler et al. 2000; Bergsten and Knutsson 2001

Bidding/proposal presentations Schwegler et al. 2000

Constructability review Collier and Fischer 1995; Fischer et al. 1998; Koo and Fischer 2000; Riley 2000; Rischmoller et al. 2001; Staub et al. 2003; Haymaker et al. 2004

Construction sequencing Fischer et al. 1998; Koo and Fischer 2000; Riley 2000; Rischmoller et al. 2001; Messner and Lynch 2002; Roe 2002; Hastings et al. 2003; Haymaker et al. 2004; Webb and Haupt 2004; Jongeling et al. 2005; Khanzode et al. 2005

Field change documentation Coble et al. 2000

Field meeting to engage foremen de Vries and Broekmaat 2003

Production of design documents and shop drawings

O’Brien 2003; Jongeling et al. 2005

Since twelve of the twenty-two cases focus on the use of 4D models for construction

sequencing, Table 3-3 illustrates how well the twelve cases capture the factors in setting

up an implementation (Table 2-3) as well as benefits realized from the implementation. In

Table 3-3, the symbol “1” represents the situation where a particular implementation

factor or the benefits from carrying out the implementation is captured by project data.

Meanwhile, the symbol “0” represents the situation where nothing from a case is captured

for these implementation factors and benefits. Row by row, this table shows the

sufficiency (or lack thereof) of each case. Column by column, this table shows the

consistency of capture across cases. We can see from Table 3-3 that not every single case

can sufficiently capture all the implementation factors and benefits and not each factor

28

can be consistently captured by all the 12 cases. This resonates with the observed

problem (Table 2-4) in Chapter 2.

Table 3-3: It is difficult to compare the 12 individual cases on using 4D models for

construction sequencing because these cases are neither sufficient nor consistent in

capturing the factors in setting up an implementation and benefits realized from it.

Case

Studies Model

Uses Timing

of BIM Stake-

holders Level of

Detail Soft-

ware Work-

flow Effort

/ Cost Benefits

Fischer et al. 1998

1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

Koo and Fischer 2000

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Coble et al. 2000

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

Riley 2000 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

Rischmoller et al. 2001

1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

Messner and Lynch 2002

1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Roe 2002 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

Hastings et al. 2003

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Haymaker et al. 2004

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Webb and Haupt 2004

1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1

Jongeling et al. 2005

1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

Khanzode et al. 2005

1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

Consistent

Capture

Sufficient

Capture

Insufficient

Capture

Inconsistent

Capture

29

3.3 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Illustrate BIM-related Frameworks and Guidelines

Through an extensive literature search of BIM research, the researcher identified 15

guidelines and 8 frameworks as representative of the current state of developing BIM

frameworks and guidelines. Although, these guidelines are not referred to as frameworks

by their authors, such writings may help shape the development of more frameworks in

the future. These frameworks and guidelines are presented in chronological order (Table

3-4).

The researcher compared these frameworks and guidelines on four dimensions.

• Target level: Frameworks are targeted at the industry, enterprise, or project level.

• Descriptive or prescriptive frameworks:

o Descriptive frameworks attempt to characterize the nature of BIM

phenomena as “what it is.”

o Prescriptive frameworks prescribe the nature of BIM phenomena as “what

should be.”

• Broad or specific frameworks:

o Broad frameworks aim to characterize the nature of BIM phenomena

comprehensively in their breath.

o Specific frameworks focus on specialized fields of BIM, i.e., Technology,

Process, and Policy (TPP) (Succar 2009).

� Technology-specific frameworks address issues of developing

BIM software, hardware, equipment, and networking systems

applied to the design, construction and operation of facilities.

� Process-specific frameworks focus on a group of players who

implement BIM to procure, design, construct, manufacture, use,

manage, and maintain AEC projects.

� Policy-specific frameworks depict regulatory and contractual

requirements for delivering BIM solutions.

• Validation: Frameworks are validated on case projects.

30

A comparative analysis of these frameworks and guidelines reveals that none subsumes

the others:

• At the level of industry (Table 3-4 and Table 3-5): there are three broad

frameworks, five technology-specific frameworks, and three process-specific

frameworks. For example, the “National Guidelines and Case studies” (CRC-CI

2008) is targeted at the Australian construction industry on the collaborative use

of BIM. It is a technology-specific framework that prescribes the common

national standards of BIM software compatibility. This guideline was validated by

six cases.

• At the level of enterprise (Table 3-6): there are six process-specific frameworks

and one policy specific framework. For instance, the “3D-4D-BIM program

guidelines” (GSA 2006) is targeted at the enterprise level and intended for

GSA employees and consultants engaging in BIM practices for the design of new

construction and major modernization projects for GSA. It is a process-specific

framework that prescribes the operational procedures, such as when to determine

what BIM applications would be appropriate for a specific project and how to use

BIM for spatial program requirements, 3D laser scanning, 4D phasing, energy

performance and operations, and circulation and security validation. Another

example is the “CIFE/CURT survey of VDC/BIM Use (Kunz 2007). It is targeted

at the enterprise level and based on responses from 171 professionals in AEC

companies and governmental agencies (most of them are AIA, CIFE, and CURT

members). This report is a process-specific framework that describes the role of

VDC/BIM in organizations and the costs, value, and issues related to using

VDC/BIM. This survey was validated by seven cases.

• At the level of project (Table 3-7): there are five process-specific frameworks. For

example, the “3D and 4D Modeling for Design and Construction Coordination”

(Staub-French and Khanzode 2007) is targeted at the project level. It is a process-

specific framework that provides guidelines on how to overcome the technical,

procedural, and organizational issues confronted by project teams in coordinating

MEP design and construction. This guideline was validated by two cases.

31

In this research, the characterization framework for BIM implementations is targeted at

the project level. It is a process-specific framework that characterizes why, when, for


implementations are done. In addition, this framework has to be validated on a large

number of case projects. Although five frameworks (including guidelines) fall into the

group of “process-specific frameworks targeted at projects”, none of them are validated

on a large number of case projects.

32

Table 3-4: An overview of BIM related guidelines and frameworks

Frameworks / Guidelines Target

Level

Descriptive /

prescriptive

Broad / specific Vali-

dation

BIM related Guidelines

HITOS Documented Pilots (Statsbygg 2006) Industry Descriptive Specific (Technology): IFC No

Contractor’s Guide to BIM Guidelines (AGC 2006) Enterprise Prescriptive Specific (Process): process for contractors No

3D–4D-BIM Program Guidelines (GSA 2006) Enterprise Prescriptive Specific (Process): operational procedures for

GSA associates and consultants

Yes: 2

cases

BIM – A Road Map for Implementation To Support MILCON Transformation and Civil Works Projects (USACE 2006)

Enterprise Prescriptive Specific (Process): operational procedures for

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer

No

Digital Construction Guidelines (BIPS 2007) Industry Prescriptive Specific (Process): a working method to create,

exchange, and use 3D models No

BIM Requirements Guidelines (SENATE Properties 2007)

Industry Prescriptive Specific (Process): Operational procedures for

owner in the design phase No

National BIM Standards Guidelines (NIST 2007) Industry Prescriptive Specific (Technology): Information exchange No

CIFE/CURT survey of VDC/BIM Use (Kunz 2007) Enterprise Descriptive Specific (Process): BIM barriers and potentials Yes: 7

cases

3D and 4D Modeling for Design and Construction Coordination (Staub-French and Khanzode 2007)

Project Prescriptive Specific (Process): MEP coordination Yes: 2

cases

National Guidelines & Case Studies (CRC-CI 2008) Industry Prescriptive Specific (Technology): software compatibility Yes: 7

cases

The State of Ohio Building Information Modeling (BIM) Protocol (Ohio GSD 2010)

Enterprise Prescriptive Specific (Policy): Owner’s RFQ and contractual

requirements No

BIM Project Execution Planning Guide and Templates – Version 2.0 (Penn State 2010)

Project Prescriptive Specific (Process): BIM project execution plan No

33

Table 3-4 (cont’d): An overview of BIM related guidelines and frameworks

Frameworks / Guidelines Target

Level

Descriptive /

prescriptive

Broad / specific Vali-

dation

BIM related Frameworks

Building Information Modeling Framework: A Research and Delivery Foundation for Industry Stakeholders (Succar 2008)

Industry Descriptive Broad: a BIM Framework representing concepts

and relations of BIM fields, BIM stages, and BIM

lenses

No

E-BOUW Framework (E-Bouw 2008) Industry Descriptive Broad: seventeen orthogonal dimensions that

describe the BIM world in general No

Building Information Modeling Project Decision Support Framework (London et al. 2008)

Project Descriptive Specific (Process): a framework to support

organizations selection of BIM usage strategies

that meet their project requirements

No

BIM for Sustainability Analyses (Azhar and Brown 2009)

Project Descriptive Specific (Process): a framework for BIM-based

life-cycle sustainability analyses No

A Framework of a BIM-based Multi-disciplinary Collaboration Platform (Singh, et al. 2010)

Industry Descriptive Specific (Technology): technical requirements

for a BIM server-based collaboration No

An IDP-BIM Framework for Reshaping Professional Design Practices (Forgues and Iordanova 2010)

Industry Descriptive Specific (Process): a situated learning

environment in which BIM technologies are

structured in an IDP framework

No

A Multi-standpoint Framework for Technological Development (Cerovsek 2010)

Industry Descriptive Specific (Technology): a framework for

improving BIM tools and schema standardization No

Building Information Modeling (BIM) Framework for Practical Implementation (Jung and Joo 2010)

Industry Descriptive Broad: a framework consisting of three

dimensions and six categories to address the

variables for BIM theory and implementation

No

Autodesk BIM Deployment Plan: A Practical Framework for Implementing BIM (Autodesk 2010)

Enterprise & Project

Prescriptive Specific (Process): BIM deployment plan No

34

Table 3-5: A comparative analysis of BIM related frameworks and guidelines that are targeted at the industry level

Legends: Descriptive framework without validation on case projects

Prescriptive framework without validation on case projects

Descriptive framework with validation on case projects

Prescriptive framework with validation on case projects

Target

Level Broad Frameworks

Specific Frameworks

Technology Process Policy

Industry

E-BOUW Framework (TNO 2008)

HITOS Pilots (STATSBYGG 2006)

Digital Construction Guidelines (BIPS 2007)

BIM Framework (Succar 2008)

National BIM Standards (NIST 2007)

BIM Requirements Guidelines (SENATE Properties 2007)

BIM Framework for Implementation (Jung and Joo 2010)

National Guidelines & Cases (CRC-CI 2008)

An IDP-BIM Framework for Design (Forgues and Iordanova 2010)

A Framework of a BIM-based Multi-disciplinary Collaboration (Singh, et al. 2010)

A Framework for Technological Development (Cerovsek 2010)

35

Table 3-6: A comparative analysis of BIM related frameworks and guidelines that are targeted at the enterprise level





Target


Specific Frameworks


Enterprise

Contractor’s Guide to BIM Guidelines (AGC 2006)

The State of Ohio BIM Protocol (The State of Ohio GSD 2010)

3D–4D-BIM Program Guidelines (GSA 2006)

A Road Map for BIM Implementation (US Army Corps of Engineers 2006)

CIFE/CURT survey of VDC/BIM Use (Kunz 2007)

BIM Implementation: An Owner’s Guide to Getting Started (CURT 2010)


36

Table 3-7: A comparative analysis of BIM related frameworks and guidelines that are targeted at the project level





Target


Specific Frameworks


Project

BIM for MEP Coordination (Staub-French and Khanzode 2007)

BIM Project Execution Planning (Penn State 2010)

BIM Project Decision Support Framework (London et al. 2008)

BIM for Sustainability Analyses (Azhar and Brown 2009)


A Characterization Framework to

Document and Compare BIM

Implementations on Construction

Projects (the topic for this thesis)

37

3.4 Theoretical P.O.Ds for Developing the Characterization Framework

By definition, a characterization framework is a hierarchical structure of descriptive

labels. The preliminary Framework-1 was grounded in pre-existing literature. To

develop Framework-1, I established four points of theoretical departure (Table 3-8) as

stepping-stones for my preliminary findings of the basic structure and some possible

descriptive labels in the characterization framework for BIM implementations.

Table 3-8: Theoretical points of departure (P.O.Ds) that are stepping stones towards

developing the characterization framework for BIM implementation

Stepping

stones

P.O.D for determining the basic

structure of Framework-1

“Contexts-actions-consequences” Paradigm Model (Strauss and Corbin 1998)

P.O.D for labeling the

categories in Framework-1

Strategic management approaches

• Critical Success Factor (CSF) (Rockart 1986)

• Key Performance Indicator (KPI) (Fitz-Gibbon 1990)

P.O.D for labeling the factors in

Framework-1

22 case studies (Table 3-2) that documented BIM implementations on individual projects

P.O.D for labeling the measures

in Framework-1

A list of questions originally developed by the Virtual Builders Roundtable

Strauss and Corbin (1998) suggest the use of an action paradigm model when looking at

empirical data. They describe this model: “In axial coding our focus is on specifying a

category (phenomenon) in terms of the preconditions that give rise to it; the context (its

specific set of properties) in which it is embedded; the action/interactional strategies by

which it is handled, managed, carried out; and the consequences of those strategies.” By

reviewing the previous case studies and drawing upon observations at many seminars and

conferences, the researcher found the recurring theme of “context-actions-consequences”

for implementing BIM on a project. Since the action paradigm model is useful for

building the structure of the framework, the researcher adopted its main features.

A conceptual framework integrates various concepts that serve as an impetus for the

formulation of theory (Seibold 2002). Concepts are the key elements of a framework and

38

are derived from multiple sources of qualitative data, e.g., narrative interviews,

observations, documents, etc. (Somekh and Lewin 2005). In the process of labeling the

concepts in the framework, the researcher distinguished three levels of detail in

conceptualization. Categories are more general concepts; factors are fairly abstract

concepts; and measures are very concrete concepts.

• Categories: They are concepts that stand for a given phenomenon. They depict

the matters that are important to the phenomena being studied.

• Factors: They specify a category further by denoting information such as when,

where, why, and how a phenomenon is likely to occur.

• Measures: They capture a factor in terms of its characteristics (properties).

The action paradigm (“contexts-actions-consequences”) and the three levels of

conceptualization (“categories-factors-measures”) constitute the basic building blocks for

my framework (Figure 3-1).

Figure 3-1: The structure of Framework-1

After determining the basic structure of the characterization framework for BIM

implementations, the researcher attempted to find some possible labeling of categories,

factors, and measures as the starting point (Framework-1) for further framework

development.

39

To label the categories (Figure 3-2) in Framework-1, the researcher followed the

“contexts-actions-consequences” paradigm rooted in the field of social science. To make

the labeling of categories better fit into the domain of project management, the researcher

referred to the literature in strategic management to rename “actions” and

“consequences.” Critical success factors (CSF) and key performance indicators (KPI) are

two main concepts widely used in the strategic management literature. Strategic goals

must be broken down into something more concrete and specific so that a tactical plan

can be devised. Critical success factors (CSF) are areas of activity that should receive

constant and careful attention from management (Rockart 1986). The researcher named

these areas of activity related to BIM implementations as “implementation factors” to

replace the “actions” labeled in Strauss and Corbin’s paradigm model. Key performance

indicators (KPI) represent a particular value or characteristic that is measured to assess

whether an organization’s strategic goals are being achieved (Fitz-Gibbon 1990). The

“consequences” of implementing BIM is to assess how the implementation of BIM

affects the design of the product (building), the project organization, and the processes

carried out on a project. In turn, the impacts on product, organization, and process design

affect the overall project performance. Therefore, the researcher changed the label

“consequences” to “performance impacts.”

Figure 3-2: Labeling the categories in Framework-1

To label the factors (Figure 3-3) in Framework-1, the researcher reviewed the 22 case

study papers (Table 3-2) that document BIM implementations on individual projects.

40

Figure 3-3: Labeling the factors in Framework-1

By reviewing the 22 BIM case studies in literature, the researcher found that the

motivation and incentive of using BIM on a project is often triggered by project contexts,

i.e., the situations, challenges, requirements and constraints on a project. Therefore, the

context category has one factor, i.e., project context.

The researcher also found from the 22 case study papers that the main areas AEC

professionals need to consider when planning BIM implementations are why, when, for

whom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, and for how much BIM

implementations are done. Therefore, the researcher labeled the seven implementation

factors as follows:

• Model uses: “why” BIM is used on a project;

• Timing: “when” BIM is created and used;

• Stakeholder involvement: “who” is involved in a BIM implementation;

• Level of detail: at “what level of detail” a project is modeled in BIM;

• Software tools: “with which software tools” BIM is created and analyzed;

• Work flow: “how” a BIM implementation is carried out;

41

• Effort/cost: “for how much” effort/cost BIM is implemented.

The 22 case studies show that AEC professionals often have to evaluate and assess the

perceived and quantifiable impacts of BIM implementations during the project run-time

and upon its completion. Therefore, the researcher integrated five factors into the

category of performance impacts and labeled them as follows:

• Perceived impacts of BIM on product;

• Perceived impacts of BIM on organization;

• Perceived impacts of BIM on process;

• Quantifiable progress performance during the project;

• Quantifiable final performance upon project completion.

The categories and factors in the preliminary Framework-1 were not detailed enough to

describe the characteristics of BIM implementations in the 22 case studies. Therefore,

the researcher needed to extend the Framework-1 by capturing each factor with a few

measures. The researcher used a list of questions originally developed by the Virtual

Builders Roundtable (Fischer 2005) to elaborate factors with measures (Table 3-9).

Table 3-9: Labeling the measures in Framework-1

Factors Measures

Project context • Type of project

• Contract type and value

• Project location

• Project start and completion

• Project size

• Site constraints

Model uses • Purpose of creating BIM - project goals and objectives

• Aspects of the project analyzed in BIM

Timing • Project phase(s) when BIM was built

• Project phase(s) when BIM was used

42

Table 3-9 (cont’d): Labeling the measures in Framework-1

Factors Measures

Stakeholders

involvement • Stakeholders who built models

• Number of people who built models

• Stakeholders who used BIM

• Number of people who used BIM

Level of detail • Modeled scope of project

• Number of modeled disciplinary systems

• Data structure in BIM (layers, hierarchy)

• Number of layers or hierarchical levels in BIM

• Levels of detail in BIM

• Number of design (or schedule) alternatives modeled

Software tools • BIM software used

• Useful software functionality

• Missing software functionality

• Rating of software functions to satisfy the modeling requirements on a numerical scale 1-5

Work flow • Workflow of BIM process

• Number of iterations of BIM

• Reasons for iterations of BIM

• The best aspects of BIM process

• Needed improvements in BIM process

Effort/cost • Time (man-hours) to creating BIM

• Cost of building BIM

Perceived Impacts on

Product • Explanation of the impact of BIM on product

• Rating of the impact of BIM on project product on a numerical scale 1-5


Organization • Explanation of the impact of BIM on organization

• Rating of the impact of BIM on project organization on a numerical scale 1-5


Process • Explanation of the impact of BIM on process

• Rating of the impact of BIM on project process on a numerical scale 1-5

43

Table 3-9 lists the factors and measures in Framework-1. In Chapter 4, the researcher

explains the research method and tasks for further development of the factors and

measures in Framework-1.

44

CHAPTER 4 – RESEARCH METHOEDS

This chapter presents the criteria for determining the research methods, the primary

research methods used, and the techniques to improve the methodological rigor.

4.1 Criteria for Research Methods

To make certain of the sufficiency, consistency, and methodological rigor of the

characterization framework, the researcher set up two criteria for designing the research

methodology:

• The research methods have to ensure that the characterization framework is

developed to capture the characteristics of BIM implementations sufficiently and

consistently.

• The research methods have to ensure the research generality and validity in

developing this framework.

The main research method is multiple case studies (Eisenhardt 1989) to ensure sufficient

and consistent capture of factors and measures for the characterization framework for

BIM implementations. The extended research method is grounded theory (Strauss and

Corbin 1998) to conceptualize new factors and measures as they emerge from multiple

case studies.

4.2 Multiple Case Studies

Case study is a strategy for doing research that involves an empirical investigation of a

particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of

evidence (Yin 1994). Since BIM implementations on construction projects are still

emerging phenomena, multiple case studies (rather than a survey or experiment method)

can help collect empirical evidence and understand BIM implementations and their

impacts on a number of projects.

The development of the characterization framework for BIM implementations follows an

inductive approach in which factors and measures emerge from the concrete project data

45

in multiple case studies. The process of capturing factors and measures is the process of

theoretical generalization. Sim (1998) argues that data gained from a particular case study

provide theoretical insights which possess a sufficient degree of generality to allow their

projection to other projects.” Yin (1994) also makes the useful analogy that carrying out

multiple case studies is more like doing multiple experiments. These may be attempts at

replication of an initial case study (or an experiment), or they may seek to complement

the first study by focusing on an area not originally covered. This activity to replicate

something known and seeking something unknown is not concerned with statistical

generalization but with theoretical generalization (Yin 2003). Statistical generalization

tends to look for representativeness, while theoretical generalization usually aims to

reflect the diversity within a given population (Kuzel 1992).

Therefore, the main purpose of the multiple case studies is twofold (Eisenhardt 1989):

• Exploratory: This is to discover in the subsequent cases newly emerging factors

and measures that were not covered by the prior versions of the framework.

Exploratory case studies ensure sufficient capture of factors and measures.

• Confirmatory: This is to replicate in the subsequent cases the existing factors and

measures that were observed in previous cases and included in the prior versions

of the framework. Confirmatory case studies ensure consistent capture of factors

and measures.

The back and forth process of studying cases and developing the framework will only be

completed when new factors and measures can’t be found in more case studies (i.e.,

“saturation” is reached). This is the point of time to decide that the framework is

sufficiently developed.

4.3 Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is used to generate the characterization framework ‘empirically

grounded’ in multiple case studies on BIM implementations. Grounded theory provides

the explicit procedures for the analysis of data, i.e., how to conceptualize factors and

measures as they emerge from the multiple case studies.

46

A framework developed in line with this research method is “inductively derived from the

study of the phenomenon it represents. That is, discovered, developed, and provisionally

verified through systematic data collection and analysis of data pertaining to that

phenomenon. Therefore, data collection, analysis, and theory should stand in reciprocal

relationship with each other. One does not begin with a theory, and then prove it. Rather,

one begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge

(Strauss and Corbin 1998).”

The basic idea of the grounded theory approach is to read (and re-read) a textual database

(such as field notes) and discover or label concepts and their interrelationships. By using

the coding method in grounded theory, the researcher can conceptualize new factors and

measures and integrate them into the preliminary framework (Framework-1).

4.4 Techniques to Improve the Methodological Rigor

The most important issue in evaluating the rigor of qualitative research is trustworthiness.

Using techniques such as member checks and triangulation is critical to minimizing

distortion (Rubin and Babbie 2008). “Technical fixes” (e.g., theoretical sampling,

ethnographic interviews, triangulation, and respondent validation, etc.) can strengthen the

rigor of qualitative research if embedded in the research design and the process of data

collection and analysis (Barbour 2001). The rigor of qualitative research (e.g., case study)

often manifests itself in generality and validity of the study.

Generality refers to the degree to which a theory (i.e., the framework) can be extended to

other situations (Maxwell 1992). Validity refers to whether the concepts (i.e., categories,

factors, and measures) truly measure what they set out to measure (Kerlinger 1973).

Table 4-1 shows five techniques the researcher used to improve the methodological rigor

(generality and validity) in developing the characterization framework for BIM

implementations.

47

Table 4-1: Five techniques the researcher used to improve the methodological rigor in

developing the characterization framework for BIM implementations

Validity

1. Ethnographic interviews (Bauman 1992) (used for the development of case interview questions):

o Identifying interview questions that might need to be refined

o Identifying new questions that need to be probed in subsequent interviews

2. Triangulation (Bogdan and Biklen 2006) (used for the collection of project data):

o Primary data from face-to-face interviews with more than one interviewee per case project

o Secondary data from available project documents

3. Expert opinions (Gläser and Laudel 2004) (used for the selection of interviewees):

o AEC professionals, BIM program managers, and BIM specialists who are responsible for creating and using BIM on projects and are experienced in BIM implementations

4. Respondent validation (Byrne 2001) (used for the accuracy of project data collected):

o Informal check throughout interviews: interviewers verbally checking his or her understanding by paraphrasing and summarizing for clarification

o Formal check after interviews: interviewers request interviewees to double-check the project data present in case narratives

Generality

5. Theoretical sampling (Yin 2003) (used for the selection of case projects):

o A wide range of case projects with different project types, sizes, delivery methods, time periods of design and construction, and project locations

Technique 1: Ethnographic interviews (for the development of case interview

questions)

It is good research design to iterate analysis and collection of interview data (Bauman

1992). In ethnographic interviews, some interviews are conducted and examined prior to

additional interviewing. By conducting ethnographic interviews, the researcher can:

• Avoid making assumptions about the topic under study;

• Identify interview questions that might need to be refined by looking at what kind

of talk or discussion emerges when questions are asked;

48

• Identify new questions that are based on the experiences shared by the

interviewees and that need to be probed in subsequent interviews;

• Identify whom else researchers may want to interview.

Technique 2: Triangulation (for the collection of project data)

Triangulation is a technique that facilitates validation of data through cross verification

from more than two sources (Bogdan and Biklen 2006). Methodological triangulation

involves using more than one method to gather data, such as interviews, observations,

questionnaires, and documents (Denzin 1978). Triangulation gives a more detailed and

balanced picture of the situation (Altrichter et al. 2008). I collected primary data from

face-to-face interviews as well as secondary data from available project documents.

Technique 3: Expert opinions (for the selection of interviewees)

Experts have an outstanding and sometimes exclusive position in the context under

investigation (Gläser and Laudel 2004). Experts are a medium by which researchers want

to obtain opinions (or experiences) about relevant issues. The researcher selected AEC

practitioners, BIM program managers, and BIM specialists as interviewees. The reasons

are that they are 1) responsible for creating and using BIM on projects and/or 2)

experienced in BIM implementations. For each case study, the researcher met with one

(24 out of 40 cases) or a few interviewees (16 out of 40 cases) who were introduced by

the contacts within CIFE and its member companies.

Technique 4: Respondent validation (for the accuracy of project data collected)

In qualitative research, respondent validation (also known as member check or informant

feedback) is a technique used by researchers to help improve the validity of a study.

Without allowing respondents to validate the accuracy of their narratives, one-sidedness

will become a major concern (Byrne 2001). In an informal sense, the researcher carried

out respondent validation verbally throughout the conduct of interviews. The researcher

constantly checked her understanding by paraphrasing and summarizing for clarification.

49

In a formal sense, interviewees double-checked the project data and corrected what could

be perceived as wrong interpretations.

Technique 5: Theoretical sampling (for the selection of case projects)

Theoretical sampling refers to the process of choosing new cases to 1) compare with ones

that have already been studied, 2) gain a deeper understanding of analyzed cases, and 3)

facilitate the development of a framework (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Case projects are

not pre-specified in the first place. Instead the selection of case projects is sequential by a

rolling process. With theoretical sampling, the researcher attempted to cover a wide range

of projects with different project types, sizes, delivery methods, time periods of design

and construction, and project locations. The researcher improved the generality by

applying the characterization framework to document BIM implementations on a broad

range of projects.

50

CHAPTER 5 – RESEARCH TASKS

This chapter presents the evolving process of conducting the case studies and the research

tasks involved in data collection, data analysis and framework development.

5.1 Three Phases of Case Studies

The preliminary Framework-1 was grounded in pre-existing literature (Chapter 3). It

provided the point of departure for further developing the framework grounded in

empirical case studies. The development of the framework followed three iterative phases

of multiple case studies (Figure 5-1). Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and Table 5-3 give an

overview of the 40 case projects studied during the three phases. The 40 case projects

range in size from a few million dollars to several hundred million dollars, include public

and private projects in a range of construction sectors (residential, commercial,

institutional, industrial, and transportation), were delivered with several contractual

arrangements (design-bid-build, design/build, and CM/GC), and took place in several

regions on the globe (North America, Europe, Asia).

Figure 5-1: Three phases of case studies for the development of the characterization

framework for BIM implementations

51

Phase 1: 21 case studies towards Framework-2

The 21 case projects (Table 5-1) focused on projects involving researchers at the Center

for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) at Stanford University or practitioners

affiliated with CIFE to support the BIM implementation effort. Grounded in the first

batch of cases, the researcher developed the second version of the framework

(Framework-2) that replicated factors and measures in the preliminary framework as well

as incorporated factors and measures that emerged from the 21 cases.

Overlap exists between the 21 case studies and the 22 papers (Table 3-2) reviewed in

Chapter 3. Some of the 21 case projects were also documented in the published papers (as

noted in the references for the case projects in Table 5-1).

Phase 2: 11 case studies towards Framework-3

Framework-2 in turn guided the subsequent 11 case studies. On the 11 case projects

(Table 5-2), AEC organizations in Finland carried out the 3D/4D BIM implementations.

The case studies on the 11 Finish projects were part of the research on the Virtual

Building Environments (VBE) II project sponsored by the Technology Agency of

Finland (Tekes). These case studies then provided the ground for the conceptualization of

the third version of the framework (Framework-3).

Phase 3: 8 case studies reaching saturation

The researcher applied Framework-3 to 8 case projects (Table 5-3). The case studies on

the 8 projects were part of the Global Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) Studies in

U.S., Finland, and China sponsored by CIFE. The 8 case studies “saturated” factors and

measures in Framework-3 and the researcher could not find new factors and measures

from the last 8 case studies. That is to say, Framework-3 captured, described, and

organized all the factors and measures found on the last 8 case studies. At this point, the

researcher concluded that development of the characterization framework for BIM

implementations was completed.

52

Table 5-1: An overview of the 21 projects in the first phase of case studies

LEGEND

CF Commercial Facilities (e.g., office & retail complexes, theme parks)

ISF Institutional Facilities (e.g., university facilities, theaters, museums, public administration facilities)

IDF Industrial Facilities (e.g., pharmaceutical, biotech, semi-conduct)

TF Transportation Facilities (e.g., airport terminals, subway transit centers)

RF Residential Facilities (e.g., apartment buildings, houses)

DBB Design-Bid-Build

DB Design-Build

CM/GC Construction Managers / General Contractors (CM at Risk)

S Small (=< $ 5 million)

M Medium ($ 5 – 100 million)

L Large (>= $ 100 million)

Case

# Case Projects

Type of Project Delivery Method Size

CF ISF IDF TF RF DBB DB CM/

GC S M L

1

McWhinney Office Building, Colorado (1997-1998) (Koo and Fischer 2000) √ √ √

2

Sequus Pharmaceuticals Pilot Plant, Menlo Park (1997- 1999) (Staub et al. 2003) √ √ √

3

Experience Music Project, Seattle (1998 - 2000) (Fischer et al. 1998) √ √ √

4

Paradise Pier, Disney California Adventure, Los Angeles (1998 - 1999) (Schwegler et al. 2000) √ √ √

5

Helsinki University of Technology Auditorium-600, Helsinki (2000 - 2002) (Kam et al. 2003) √ √ √

53

Table 5-1 (cont’d): An overview of the 21 projects in the first phase of case studies

Case

# Case Projects



GC S M L

6 Baystreet Retail Complex, Emeryville (2000 - 2002) √ √ √

7 Genentech FRCII, South San Francisco (2001 - 2003) √ √ √

8

Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles (1999 - 2003) (Haymaker et al. 2004) √ √ √

9 Hong Kong Disneyland, Hong Kong (2001 - 2005) √ √ √

10

Pioneer Courthouse Rehabilitation Project, Portland (2003 - 2005) √ √ √

11

MIT Ray and Maria Stata Center, Boston (2000 - 2004) (Hastings et al. 2003) √ √ √

12

Banner Health Good Samaritan Hospital, Phoenix (2002 - 2004) √ √ √

13

California Academy of Science Project, San Francisco (2003 - 2006) √ √ √

14

Terminal 5 of Heathrow Airport, London (2003 - 2007) (Koerckel 2005) √ √ √

15

Residential Building, Stockholm (2002 - 2003) (Jongeling et al. 2005) √ √ √

54

Table 5-1 (cont’d): An overview of the 21 projects in the first phase of case studies

Case

# Case Projects



GC S M L

16

Pilestredet Park Urban Ecology Project, Oslo (1997-2005) (Gao et al. 2005) √ √ √

17

Regional Office Building, Washington DC (2004-2007) √ √ √

18 Jackson Courthouse, Jackson, Mississippi (2004-2007) √ √ √

19 Samsung LSI Fab Facility, Kiheung, Korea (2004-2005) √ √ √

20

Camino Medical Campus, Mountain View (2004-2007) (Khanzode et al. 2005) √ √ √

21 Fulton Street Transit Center, New York (2002-2007) √ √ √

55

Table 5-2: An overview of the 11 projects in the second phase of case studies

Case

# Case Projects



GC S M L

22 A Town-planning Project, Finland (2004 - 2005) √ √ √

23 Mamselli Low-rise Housing, Finland (2004 - 2005) √ √ √

24 Headquarter Building for NCC-Finland, Finland (2003 – 2004) √ √ √

25 Tali Apartment Building Project, Finland (2005 – 2006) √ √ √

26 Office Building Project in Oulu, Finland (2003 – 2004) √ √ √

27 Semi-detached Houses in Kerava (2003 – 2004) √ √ √

28

Koskelantie 22-24 Residential Renovation Project, Finland (2004 – 2005) √ √ √

29 Vantaan Silkinkulma Apartment, Finland (2003 – 2004) √ √ √

30 Vantann Ankkahovi Apartment, Finland (2004 – 2005) √ √ √

31 Pfizer, Scandinavian Headquarter Building, Finland (2001 – 2003) √ √ √

32 Aurora 2 University Building in Joensuu, Finland (2004 – 2006) √ √ √

56

Table 5-3: An overview of the 8 projects in the third phase of case studies

Case

# Case Projects



GC S M L

33 AEI Utility Tunnel (2005–2006) √ √ √

34 Telyas Residence at Long Island (2005) √ √ √

35 108 N. State Street Project, Chicago (2005-2007) √ √ √

36 Pier View Multifamily Housing Project (2006-2007) √ √ √

37 Helsinki Music Hall, Finland (2004-2009) √ √ √

38 Kunming Residential Complex, China (2006-2007) √ √ √

39 Banna Botanical Garden, China (2006-2007) √ √ √

40 Industrial Building in Baogang Steel Mill, China (2006-2008) √ √ √

5.2 Data Collection, Analysis, and Framework Development

Each phase of case studies ran through three major research tasks, i.e., data collection,

data analysis, and framework development (

57

Figure 5-2). Orlikowski (1993) emphasizes the advantages of proceeding data collection

and analysis iteratively with the early stages of the research being more open-ended, and

later stages being directed by the emerging concepts, and hence involving more

structured interview protocols.

58

Figure 5-2: Research activities and deliverables involved in data collection, analysis, and

framework development

Research task 1: data collection

1) Refining interview question list

Built on a list of questions developed by the Virtual Builders Roundtable, the interview

questionnaire for the first 21 case studies (Table 5-4) consisted of three parts. The first

part of the list of questions was designed to collect general information about a case

project, such as its size, type, location, and delivery methods, etc. The second part was

designed to collect specific data regarding the characteristics of creating and using BIM,

such as the purpose of BIM, project phases when BIM was built, stakeholders involved in

BIM, the level of details in BIM, and software functionality used, etc. The third part of

the list helped identify the realized BIM benefits as perceived by project stakeholders and

the quantifiable benefits of BIM on projects.

The researcher used open-ended questions so as to allow more flexibility in responses

and avoid leading questions. After completing the first 21 case studies, the researcher

modified the interview questionnaire for the following 11 case studies and 8 case studies.

The revised interview questionnaire incorporates two additional groups of questions

59

(indicated as in red in Table 5-5) to collect information about the company context of

BIM implementations and sharing BIM across-disciplines.

Table 5-4: The question list for the first phase of case study interviews

Project Context

1 Who are the project owner, architect, and contractor?

2 What are the project type, delivery method, contract value, and project location?

3 What are the project challenges that call for BIM?

Implementing BIM on a Project

Creating and using BIM

1 What was the purpose of creating BIM - project goals and objectives?

2 When was BIM built?

3 Who (how many people) built BIM? What were their roles and responsibilities? How were they involved in creating BIM?

4 What is the modeled project scope? What is the level of the detail in BIM? How were the 3D/4D components organized? How many design/schedule options were modeled?

5 What is the BIM software used? Are you satisfied with software functionality and why?

6 How long did it take to build BIM (in hours)? What was the cost to create BIM? Was there an explicit budget line item for the modeling effort? Who paid for BIM?

7 Who (how many people) reviewed BIM? How was BIM reviewed?

8 What aspects of the project were analyzed in BIM?

9 Was BIM updated? What is the reason for iterations of BIM?

10 What were the best aspects of the BIM-related processes? What aspects of the BIM-related processes need to be improved?

Impacts of BIM Implementations

Perceived BIM Impacts

1 What do you think of the impact of BIM on the project design?

2 What do you think of the impact of BIM on the timing of involving project stakeholders, the number of stakeholders engaged as well as the work responsibility and contractual relationships between stakeholder organizations?

3 What do you think of the impact of BIM on the execution and sequencing of the various types of tasks in the design-construction-operation process?

Quantifiable BIM Impacts

4 What are the quantifiable impacts of BIM on performance during the project?

5 What are the quantifiable impacts of BIM on performance upon the project completion?

60

Table 5-5: The additional questions in the revised interview questionnaire for the second

and third phase of case study interviews

Note: The text in red indicates the questions added to the original questionnaire.

Company Context

1 What is your company’s vision for BIM?

2 What is the current practice of BIM in your company?

Implementing BIM on a Project

Sharing 3D/4D Model

10 What was shared with BIM?

11 How was BIM shared?

12 How did the information flow among project participants and what was the BIM deliverable/format for each participating organization?

13 What were the challenges in the data exchange process?

2) Collecting primary data from face-to-face interviews

The list of interview questions was a guide for the researcher to follow. Besides, the

researcher also asked if the person being interviewed had a special story he or she would

like to tell. The researcher recorded her conversations with interviewees and took notes.

3) Collecting secondary data from available documents

Whenever possible, the researcher requested screen shots of BIM, work flow diagrams,

company brochures, and accounts in extant literature, which helped the researcher

become more familiar with the BIM implementations on the case projects.

Research tasks 2: data analysis

1) Transcribing and checking interview data

The researcher transcribed every interview conversation from the notes and tape

recording and then wrote case narratives. Table 5-6 shows an example of the narrative for

one of the case projects. The researcher also checked with interviewees by asking them to

proofread the case narratives and to clarify parts of the narratives that the researcher had

61

not understood well during the interviews. In addition, the researcher triangulated the

case narratives with extant documentation to make sure that the data presented in the case

narratives are correct and accurate.

2) Replicating existing factors and measures

Based on the case narratives, the researcher entered project data pertinent to BIM

implementations into the framework spreadsheet (Table 5-7) to replicate existing factors

and measures. When project data in a case exists to describe a particular measure in the

framework, the measure occurred in (or is replicated by) this case. The researcher marked

the measures that are replicated in a case with the symbol “x”. In this way, the researcher

calculated the consistency (occurrence) of each measure across the 40 cases as a

percentage ratio of the number of cases that exhibit the measure to the total number of

cases studied.

3) Discovering new factors and measures

The grounded theory method (Strauss and Corbin 1998) provides explicit procedures to

conceptualize new factors and measures as they emerge from case studies. There are

three types of coding: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding.

The researcher used open coding and selective coding for data analysis. By means of open coding, data are compared, and identical or similar statements are combined to form specific concepts. Through selective coding, the identified concepts are connected to the prescribed categories (an upper-level of abstraction) presented in a framework (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The researcher carried out data coding by assembling or sub-clustering words or break sentences into segments (Strauss and Corbin 1998).

Table 5-8 illustrates an example of the coding process. The researcher compared case

narratives, combined identical or similar statements (aggregation level 1) to form new

measures (aggregation level 2), and then linked the new measures to an existing factor or

pooled the closely-related measures to form a new factor (aggregation level 3).

4) Framework development

62

The evolving nature of developing the framework is demonstrated as follows:

• After using Framework-1 to document 21 case projects, the researcher found 25

new measures which became part of Framework-2. The researcher also revised

Framework-1 by breaking down the “perceived impacts on process” factor into

four sub-factors and adding descriptive features to some measures (Table 5-9).

• For example, for the measure “types of model uses”, the researcher incorporated 7

model uses emerging from the first 21 case studies.

• Framework-2 is shown in Table 5-10. The text in blue indicates the factors and

measures that were newly found or revised from being compared to Framework-1.

• After using Framework-2 to document 11 case projects, the researcher found one

new factor and 11 new measures. The researcher also revised Framework-2 by

breaking down the factors “modeled data” and “software tools” into sub-factors

and adding descriptive features to some of the measures (Table 5-11).

• Framework-3 is shown in Table 5-12. The text in red indicates the factors and

measures were newly found or revised from being compared to Framework-2.

• After using Framework-3 to document 8 case projects, the researcher did not find

any new factors and measures nor revised any existing factors and measures in

Framework-3 (Table 5-13).

63

Table 5-6: An example of case narrative for Case 6 (Baystreet Retail Complex)

Project Type: Retail Contract Value: $ 117 million

Contract Type: Design-bid-build Project Scope: 1,250,000 square feet

1. For what purposes was BIM used on this project?

Site constraints on this project were extremely severe: tightly bounded on three sides by a large

retail store, railroad tracks, and a creek, the site also contained unforeseen site conditions in the

form of contaminated soil from a previous industrial occupant, as well as human remains and

Indian artifacts from a Native American burial ground. The project schedule was only 14

months from start of construction to turnover of the first retail store space just before the

Christmas holiday. The 4D model was needed to accelerate the project. This retail development

suffered a two-month delay due to the unforeseen site conditions. The risk was that the project

would miss the turnover date. Thus, Bay Street required tight scheduling of concrete placement

and steel erection. The general contractor also used the 4D model to plan difficult logistical

challenges, such as getting concrete up five floors inside tight quarters.

2. When was BIM created and used?

The 3D model and 4D model were generated during the early construction phase.

3. Who was involved in the BIM implementation and what were their roles and

responsibilities?

The GC built the 3D and 4D models. During the review sessions, the GC, together with its

subcontractors, considered acceleration options and analyzed their resource and other

organizational needs along with their schedule and cost impact. Together with the developer, the

GC also evaluated several options to redesign parts of the project to enable partial opening or

faster construction.

4. What was modeled in BIM and what was the level of detail in BIM?

The 4D model contained 13,000 3D CAD objects and 900 activities at five levels of detail. Four

schedule alternatives were modeled.

64

Table 5-6 (cont’d): An example of case narrative for Case 6 (Baystreet Retail Complex)

Project Type: Retail Contract Value: $ 117 million

Contract Type: Design-bid-build Project Scope: 1,250,000 square feet

5. With which software tool was BIM created?

Architectural Desktop was used as the 3D software tool. Microsoft Project was used as the

scheduling tool. Disney’s InviznOne tool (a precursor to Common Point 4D) was used as the

4D software tool. VRML was the format used to transfer the 3D model to the 4D model.

6. How was BIM carried out?

The 3D model was generated from the 2D project drawings. The project schedule and the 3D

model were then merged into a 4D virtual building model.

7. For how much effort/costs was needed to implement BIM?

DPR spent roughly US$40,000, around 0.04% of the project's $117-million budget.

8. What were the impacts (benefits and obstacles) of BIM?

• Benefits of Supporting Product, Process and Organization: The 4D model had a positive

impact on the construction planning process. It identified opportunities to accelerate the

project. The 4D model was critical in the coordination and communication between GC,

subs and the developer.

• Benefits of Serving as Visualization, Planning, Analysis and Communication Tools: The

4D model helped analyze various acceleration options, their resources and other

organizational needs along with their schedule and cost impact. One acceleration option

was to erect the steel structure of the retail building concurrently with the concrete parking.

The 4D model detected a clash: no access to the parking area, which made it difficult to get

the concrete up five floors inside tight quarters. With the aid of visualization through the 4D

model, the final solution was to provide a connector bridge across the creek to facilitate the

acceleration at a lower cost. The 4D model also assisted in planning difficult logistical

challenges.

• Overall Business Performance: DPR was successful in accelerating the steel in the theater

area and saved three weeks that were credited to the 4D model, nearly 7% off the original

14-month schedule.

65

Table 5-7: An example showing how the measures are replicated across cases in

Framework-3

Notes:

1) Factors are indicated in the grey rows; and

2) “x” indicates that the measure is replicated in one particular case.

3) “Consistency” is a percentage ratio of the number of cases that exhibited the project data for each measure to the total number of cases studied.

ID Factors and Measures Case

#1

Case

#2

Case #n

(n<=40)

Consis-

tency

A1 Project Context

A1.1 Type of project x x x 100%

A1.2 Contract type x x x 100%

A1.3 Contract value vs. value of scope modeled x x 62.50%

A1.4 Project location x x x 100%

A1.5 Project start and completion x x x 100%

A1.6 Project size x x 68.75%

A1.7 Site constraints x 59.38%

A2 Company Context

A2.1 Vision into implementing BIM within the project participant’s companies

x 28.13%

A2.2 BIM R&D activities within the company x 28.13%

A2.3 Current BIM practices within the company x x x 100%

B1 Model Uses

B1.1 Purpose of creating BIM - project goals and objectives

x x 100%

B1.2 Aspects of the project analyzed in BIM x x 62.50%

B1.3 Types of model uses x x x 100%

B2 Timing of BIM

B2.1 Project phase(s) when BIM was built x x x 100%

B2.2 Project phase(s) when BIM was used x x x 100%

B2.3 Project phase(s) when BIM impacts were perceived x x x 100%

B3 Stakeholder Involvement

B3.1 Stakeholder organization(s) initiating BIM effort x x x 100%

B3.2 Stakeholder organization(s) paying for BIM x x x 93.75%

66

Table 5-7 (cont’d): An example showing how the measures are replicated across cases in

Framework-3


#1

Case

#2

Case #n

(n<=40)

Consis-

tency

B3.3 Stakeholder organization(s) building BIM x x x 100%

B3.4 Number of individuals building BIM x x 84.38%

B3.5 Stakeholder organization(s) using BIM x x x 100%

B3.6 Number of individuals using BIM x x 84.38%

B3.7 Stakeholder organization(s) reviewing BIM x x 71.88%

B3.8 Number of individuals reviewing BIM x 53.13%

B3.9 Stakeholder organization(s) owning BIM x 31.25%

B3.10 Stakeholder organization(s) controlling BIM x 31.25%

B3.11 Stakeholder organization(s) influencing on BIM x 31.25%

B4(a) Modeled Data: Modeled Scope

B4(a).1 Modeled scope of project x x x 96.88%

B4(a).2 Number of modeled disciplinary systems x x x 100%

B4(a).3 Number of design or schedule alternatives modeled

x x 62.50%

B4(b) Modeled Data: Model Structure

B4(b).1 Data structure in BIM x x x 96.88%

B4(b).2 Number of break-down levels in the data structure

x x 53.13%

B4(c) Modeled Data: Level of Detail

B4(c).1 Levels of detail in the 3D/4D model x x x 93.75%

B4(d) Modeled Data: Data Exchange

B4(d).1 Information flow among project participating organizations

x x x 90.91%

B4(d).2 Model deliverables for each participating organization

x x x 63.64%

B4(d).3 Challenges in the process of data exchange x x 81.82%

B5(a) Software Tools: Software Functionality

B5(a).1 BIM software used x x x 100%

B5(a).2 Useful functionality of BIM software x x x 100%

B5(a).3 Missing functionality of BIM software x x x 90.63%

67


Framework-3


#1

Case

#2

Case #n

(n<=40)

Consis-

tency

B5(a).4 Rating of software functionality to satisfy modeling requirements on a numerical scale from 1-5

x x x 90.63%

B5(b) Software Tools: Software Interoperability

B5(b).1 Challenges in software interoperability x x 81.82%

B6 Workflow

B6.1 Workflow of BIM process x x x 75%

B6.2 Number of iterations of BIM x x 65.63%

B6.3 Reasons for iterations of BIM x x 81.25%

B6.4 The best aspects of BIM process x x x 93.75%

B6.5 Needed improvements in BIM process x x 84.38%

B7 Effort and Cost

B7.1 Time (man-hours) to creating and/or managing BIM

x x 56.25%

B7.2 Cost of building and/or managing BIM x 37.50%

C1 Perceived Impacts on Product

C1.1 Rating of the impact of BIM on building design on a numerical scale from 1-5

x x x 100%

C1.2 Explanation of the impact of BIM on product x x x 100%

C2 Perceived Impacts on Organization

C2.1 Rating of the impact of BIM on project organization on a numerical scale from 1-5

x x x 100%

C2.2 Explanation of the impact of BIM on project organization

x x x 100%

C3 Perceived Impacts on Process

C3.1 Rating of the impact of BIM on project processes on a numerical scale from 1-5

x x x 100%

C3.2 Explanation of the impact of BIM on processes x x x 100%

68


Framework-3


#1

Case

#2

Case #n

(n<=40)

Consis-

tency

C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance during

Project Run-time

C4.1 Process Metrics for Interaction with Non-professionals

x 12.50%

C4.2 Process Metrics for Design Analysis x 62.5%

C4.3 Process Metrics for Building System (MEP) Coordination

x 6.25%

C4.4 Process Metrics for Drawing

Production

x 6.25%

C4.5 Process Metrics for Cost Estimating and Change Order Management

x 12.50%

C4.6 Process Metrics for Supply Chain Management (detailing-fabrication-delivery)

x 6.25%

C4.7 Process Metrics for 4D Planning and Coordination

x 6.25%

C5 Quantifiable Final Performance upon Project

Completion

C5.1 BIM helps reduce a project’s first costs ($ or hours)

3.13%

C5.2 BIM helps reduce a project’s life-cycle costs ($ or hours)

x 3.13%

C5.3 BIM helps reduce a project’s life-cycle value ($ or hours

0%

C5.4 BIM helps reduce a project’s schedule duration (Weeks)

x 12.50%

C5.5 BIM helps improve a project’s schedule conformance (%)

3.13%

C5.6 BIM helps improve a project’s quality (% conformance to explicitly stated design intent, normalized by relative weight of each quality item)

3.13%

C5.7 BIM helps improve a project’s safety performance (Incidents or lost-work hours)

3.13%

69

Table 5-8: An example showing the process of discovering new measures and factors

Case

No.

Aggregation level 1 Aggregation level 2 Aggregation

level 3

Narratives Measures Factors

23

“The 3D models modeled three design and two life-

cycle alternatives (architectural features, two air-

conditioning system alternatives: mixed cooling vs.

displaced cooling system). 3D models enabled the

team to develop multiple alternatives early in the

project and provided valuable life-cycle parameters

to the decision-makers during early phases.” Enable development of multiple design alternatives early on

Perceived impact on process

25

“The 3D model gave a clear view of how pieces go

together. The initial design required stick built by

the Architect, but in order to save time and costs in

the fabrication process, the fabricator suggested

using prefabricated panels. 3D model facilitated the

demonstration that the use of prefabricated panels

instead of stick built would be more cost-effective.

The initial design plan was changed from stick built

to panelized based on joint study of the 3D model.”

26

“Along with the 3D modeling process, the on-site

co-created detailing crossed contractual barriers

and sped up the shop drawing approval process.

The 3D modeling minimized the number of review

sessions. The cycle time of design review was

reduced from 5-6 weeks to 2-3 weeks.”

Expedite design coordination, shop drawing approval process, and production of construction documents

21 “3D models allowed the generation of elevations

and plans in a single time-cutting step and the

modifications to one model.”

23

“The architects reported about 50% time savings in

the design documentation phase as a result of

object-oriented libraries and catalogues,

parametric properties, knowledge reuse, and

various automation tools.”

70


21 case projects

Framework-1: (Figure 3-3 and Table 3-9)

# of Categories 3 # of Factors 13 # of Measures 38

21 cases: factors and measures (newly found or revised)

Revised factors:

• “Perceived impacts on process” broken down into three sub-factors

C3(a) Perceived Impacts on Process: Design Process

C3(b) Perceived Impacts on Process: Construction Process

C3(c) Perceived Impacts on Process: Operation & Maintenance Process

Newly found Measures:

• “Types of model uses” (and seven descriptive features for it) added to the factor “model uses”

B1.3 Types of model uses

• Interaction with non-professionals (e.g., for client briefing, schematic

design review, development permitting, and/or marketing)

• Analysis of building design options

• Building system coordination

• Production of design drawings and construction documents

• Quantity takeoff, cost estimating, and change order management

• Supply chain management (BIM-based detailing-fabrication-delivery)

• Construction planning and coordination (4D modeling)

• Four newly found measures added to the factor “stakeholders involvement”

B3.1 Stakeholder organization(s) initiating BIM effort

B3.2 Stakeholder organization(s) paying for BIM

B3.7 Stakeholder organization(s) reviewing BIM

B3.8 Number of individuals reviewing BIM

• Two newly found measures added to the factor “effort and cost”

B7.2 Time (man-hours) to managing BIM

B7.4 Cost of managing BIM

71

Table 5-9 (cont’d): Factors and measures found or revised after using Framework-1 to

document 21 case projects





• Seven newly found measures and their descriptive features added to the factor “quantifiable progress performance during project run-time”


• Reduced turnaround of permitting

• Increased number of stakeholders engaged

C4.2 Process Metrics for Design Analysis

• Increased number of design alternatives

• Reduced response latency (reduced time to clarify a problem)


• Timing of coordination: MEP coordination starting from DD phase

instead of CD phase.

• Duration of coordination: duration of MEP coordination by 1-2 months

• Weekly time for coordination: team spending 40% less of weekly time on

coordination

• Quality of coordination effort: quality of MEP coordination improved by

enabling more detailed coordination effort, more detected clashes, and

fewer issues left to the field

• Clashes detected: 100% of major clashes before the installation began

• Field conflicts: zero conflicts during the field installation.

• Defects (rework): 99% (estimated) first-time installation with zero

defects

• Requests for information (RFIs): RFIs between contractors and

designers by 60%-80%.

• Pre-fabrication: VDC enabled 75% more pre-fabrication in subs’ shops

• Smaller crew sizes for onsite assembly: 30% fewer sheet metal workers

than estimated and 55% fewer pipe fitters than estimated

• Fewer crew hours in the field: ~25-30% fewer crew hours in the field

C4.4 Process Metrics for Drawing Production

• Reduced design effort

• Reduced turnaround of shop-drawing review

72







• Seven newly found measures and their descriptive features added to the factor “quantifiable progress performance during project run-time” (cont’d)


• Increased accuracy of cost estimates: 95% of cost items estimated within +/-

2% of variation of final cost

• Reduced cost estimating effort

• Reduced number (or reduced cost growth) of change orders


• Cycle time of design review: reduced from 5-6 weeks to 2-3 weeks

• Engineering lead time of material procurement: (rebar) reduced from 10

days to 3 days

• Onsite RFI's: reduced by 80%

• Turnaround of detailing-fabrication-delivery: (rebar) within 5 days


• Number of design and schedule alternatives: 20 different design and

schedule alternatives evaluated over a two-week period

• Time needed to resolve constructability issues: reduced from several hours

to less than 10 minutes

• Number of people involved in design review: ~200 people

• Closeness of bid results: within +/- 2.5 percent of the owner’s budget

• Two newly found measures added to the factor “quantifiable impacts upon project completion”



C5.3 BIM helps reduce a project’s life-cycle value ($ or hours)





73







• The measure “explanation of the impacts on process” broken down into three measures

C3(a).1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on design process

C3(b).1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on construction process

C3(c).1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on operation & maintenance process

• The measure “rating of the impacts on process” broken down into three measures

C3(a).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on design process on a numerical scale from 1-5

C3(b).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on construction process on a numerical scale

C3(c).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on operation & maintenance process on a numerical scale from 1-5

Revised Measures:

• Four descriptive features for the measure “levels of detail”

B4.6 Levels of detail in the 3D/4D model

• project (building/site)

• system

• sub-system/assembly

• component/part

• Five descriptive features for the measure “perceived impacts of BIM on product”

C1.1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on product

• Improve the quality of building design

• Improve the quality of construction documents

• Improve the accuracy of cost estimation (by obtaining actual

verifiable quantities from BIM)

• Improve the control of building life cycle costs, the operation of

technical systems, and the working conditions for facility maintenance

and management personnel (by enabling a BIM-based FM system)

• Improve the reliability of building design

74






Revised Measures:

• Nine descriptive features for the measure “perceived impacts of BIM on organization”


• Engage more non-professionals in providing more input and hence

having more influence on the design

• Engage downstream designers, GC and subs early and frequently in the

schematic design and design development phases

• Engage more designers’ efforts in the early design phase

• Foster more collaborative contractual relationships

• Externalize and share project issues among more project stakeholders so

as to solve discovered problems more collaboratively

• Engage subs early to coordinate their work

• Engage fewer or no draftsmen in the process of drawing production (by

little or no division between design development and construction

documentation)

• Release foremen from repetitive work in terms of re-calculating and

verifying the quantities from estimators

• Engage more estimators’ effort in their company’s R&D activities (by

using man-hours saved from cost estimating)

75






Revised Measures:

• Fourteen descriptive features for the measure “perceived impacts of BIM on design process”


• Facilitate the process for owners and end users to inspect and evaluate

aesthetic and functional characteristics of building design

• Facilitate the process for non-professionals to understand the design

intent and stay up-to-date with project development

• Facilitate the exploration of design options

• Accelerate the decision-making process (by fast analysis of design

options)

• Accelerate the turnaround of design coordination

• Facilitate the iterative design process between multiple disciplines

• Facilitate the production of construction documents

• Accelerate the process of determining the project budget

• Accelerate the construction estimating and cost feedback to design

• Facilitate the generation of building product specifications early in the

design phase (by integrating standard product libraries to the design in

BIM)

• Incorporate more off-site fabrication and assembly in building design

and hence reduce field labor costs (by integrating standard building

product libraries to the design in BIM)

• Shorten the engineering lead-time (by streamlining schedule information

flows between engineering, fabrication, and erection)

• Accelerate the manufacturing turn-around (e.g., by transferring 3D CAD

data to computer numerically controlled (CNC) fabrication)

• Facilitate the process for fabricators and subcontractors to visualize and

understand the intricacy of the frame and connection details in a 3D

structural model

76


newly found or revised. The bullets are the descriptive features for a particular measure.)

A Context

A1 Project Context

A1.1 Type of project

A1.2 Contract type

A1.3 Contract value

A1.4 Project location

A1.5 Project start and completion

A1.6 Project size

A1.7 Site constraints

B Implementation

B1 Model Uses


B1.2 Aspects of the project analyzed in BIM










77

Table 5-10 (cont’d): Framework-2 (The text in blue indicates the factors and measures

that are newly found or revised. The bullets are the descriptive features for a particular

measure.)

B Implementation (cont’d)

B2 Timing of BIM

B2.1 Project phase(s) when BIM were built

B2.2 Project phase(s) when BIM were used




B3.3 Stakeholder organization(s) building BIM

B3.4 Number of individuals building BIM

B3.5 Stakeholder organization(s) using BIM

B3.6 Number of individuals using BIM



B4 Modeled Data

B4.1 Modeled scope of project

B4.2 Number of modeled disciplinary systems

B4.3 Number of design (or schedule) alternatives modeled

B4.4 Data structure in BIM

B4.5 Number of break-down levels in the data structure

B4.6 Levels of detail in the 3D/4D model

• Project (building/site)

• System

• Sub-system/assembly

• Component/part

78


that are newly found or revised.)


B5 Software Tools

B5.1 BIM software used

B5.2 Useful functionality of BIM software

B5.3 Missing functionality of BIM software

B5.4 Rating of software functionality to satisfy modeling requirements on a numerical scale from 1-5

B6

Workflow

B6.1 Workflow of BIM process

B6.2 Number of iterations of BIM

B6.3 Reasons for iterations of BIM

B6.4 The best aspects of BIM process

B6.5 Needed improvements in BIM process

B7 Effort and Cost

B7.1 Time (man-hours) to creating BIM

Time (man-hours) to managing BIM

Cost of building managing BIM

B7.2

B7.3


79



measure.)

C Performance Impacts








technical systems, and the working conditions for facility

maintenance and management personnel (by enabling a BIM-

based FM system)





• Engage more non-professionals in providing more input and

hence having more influence on the design

• Engage downstream designers, GC and subs early and frequently

in the schematic design and design development phases



• Externalize and share project issues among more project

stakeholders so as to solve discovered problems more

collaboratively


• Engage fewer or no draftsmen in the process of drawing

production (by allowing little or no division between design

development and construction documentation)

• Release foremen from repetitive work in terms of re-calculating

and verifying the quantities from estimators

• Engage more estimators’ effort in their company’s R&D

activities (by using man-hours saved from cost estimating)


80



measure.)

C Performance Impacts (cont’d)

C3(a)

Perceived Impacts on Process: Design Process


• Facilitate the process for owners and end users to inspect and

evaluate aesthetic and functional characteristics of building

design

• Facilitate the process for non-professionals to understand the

design intent and stay up-to-date with project development


• Accelerate the decision-making process (by fast analysis of

design options)


• Facilitate the iterative design process between multiple

disciplines



• Accelerate the construction estimating and cost feedback to

design

• Facilitate the generation of building product specifications early

in the design phase (by integrating standard building product

libraries to the design in BIM)

• Incorporate more off-site fabrication and assembly in building

design and hence reduce field labor costs (by integrating

standard building product libraries to the design in BIM)

• Shorten the engineering lead-time (by streamlining schedule

information flows between engineering, fabrication, and

erection)

• Accelerate the manufacturing turn-around (e.g., by transferring

3D CAD data to computer numerically controlled (CNC)

fabrication)

• Facilitate the process for fabricators and subcontractors to

visualize and understand the intricacy of the frame and

connection details in a 3D structural model


81



measure.)


C3(b)

Perceived Impacts on Process: Construction Process


• Reduce the amount of material stored on site (by reducing the

batch size of shop drawings and placing procurement orders

more frequently)

• Expedite work packaging or phased handover

• Support the evaluation and analysis of multiple construction and

facility operation strategies during master planning

• Make construction bids closer in range

• Brief bidders about the owner’s or GC’s intentions

• Facilitate the process of change management (by automatically

updating drawings when changes are made in BIM)

• Facilitate the construction process (by cutting components to

precise dimensions for adequate fit)

• Facilitate the procurement and fabrication processes (by directly

extracting dimensions and component placement information

from BIM for fabricators or suppliers)

• Facilitate communication of the construction sequencing

required by engineers’ specifications to potential contractors

• Expedite construction permitting

• Improve the reliability and executability of the contractor’s

master schedule

• Streamline concurrent facility operations and construction

• Facilitate communication of project status to stakeholders

• Enable early detection of potential site logistics and accessibility

constraints

• Enable early identification of work scope and interferences

between trades

C3(b).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on construction process on a numerical scale from 1-5

82



measure.)





C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance during Project Run-time










• Duration of coordination: duration of MEP coordination by 1-2

months

• Weekly time for coordination: team spending 40% less of weekly time

on coordination

• Quality of coordination effort: quality of MEP coordination improved

by enabling more detailed coordination effort, more detected clashes,

and fewer issues left to the field

• Clashes detected: 100% of major clashes before the installation

began



defects



• Pre-fabrication: VDC enabled 75% more pre-fabrication in subs’

shops

• Smaller crew sizes for onsite assembly: 30% fewer sheet metal

workers than estimated and 55% fewer pipe fitters than estimated


83



measure.)


C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance during Project Run-time (cont’d)





• Increased accuracy of cost estimates: 95% of cost items estimated

within +/- 2% of variation of final cost





• Engineering lead time of material procurement: (rebar) reduced from

10 days to 3 days






• Time needed to resolve constructability issues: reduced from several

hours to less than 10 minutes



C5 Quantifiable Final Performance upon Project Completion








84


11 case projects

Framework-2: (Table 5-10)



Newly found factors:

• “Company context” added to the category “context”

A2 Company Context

Revised factors:

• “Modeled data” broken down into four sub-factors





• “Software tools” broken down into two sub-factors




• Three newly found measures added to the factor “stakeholders involvement”

B3.9 Stakeholder organization(s) owning BIM

B3.10 Stakeholder organization(s) controlling BIM

B3.11 Stakeholder organization(s) influencing on BIM

• Three newly found measures added to the sub-factor “software tools: software functionality”



B4(d).3 Challenges in the process of data exchange

• One newly found measure added to the factor “software tools: software interoperability”

B5(b).1 Challenges in software interoperability

85




# of

Categories 3 # of Factors 13 # of Measures 63


Revised Measures:

• Two descriptive features added for the measure “perceived impacts of BIM on design process”


• Accelerate the turnaround of permit approvals and early start of

developers’ marketing efforts

• Facilitate the process for home buyers to compare alternatives and

make the decision to buy

• Two descriptive features added for the measure “perceived impacts of BIM on construction process”


• Facilitate the management of owner-initiated change orders (by

quickly showing the cost impact of these change orders and

improving the accuracy of Bills of Quantities)

• Reduce chances for the owner or GC to overpay contingency for

unforeseen change orders and allowance for materials or equipment

not yet selected (by accurately defining the scope of work in

subcontract bid packages)

• Three descriptive features added for the measure “perceived impacts of BIM on operation & maintenance process”


• Facilitate the space-planning for facility managers in the early stage

of a project (by color-coding user units and departments)

• Facilitate the re-use of as-built BIM in the operations and

maintenance phase (by updating the information from the design

phase and developing as-built BIM during construction)

• Facilitate the performance reporting for facility managers to steer the

building operation (conformance to targets) with the help of clearly

documented performance metrics

• Two descriptive features added for the measure “process metrics for drawing production”


• Enhanced capacity of drawing production: numbers of drawings

created from BIM vs. total numbers of drawings produced

• Change in the distribution of design effort

86


newly found or revised for Framework-1; and the text in red indicates the factors and

measures that are newly found or revised for Framework-2. The bullets are the

descriptive features for a particular measure.)

A Context

A1 Project Context

A1.1 Type of project

A1.2 Contract type

A1.3 Contract value

A1.4 Project location

A1.5 Project start and completion

A1.6 Project size

A1.7 Site constraints

A2 Company Context

A2.1 Vision into implementing BIM within the project participant’s companies

A2.2 BIM R&D activities within the project participant’s company

A2.3 Current BIM practices within the project participant’s company (BIM platform choices, data standardization, internal and external organizational alignment (e.g., staffing, communication, and coordination))

B Implementation

B1 Model Uses


B1.2 Aspects of the project analyzed in BIM


• Establishment of owner requirements









• Facility management

87


that are newly found or revised for Framework-1; and the text in red indicates the factors

and measures that are newly found or revised for Framework-2.)


B2 Timing of BIM

B2.1 Project phase(s) when BIM were built


B2.3 Project phase(s) when BIM impacts were perceived





B3.4 Number of individuals building BIM


B3.6 Number of individuals using BIM



B3.9 Stakeholder organization(s) owning BIM


B3.11 Stakeholder organization(s) influencing on BIM


B4(a).1 Modeled scope of project

B4(a).2 Number of modeled disciplinary systems

B4(a).3 Number of design (or schedule) alternatives modeled


B4(b).1 Data structure in BIM

B4(b).2 Number of break-down levels in the data structure


B4(c).1 Levels of detail in the 3D/4D model

• Project (building/site)

• System

• Sub-system/assembly

• Component/part

88



and measures that are newly found or revised for Framework-2.)





B4(d).3 Challenges in the process of data exchange


B5(a).1 BIM software used

B5(a).2 Useful functionality of BIM software

B5(a).3 Missing functionality of BIM software

B5(a).4 Rating of software functionality to satisfy modeling requirements on a numerical scale from 1-5


B5(b).1 Challenges in software interoperability

B6

Workflow

B6.1 Workflow of BIM process

B6.2 Number of iterations of BIM

B6.3 Reasons for iterations of BIM

B6.4 The best aspects of BIM process

B6.5 Needed improvements in BIM process

B7 Effort and Cost

B7.1 Time (man-hours) to creating BIM

B7.2 Time (man-hours) to managing BIM

B7.3 Cost of creating BIM


89



and measures that are newly found or revised for Framework-2. The bullets are the




C1.1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on product (design of building)






technical systems, and the working conditions for facility

maintenance and management personnel (by enabling a BIM-

based FM system)





• Engage more non-professionals in providing more input and

hence having more influence on the design

• Engage downstream designers, GC and subs early and frequently

in the schematic design and design development phases



• Externalize and share project issues among more project

stakeholders so as to solve discovered problems more

collaboratively


• Engage fewer or no draftsmen in the process of drawing

production (by allowing little or no division between design

development and construction documentation)

• Release foremen from repetitive work in terms of re-calculating

and verifying the quantities from estimators

• Engage more estimators’ effort in their company’s R&D

activities (by using man-hours saved from cost estimating)


90






C3(a)

Perceived Impacts on Process: Design Process


• Facilitate the process for owners and end users to inspect and

evaluate aesthetic and functional characteristics of building design

• Facilitate the process for non-professionals to understand the

design intent and stay up-to-date with project development


• Accelerate the decision-making process (by fast analysis of design

options)


• Facilitate the iterative design process between multiple disciplines



• Accelerate the construction estimating and cost feedback to design

• Facilitate the generation of building product specifications early in

the design phase (by integrating standard building product

libraries to the design in BIM)

• Incorporate more off-site fabrication and assembly in building

design and hence reduce field labor costs (by integrating standard

building product libraries to the design in BIM)

• Shorten the engineering lead-time (by streamlining schedule

information flows between engineering, fabrication, and erection)

• Accelerate the manufacturing turn-around (e.g., by transferring 3D

CAD data to computer numerically controlled (CNC) fabrication)

• Facilitate the process for fabricators and subcontractors to

visualize and understand the intricacy of the frame and connection

details in a 3D structural model

• Accelerate the turnaround of permit approvals and early start of

developers’ marketing efforts

• Facilitate the process for home buyers to compare alternatives and

make the decision to buy


91






C3(b)

Perceived Impacts on Process: Construction Process


• Reduce the amount of material stored on site (by reducing the batch

size of shop drawings and placing procurement orders more

frequently)

• Expedite work packaging or phased handover

• Support the evaluation and analysis of multiple construction and

facility operation strategies during master planning

• Make construction bids closer in range

• Brief bidders about the owner’s or GC’s intentions

• Facilitate the process of change management (by automatically

updating drawings when changes are made in BIM)

• Facilitate the construction process (by cutting components to

precise dimensions for adequate fit)

• Facilitate the procurement and fabrication processes (by directly

extracting dimensions and component placement information from

BIM for fabricators or suppliers)

• Facilitate communication of the construction sequencing required

by engineers’ specifications to potential contractors

• Expedite construction permitting

• Improve the reliability and executability of the contractor’s

schedule

• Streamline concurrent facility operations and construction

• Facilitate communication of project status to stakeholders

• Enable early detection of site logistics and accessibility constraints

• Enable early identification of work interferences between trades

• Facilitate the management of owner-initiated change orders (by

quickly showing the cost impact of these change orders and

improving the accuracy of Bills of Quantities)

• Reduce chances for the owner or GC to overpay contingency for

unforeseen change orders and allowance for materials or

equipment not yet selected (by accurately defining the scope of

work in subcontract bid packages)

C3(b).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on construction process on a numerical scale from 1-5

92

Table 5-12 (cont’d): Framework-3




• Facilitate the space-planning for facility managers in the early

stage of a project (by color-coding user units and departments)

• Facilitate the re-use of as-built BIM in the operations and

maintenance phase (by updating the information from the design

phase and developing as-built BIM during construction)

• Facilitate the performance reporting for facility managers to steer

the building operation (conformance to targets) with the help of

clearly documented performance metrics


C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance during Project Run-time










• Duration of coordination: decreased by 1-2 months

• Weekly time for coordination: team spending 40% less of weekly time

• Quality of coordination effort: quality of MEP coordination improved

by enabling more detailed coordination effort, more detected clashes,

and fewer issues left to the field

• Clashes detected: 100% of major clashes before installation began



defects



• Pre-fabrication: 75% more pre-fabrication in subs’ shops

• Smaller crew sizes for onsite assembly: 30% fewer sheet metal

workers than estimated and 55% fewer pipe fitters than estimated


93

Table 5-10 (cont’d): Framework-3


C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance during Project Run-time (cont’d)


• Enhanced capacity of drawing production: numbers of drawings created

from BIM vs. total numbers of drawings produced


• Change in the distribution of design effort



• Increased accuracy of cost estimates: 95% of cost items estimated within

+/- 2% of variation of final cost





• Engineering lead time of material procurement: from 10 days to 3 days






• Time needed to resolve constructability issues: a few hours to 10

minutes



C5 Quantifiable Final Performance upon Project Completion








94


8 case projects




Newly found factors: None Revised factors: None Newly found Measures: None

Revised Measures: None

95

CHAPTER 6 – RESEARCH RESULTS

Grounded in 40 case studies and developed through 3 rounds of data collection and

analysis, the final version of the framework (Table 6-1 and Table 5-12) is:

• A structure (Table 6-1) that organizes the characteristics of BIM implementations in

an elaborating level of detail (from the highly conceptual characterization at the

“category-factor” level to the detailed capture in “measures”).

• A checklist (Table 5-12) that characterizes BIM implementations into 3 categories

(itemized by A, B, and C), 14 factors (itemized by A1, A2 …) and 74 measures

(itemized by A1.1, A1.2 ...).

The vertical structure of the framework (Table 6-1) as presented by the row header

represents the evolving process of planning, executing, and evaluating BIM

implementations. First, the motivation of using BIM is often triggered by situations,

challenges, requirements, and constraints on a project or within a company. Second, how

a BIM implementation is executed affects the design of the product (building), the project

organization, and the processes carried out on a project. In turn, this impact on product,

organization, and process design affects the overall project performance.

The horizontal structure of the framework (Table 6-1) as presented by the column header

represents the increasing level of detail in documentation when BIM is implemented on a

project. The framework has three main categories. Each category is described with

several factors. Each factor is described with one or several measures.

The three main categories conceptually characterize three main aspects of BIM

implementations on projects.

• Starting a BIM implementation is often subject to the project-specific or

company-specific context (Category A).

• When carrying out a BIM implementation (Category B), AEC practitioners

determine a range of specific implementation factors.

96

• After implementing BIM, professionals evaluate the perceived or quantifiable

impacts (categories C) during the project run-time and upon its completion.

Table 6-1: A characterization framework to document BIM implementations on

construction projects

Categories Factors Measures

(Table 5-12)

A Context A1 Project Context A1.1 – A1.7

A2 Company Context A2.1 – A2.3

B Implementation B1 Model Uses B1.1 – B1.2

B2 Timing of BIM B2.1 – B2.3

B3 Stakeholder Involvement B3.1 – B3.11

B4

B4(a) Modeled Data: Modeled Scope B4(a).1–

B4(a).3

B4(b) Modeled Data: Model Structure B4(b).1 –

B4(b).2

B4(c) Modeled Data: Level of Detail B4(c).1

B4(d) Modeled Data: Data Exchange B4(d).1 –

B4(d).3

B5 B5(a) Software Tools: Software Functionality

B5(a).1 –

B5(a).4

B5(b) Software Tools: Software Interoperability B5(b).1

B6 Workflow B6.1 – B6.5

B7 Effort and Cost B7.1 – B7.2


C1 Perceived Impacts on Product C1.1 – C1.2

C2 Perceived Impacts on Organization C2.1 – C2.2

C3

C3(a) Perceived Impacts on Process:

Design Process

C3(a).1 –

C3(a).2

C3(b) Perceived Impacts on Process:

Construction Process

C3(b).1 –

C3(b).2

C3(c) Perceived Impacts on Process:

Operation & Maintenance Process

C3(b).1 – C3(b).2

C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance

during Project Run-time

C4.1 – C4.7

C5 Quantifiable Final Performance

upon Project Completion

C5.1 – C5.7

97

To document the three aspects of BIM implementations in detail, it is necessary to

formalize and structure factors within each of the three categories, i.e., context,

implementation, and performance impacts.

• The context category includes two factors, i.e., project context and organization

context.

• The implementation category characterizes the execution of a BIM

implementation with seven factors, i.e., why (modeling uses), when (timing of

BIM), who (stakeholder involvement), what (modeled data), with which tools

(BIM software), how (workflow), and for how much (effort/cost) a BIM

implementation is done. Modeled data are described by four sub-factors, i.e.,

modeled scope, model structure, level of detail, and data exchange.

• The performance impact category uses three factors to describe the professionals’

perception of the impacts from implementing BIM on a project, i.e., the perceived

impacts on the product (i.e., facilities), organization of the project team, and the

design-construction-operation processes. The performance impact category also

has two factors to describe the quantifiable impacts of a BIM implementation, i.e.,

performance during the project run-time and final performance upon project

completion.

This framework also identifies 74 measures that provide concrete measurements of the 14

factors. Table 5-12 specifies all the 74 measures in the framework. For instance, the

factor “timing of BIM” is characterized by three measures: 1) the time at which project

participants create BIM, 2) the length of time that BIM is used, and 3) the time period

during which the impacts are in effect. Another example is the 11 measures that capture

the factor “stakeholder involvement.” Stakeholder involvement can be characterized in

terms of the roles they play in implementing BIM (i.e., initiating, paying for, building,

using, reviewing, owning, and/or influencing on BIM) as well as the number of

stakeholders involved in building, using, and reviewing BIM.

98

CHAPTER 7 – RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION AND VALIDATION

This chapter presents the requirements of a good characterization framework for BIM

implementations, the metrics and methods applied for validation, and the validation

results.

The researcher interprets the data from the analysis of the 40 case projects as evidence for

the sufficiency, consistency, and structured integrity of the framework for cross-

project comparisons of BIM implementations. Based on the evidence, the researcher

claim that the research contribution to the knowledge in the field of AEC is a

characterization framework for BIM implementations that:

• documents project data into categories, factors, and measures; and

• captures why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, for

how much, and how well BIM implementations were done.

7.1 Requirements of a Good Characterization Framework for BIM

Implementations and an Overview of Validation Metrics and Methods

The quality of this framework depends on its capability to meet the five requirements of a

good characterization framework for BIM implementations (Figure 7-1).

99

Figure 7-1: Requirements of a good characterization framework for BIM

implementations

A good framework has documentation power:

1. Structured documentation: The framework organizes the project data of BIM

implementations in a structured way.

2. Sufficient and consistent capture: The framework captures the project data of

BIM implementations as sufficiently and consistently as needed for documenting

why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, for how

much, and how well BIM is implemented across different projects.

3. A good framework supports the comparison of BIM implementations across

projects to gain insights on implementation patterns.

A good framework has methodological rigor that is strengthened when techniques to

improve the generality and validity of the data collection and analysis process are applied

to research design and data analysis (Barbour 2001).

4. Generality: Generality refers to the degree to which a theory (i.e., the framework)

can be extended to other situations (Maxwell 1992). The framework applies to a

100

wide spectrum of projects with variations in project type, size, delivery method,

time period of design and construction, and project location.

5. Validity: Validity refers to whether the concepts (i.e., categories, factors, and

measures) truly measure what they set out to measure (Kerlinger 1973). The

validity of the framework depends on how well the factors and measures in the

framework reflect the BIM implementations which they are intended to

document. To meet these five requirements of a good characterization framework for BIM

implementations, the researcher set up the following validation metrics and methods

(Table 7-1).

101

Table 7-1: Validation metrics and methods for the characterization framework for BIM

implementations

Validation Requirements Validation

Metrics Validation Methods

DO

CU

ME

NT

AT

ION

PO

WE

R

• Structured

documentation

Structured or unstructured

Structure present or not

• Sufficient

capture

% of sufficiency

The sufficiency of Framework Ver. (1/2/3) =

# of measures in Framework Ver. (1/2/3)

# of measures in Framework Ver. 3

• Consistent

capture

% of consistency

Framework Ver. (n) =

# of measures with (>= 25%) occurrence

Total # of measures

• Support of comparison Implementation patterns discerned?

• Selecting factors and measures from the framework to develop a crosswalk that qualitatively shows the relationship between factors or measures

• Comparing project data captured by these factors and measures across the 40 cases

• Presenting a crosswalk graphically in a table or figure

• Discerning implementation patterns from analyzing the crosswalk

ME

TH

OD

O-L

OG

ICA

L R

IGO

R

• Generality The framework can be applied to a wide spectrum of projects with variations in project type, size, delivery method, time period of design and construction, and project location.

• Validity Techniques are used in research design to ensure the validity of the data collection and analysis process.

• Ethnographic interviews: Interview questions become refined and more specific in the course of fieldwork and a parallel process of data analysis (Keen, 1995).

• Triangulation: multiple data sources are used for data collection (Johnson, 1997).

• Selection of interviewees: Interviewees are key staff at practices and people responsible for BIM implementations on projects.

• Interviewee validation: Interviewees double check the data presented in case narratives to ensure that the researcher “got it right” (Marshall and Rossman, 2006).

102

7.2 Validation Results

The following sections describe the findings from validating the characterization

framework for BIM implementations.

7.2.1 Validating the documentation power of the characterization framework for

BIM implementations

The researcher validated the documentation power of the framework by evaluating how

well the framework can 1) organize the project data of BIM implementations in a

structured way, 2) sufficiently capture the project data as much as needed to document

BIM implementations and to enable the comparison of implementations across projects,

and 3) consistently capture the BIM implementations across projects.

1) Structured documentation

The framework needs to have schemas that classify and organize the characteristics of

BIM implementations.

In the overview map of the characterization framework for BIM implementations (Figure

7-2), the vertical structure presents the classification scheme of “contexts –

implementation – performance impacts”, which represents the evolving process of

planning, executing, and evaluating BIM. The horizontal structure presents the

classification scheme of “category – factor – measure”, which represents the increasing

level of detail in documentation when BIM is implemented. That is to say, each category

is characterized with several factors and each factor is described with one or several

measures.

The framework consists of 3 categories, 14 factors, and 74 measures (see Table 6-1) that

characterize a BIM implementation at three levels of detail and enables the

documentation of a BIM implementation in a structured way.

103

Figure 7-2: Overview map of the characterization framework for BIM implementations

2) Sufficient capture

The capture of BIM implementations has to be “sufficient” to document implementations

to enable the comparison of implementations across projects. When new measure(s) (i.e.,

measures not observed on previous cases and not originally covered in the framework)

emerged from a particular case, the researcher added them to the framework and tested

them in the subsequent case studies. Therefore, the fewer new measures the researcher

had to add to the framework as the researcher carried out more case studies, the more

confidence the researcher gained that the framework is sufficiently developed.

The sufficiency of the framework is calculated as the percent ratio of the number of

measures in each version of the framework to the number of measures in the final version

of the framework (Table 7-2).

Category Factor Measure

Contexts

Implementatio

Performance

104

Table 7-2: Calculating the sufficiency of the three versions of the characterization

framework for BIM implementations

# of

Measures # of newly found

measures Sufficiency

Framework-1

(applied to 21 cases) 38

25 measures added to Framework-2

38/74x 100% =51%

Framework-2


11 measures added to Framework-3

63/74 x 100% =85%

Framework-3


0 new measures found

74/74 x 100% =100%

The preliminary framework (Framework-1) had 38 measures and the sufficiency of

Framework-1 is 51%. After documenting BIM implementations with Framework-1 on 21

cases, the researcher found 25 new measures and added them to Framework-2. Hence, the

sufficiency of Framework-2 is 85%. Afterwards, the researcher used Framework-2 to

study 11 more projects and incorporated 13 new measures to Framework-3. These newly

added measures expand the view of BIM at the level of a project to that at the level of a

firm so as to exhibit such characteristics as company context, inter-organizational

collaboration, data exchange, software interoperability, etc. After applying the

Framework-3 to another 8 case studies, the researcher could not find new factors and

measures. The factors and measures in Framework-3 covered the eight case studies

completely. Therefore, the sufficiency of Framework-3 is 100%. That is to say, within the

scope of the 40 case projects, the framework is able to capture all the major

characteristics related to why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools,

how, for how much, and how well BIM implementations are done.

3) Consistent capture

The framework must be “consistent” to ensure that the measures are applicable from one

case to another. “Consistency” assesses the occurrence of each measure across all the

cases. The consistency of each measure in the framework across the 40 cases is

calculated as a percentage ratio of the number of cases that exhibit the project data for

each measure to the total number of cases studied (Table 7-3). The more frequently

105

measures (related to factors, e.g., model uses, timing of BIM, etc.) occurred on the 40

cases, the more confidence the researcher gained that this framework is consistent.

Table 7-3: Examples of calculating the consistency (occurrence) of measures across the

40 cases

ID Measures Case #1 Case #2 Case #n

(N<= 40)

Consistency (%)

# of cases reported “1”

# of total cases

1 – Measure reported in a case, 0 – Measure not reported in a case

B6.

1 Workflow of BIM 1 1 … 75%

B6.

2 Number of iterations 1 0 … 66%

B6.

3 Reasons for iterations 1 0 … 81%

B6.

4 The best aspects of BIM process

1 1 … 94%

B6.

5 Needed improvements in BIM process

1 1 … 56%

After calculating the consistency (occurrence) of each measure across the 40 cases (Table

5-7), the researcher stratified the 74 measures in Framework-3 into three groups

according to their occurrence in 40 cases (Figure 7-3 and Table 7-4).

○ Level 1 (high level of consistency – measures occurred in more than 75% of the

case projects): 56% of the 74 measures were observed in more than 75% of the

case projects. These measures focus mostly on describing the project context to

implement BIM and specifying the implementation factors (such as model uses,

timing, stakeholder involvement, level of detail, workflow, etc.) and their impacts

on product, organization and process.

106

○ Level 2 (medium level of consistency – measures occurred in 25% - 75% of the

case projects): 20% of the 74 measures were observed in 25% - 75% of the case

projects. These measures (such as contract value, modeling cost, and so on) did

not reach the high level of occurrence in our case studies because they were often

confidential and not accessible.

○ Level 3 (low level of consistency - measures occurred in fewer than 25% of the

case projects): 24% of the 74 measures were observed in fewer than 25% of the

case projects. Most measures at this level fall into the category “quantifiable

project performance.” During the study of the 40 cases, the researcher found only

a handful of companies that had quantified the performance improvements

attributable to BIM. In addition, the researcher was not able to collect the

financial data, such as the project cost and the cost (work-hours) of creating BIM,

for all the projects. The main reason is that this kind of information is often

confidential and not accessible. Although these measures tended to have a low

level of occurrence, the researcher retained them in the framework because they

highlight the opportunity to document them in more cases.

Table 7-4: Calculating the consistency of the characterization framework for BIM

implementations

High level of

occurrence

(%)

Medium level

of occurrence

(%)

Low level of

occurrence

(%)

Consistency

Framework-3 56 20 24 56% + 20% = 76%

Since the framework has a high percentage of measures that have a medium or high level

of occurrence (20% + 56% = 76%), the researcher has confidence that the framework is

consistent.

10

7

Figure 7-3: Three levels (high, medium, and low) of occurrence of the measures in the framework

Factors

A1 Project Characteristics and Challenges

A2 Company Context of Project Participants

B1 Model Uses

B2 Timing of Model Use


B4

B4(a) Data: Modeled Scope

B4(b) Data: Model Structure

B4(c) Data: Level of Detail

B4(d) Data: Data Exchange

B5 B5(a) Tools: Software Functionality

B5(b) Tools: Software Interoperability

Factors

B6 Workflow

B7 Effort and Cost




C4 Performance during the Project Run-time

C5 Final Performance upon Project Completion

C3C2B5(b) C1B7B6B5(a)B4(d)B4(c)B4(b)B4(a)B3B2B1A2A10%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Described in more than 24 projects

Described in 8 - 24 projects

Described in less than 8 projects

C4 C5

Medium level of occurrence: described in

10 – 30 projects

Low level of occurrence: described in fewer than 10 projects

High level of occurrence: described in more than 30

projects

108

7.2.2 Validating the capability of the characterization framework for BIM

implementations to support the comparison of BIM implementations across

projects and gain insights on implementation patterns

The researcher validated how the framework supports comparisons of BIM

implementations across projects via the following procedure:

1. The researcher selects a few factors and measures from the framework to develop

a crosswalk (cross-tabulation that qualitatively shows the relationship between

two factors);

2. The researcher compares project data captured by these factors and measures

across the 40 cases;

3. The researcher presents a crosswalk that qualitatively shows the relationship

between factors or measures;

4. The researcher discerns implementation patterns from analyzing the crosswalk.

To facilitate the decisions in planning a BIM implementation that maximizes the benefits

on a project (Table 2-2), the researcher developed four crosswalks to discern the

similarities and differences among implementations of BIM on the 40 case projects.

• Crosswalk 1: nine BIM uses and their related benefits to building design as well

as project processes and organization (Table 7-6);

• Crosswalk 2: seven time periods of BIM uses and the timing of their related

benefits to building design as well as project process and organization (Table

7-8);

• Crosswalk 3: eleven situations of key stakeholder involvement and their

corresponding benefits (Table 7-10); and

• Crosswalk 4: three situations of the timing of developing levels of detail in BIM

and their corresponding benefits (Figure 7-8 and Table 7-12).

From analyzing the four crosswalks about BIM implementations, the researcher

discerned four BIM implementation patterns:

109

• How model uses affect benefits: The higher the number of BIM uses on a

project, the higher the number of benefits (Figure 7-4).

• How timing of BIM affects benefits: The earlier BIMs are created and used, the

more lasting the benefits of BIM (Table 7-8).

• How stakeholder involvement affects benefits: The benefits to individual

stakeholder and to the whole project team are maximized when all the key

stakeholders are involved in creating and using BIM (Figure 7-5, Figure 7-6, and

Figure 7-7).

• How the level of detail in BIMs affects benefits: To maximize benefits, it is

critical to create BIMs at the appropriate level of detail that matches a particular

model use and is just in time with the information available at different design

and construction stages (Table 7-12).

1) Crosswalk 1: How model uses affect benefits

Table 7-5: Factors and measures used to develop crosswalk 1

Crosswalk

1

Factors Measures

B1 Model Uses B1.3 Types of model uses









B3 Stakeholder Involvement B3.12 Stakeholder organization(s) receiving BIM benefits

110

The researcher developed crosswalk 1 by comparing the factors and measures (Table 7-5)

across the 40 cases.

There are many BIMs developed for many different uses in the design and construction

phases of a building, before and during the creation of the real world structure. Each

model use plays a part in supporting project team members to accomplish a particular

professional task they are expected to do.

From the study of the 40 cases, the researcher summarized and categorized BIM uses into

9 types. The researcher found that BIM was used for:

• establishing the owner’s requirements,

• interacting with non-professional stakeholders,

• analyzing design options (visualization analysis, structural analysis, energy

analysis, and lighting analysis)

• checking multi-disciplinary system clashes and constructability issues,

• producing construction documents,

• supporting cost estimating,

• managing supply chains,

• planning for construction execution, and

• managing facility operations.

Crosswalk 1 relates BIM uses with their corresponding impacts on building design,

project processes and organization as well as their related benefits to project stakeholders

(Table 7-6).

111

Table 7-6: Crosswalk 1 links BIM uses to the corresponding impacts on product, process,

and organization and the related benefits to project stakeholders. (The text in italic

indicates case examples which are listed in Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and Table 5-3.)

BIM Uses

Impacts on Product, Process, Organization

• Impact on product: the effects that BIM has on the design of the physical elements within a facility

• Impact on organization: the effects that BIM has on the timing of engaging project stakeholders, on the number of stakeholders engaged, and on work responsibilities and contractual relationships between stakeholder organizations

• Impact on process: the effects that BIM has on the execution and sequencing of tasks in the design-construction-operation process

Benefits to

Whom

Beneficial results that accrue to project stakeholders

1 –

Establishment of

owner

requirements

Product

Improve the quality of building design (by satisfying owner requirements better)

Owner (or Developer)

Case Example: 32

Improve the quality of building design (by establishing realistic energy, cost, and environmental targets earlier)

Owner (or Developer) Designer

Case Example: 32

2 –

Interaction with

non-

professionals

(e.g., for client

briefing,

schematic design

review,

development

permitting,

marketing, etc.)

Product

Improve the quality of building design (by reviewing how the design meets functional requirements, e.g., space program, sightlines, lighting, acoustics, etc.)

Owner (or Developer) End user

Case Examples: 5, 18, 21, 31, 32

Process

Facilitate the process for owners and end users to inspect and evaluate aesthetic and functional characteristics of the building design

Owner End user Designer

Case Examples: 5, 18, 31, 32, 37

Accelerate the turnaround of permit approvals (by planning commissions and city councils) so as to facilitate an early start of developers’ marketing efforts

Developer Authorities

Case Example: 25

Facilitate the process for homebuyers to compare various alternatives and make an decision to buy

Developer End user

Case Examples: 25, 26, 27, 29, 30

Facilitate the process for non-professionals to understand design intent and stay up-to-date with project development

Owner (or Developer) End user Designer Authority General Public

Case Examples: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,

14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37

Org.

Engage more non-professionals in providing more input and hence having more influence on building design

Case Examples: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,

14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,

28, 29, 30, 31, 32

112

Table 7-6 (cont’d): Crosswalk 1 links BIM uses to the corresponding impacts on product,

process, and organization and the related benefits to project stakeholders. (The text in

italic indicates case examples which are listed in Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and Table 5-3.)

BIM Uses Impacts on Product, Process, Organization Benefits

To Whom

3 –

Analysis of

building

design

options

Product Improve the quality of building design (by exploring more design options)

Owner (or Developer) Designer End user

Case Examples: 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37

Process

Facilitate the exploration of options (by updating parameters in 3D CAD objects and changing the look and behavior of an facility more correctly, quickly, and completely)

Case Examples: 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37

Accelerate decision-making (by fast analysis of options)

Case Examples: 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37

Org. Engage more professional disciplines in design review so as to provide more input to building design at the right time

Case Examples: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

4 –

Design

checking

(system

coordination

and/or

construct-

ability

review)

Product

Improve the quality of design (by reviewing constructability according to the GC’s or subcontractors’ know-how)

Owner (or Developer) GC, Subs

Case Examples: 2, 5, 7, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32

Improve the quality of building design (by coordinating architectural, structural, and MEP system design)


Case Examples: 2, 7, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37

Process

Accelerate the turnaround of design coordination (by combining other consultants’ 3D-information with the architect’s model and checking for interference between separate systems)


Case Examples: 2, 7, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37

Facilitate the iterative design process between multiple disciplines (by keeping every discipline working on up-to-date information)

Owner (or Developer) Designer GC, Subs

Case Examples: 2, 5, 7, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

Org.

Engage downstream designers, GC, and subs early and frequently in the schematic design and design development

Case Examples: 2, 5, 7, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

5 –

Production

of

construction

documents

Product

Improve the completeness and consistency of construction documents (by reducing design errors in drawings)

Owner Designer Builder

Case Examples: 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30,

31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40

Process

Facilitate the automatic and fast production of construction documents (by extracting information directly from 3D models for plans, sections and elevations, architectural and construction details, window/door/finish schedules, etc.)

Designer

Case Examples: 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30,

31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40

Facilitate change management (by automatically updating drawings when changes are made in a 3D model)

Designer Case Examples: 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30,

31, 32

113




BIM Uses Impacts on Product, Process, Organization Benefits To

Whom

5 –

Production

of

construction

documents

(cont’d)

Process

Facilitate procurement and fabrication (by directly extracting dimensions and component placement information from 3D models for fabricators or suppliers)

Fabricator Supplier

Case Examples: 3, 8, 11, 14, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32

Facilitate work on site and assembly (by cutting components to precise dimensions for adequate fit)

Fabricator Supplier GC and subs Case Examples: 3, 8, 11, 14, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32

Org.

Engage fewer or no draftsmen in drawing production (by allowing little or no division between design development and construction documentation)

Designer

Case Example: 22

Engage more designers’ efforts in the early design phase Designer

Case Examples: 3, 8, 11, 22

6 –

Quantity

takeoff, cost

estimating

and change

order

management

Product

Improve the accuracy of cost estimation (by obtaining actual and verifiable quantities from a 3D model)

Owner (or Developer) GC

Case Examples: 2, 5, 7, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32

Process

Accelerate the determination of the project budget Owner (or Developer) Designer GC

Case Examples: 5, 32

Accelerate estimating and cost feedback to design

Case Examples: 2, 5, 7, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32

Facilitate the management of owner-initiated change orders (by quickly showing the cost impact of these change orders and improving the accuracy of Bills of Quantities)

Owner (or Developer) GC Case Examples: 26, 27

Process

Release foremen from repetitive work in terms of re-calculating and verifying the quantities from estimators GC


Reduce chances for the owner to overpay contingency for unforeseen change orders and allowance for materials or equipment not yet selected (by accurately defining the scope of work in subcontract bid packages)

Owner

Case Examples: 28, 29, 30

Org. Engage more estimators’ effort in their company’s R&D activities (by using man-hours saved from cost estimating) GC


7–

Supply chain

management

Process

Facilitate the generation of building product specifications early in the design phase (by integrating standard building product libraries to the design in 3D models)

Owner (or Developer) Fabricators (or suppliers)

Case Examples: 5, 28, 29, 30, 32

Incorporate more off-site fabrication and assembly in building design and hence reduce field labor costs (by integrating standard building product libraries in 3D models)

Case Examples: 3, 8, 11, 14, 28, 29, 30

114




BIM Uses Impacts on Product, Process, Organization Benefits

To Whom

7–

Supply chain

management

Process

Shorten engineering lead-time (by synchronizing schedule and scope information between engineers, fabricators, and contractors) Designer

Fabricator GC and subs

Case Examples: 3, 8, 11, 14, 24, 32

Accelerate manufacturing turn-around (e.g., by transferring 3D CAD data to computer-numerically-controlled (CNC) fabrication)

Case Examples: 2, 3, 8, 11, 14, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32

Facilitate the process for fabricators and subcontractors to visualize and understand the intricacy of framing and connection details in a 3D structural model

Fabricators Subs


Reduce the amount of material stored on site (by producing smaller batches of shop drawings and placing procurement orders more frequently)

GC and subs

Case Example: 14

8 –

Construction

planning/4D

modeling

8.1 –

Strategic

project

planning

Product Improve the quality of design (by enabling designers to better understand construction challenges) Owner/ GC Case Examples: 4, 16

Process

Expedite work packaging and phased handover

Owner/ GC

Case Examples: 4, 9

Support the evaluation and analysis of multiple construction and facility operation strategies during master planning

Case Examples: 4, 9, 13, 17

Org.

Engage more project participants in strategic project planning


Engage project participants early to visualize project scope and gain insights on project goals

Case Examples: 4, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21

8.2 –

Contractor’s

proposal

Org.

Win contract by showing the contractor's capability to execute the work

CM/GC Case Examples: 11, 12

Pursue subsequent work with the same client

Case Example: 12

8.3 –

Owner’s

bidding and

GC’s

subcontracting

Process

Make construction bids closer in range

Owner/GC


Brief bidders about the owner’s or GC’s intentions


Facilitate communication of the construction sequencing required by engineers’ specifications to potential contractors

Case Example: 10

8.4 –

Permit

approval

Process Expedite construction permitting

CM/GC Case Examples: 8, 11

115




BIM Uses Impacts on Product, Process, Organization Benefits To

Whom

8.5 –

Master

scheduling and

construction

sequencing

Process

Improve the reliability and executability of the contractor’s master schedule

CM/GC Subs Fabricator/ Supplier FM (Facility Manager)

Case Examples: 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 19, 20, 21, 24,

32, 35, 36

Streamline concurrent facility operations and construction


Facilitate communication of project status to stakeholders

Case Examples: 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20,

21, 24, 32, 34, 36

8.6 –

Constructability

review

Process

Enable early detection of potential site logistics and accessibility constraints

CM/GC Subs

Case Examples: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,

19, 20, 21, 33, 34, 36

Org.

Externalize and share project issues among more project stakeholders so as to solve discovered problems more collaboratively

Case Examples: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,

19, 20, 21

8.7 –

Operations

planning/

analysis

Process Enable early identification of work scope and interferences between trades

CM/GC Subs

Case Examples: 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 36

Org. Engage subs early to coordinate their work

Case Examples: 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21,36

9 –

Facility

management

Product

Improve the control of building life cycle costs, the operation of technical systems, and the working conditions for facility maintenance and management personnel (by enabling a 3D–model-based FM system)

Owner Facility Manager


Process

Facilitate the space-planning for facility managers in the early stage of a project (by color-coding user units and departments)

Facility Manager

Case Example: 32

Facilitate the re-use of as-built 3D data in the operations and maintenance phase (by updating the information from the design phase and developing as-built 3D data during construction)


Facilitate the performance reporting for facility managers to steer the building operation (conformance to targets) with the help of clearly documented performance metrics

Case Example: 31

116

R2 = 0.8735

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8 10

# of Model Usages

# o

f B

en

efi

ts

To investigate the correlation between the model uses and impacts on the 40 case

projects, the researcher charted the scatter plot shown in Figure 7-4. Each single data

point represents the documented situation on a particular case, i.e., how many uses of

3D/4D models were realized on a particular project and how many benefits were obtained

(as accounted from the data sources (case examples) in Table 7-6. A trend line then

connected these individual points. Because the R2 (correlation constant) value is 0.8735,

this line describes the trend in the data with a high degree of certainty. That is to say, the

higher the number of BIM uses on a project, the higher the number of benefits.

Figure 7-4: The trend line correlates the number of model uses to the number of benefits

for the 40 cases (each case is represented by a dot).

2) Crosswalk 2: How the timing of BIM affects benefits

I developed crosswalk 2 by comparing the following factors and measures (in the

characterization framework for BIM implementations) across the 40 cases (Table 7-7).

Crosswalk 2 (Table 7-8) links the major phases of a project when BIM is used (as shown

in the light-grey boxes) to the timing of the impacts on the product, organization, and

processes (as shown in the dark-grey boxes). The length of the light-grey box indicates

the length of time of a particular model use. Below each light-grey box, several dark-grey

# of Model Uses

117

boxes stretch over one or a few project phases, representing the timing and duration of

impacts.

The horizontal axis in crosswalk 2 depicts the phases in the design and construction

processes that are most common to building construction projects: Schematic Design

(basic appearance and plans), Design Development (defining systems), Construction

Documents (details of assembly and construction technology), Preconstruction

(purchasing and award of contracts for construction as well as final fabrication shop

drawings), Construction (manufacture and installation of components or labor-intensive

field construction and installation), and Operations and Maintenance.


Crosswalk

2

Factors Measures

B1 Model Uses B1.3 Types of model uses

B2 Timing of BIM


B2.3 Project phase(s) when BIM impacts were perceived









118

Table 7-8: Crosswalk 2 links BIM uses with the impacts on product, organization, and process along the project timeline.

Engineering and Design Phase Pre-construction

Phase Construction Phase

Operations and Maintenance

Phase Schematic Design Design Development Construction

Documents

Legend: Timing of Model Use

Timing of Impact on Product, Organization, and Process

Establishment of

Owner Requirements

Process: (owner) Reliable design based on realistic energy cost, and environmental targets

Product: Better quality building and better achievement of the owner objectives

Interaction with Non-professionals

Process: (owners and end users) Easy evaluation of design forms vs. functions

Product: Better quality of building, design forms better complying with functions, and more end user satisfaction

Process: (homebuyers) Easy comparison of alternatives and making the decision to buy

Process: (authorities) Fast permitting

Process: (developer) Quick start of developer’s marketing

Process: (owners, end users, planning commissions, city councils, and the general public) Better understanding of design intent and project status

Org.: (owners, end users, planning commissions, city councils, and the general public) More and earlier involvement in terms of providing more input and hence having more influence on a project

Analysis of Design Options

Product: Improved quality of building design in terms of meeting aesthetic and technical functions

Product: Better life-cycle performance and more end user satisfaction

Process: Easy exploration of design options

Process: Fast analysis and timely decision-making

119

Table 7-8 (cont’d): Crosswalk 2 links BIM uses with the impacts on product, organization, and process along the project timeline.

Engineering and Design Phase

Pre-construction Phase Construction Phase Schematic Design Design Development

Construction

Documents

Legend: Timing of Model Use Timing of Impact on Product, Organization, and Process

Design Checking (System Coordination and

Constructability Review)

Product: Better design solution and well-coordinated drawings

Process: Easy clash detection, fast design coordination, and better coordination and communication between multiple disciplines

Process: Reduced field requests for information (RFI), change orders (C.O.), and rework because the facility design has been coordinated within and across multiple disciplines

Org.: Early and frequent involvement of downstream designers, GC, and subs

Production of Construction

Documents

Product: Better quality of construction documents

Process: Accurate schedule/BOQ for procurement

Process: Prefab pieces more likely to fit together in the field

Process: Easy and quick drawing production

Process: Easy and quick change management

Org.: No draftsmen

Org.: Longer involvement of architects in the entire design process

Quantity Takeoff and Cost Estimating

Process: Prompt determination of project budget

Process: Fast cost feedback to design Process: Fast process for construction estimate

Product: More accurate cost estimation Process: Better management of change orders

Org.: Better prices for subcontract bid packages

Org.: Foremen released from repetitive work of re-calculating quantities

120


Engineering and Design Phase Pre-construction Phase Construction Phase

Schematic Design Design Development Construction Documents

Legend: Timing of Model Use Timing of Impact on Product, Organization, Process

Supply Chain Management

Process: Early specification of building products in design

Process: Reduced construction time with more off-site prefabrication and assembly

Process: Reduced engineering lead-time by streamlining schedule information flows between engineering, fabrication, and erection

Process: Reduced batch sizes of drawings and frequent and small orders of materials

Process: Quicker manufacturing turnaround and reduced response time for RFIs

Process: Reduced amount of material stored on site

Process: Easy process for fabricators and subcontractors to understand the intricacy of the structural frame and connection details

Process: Smooth field construction and reduced field RFIs and rework

Construction Planning / 4D Modeling

Process: Better communication and coordination in the process of strategic project planning Org.: More project stakeholders involved early in providing input to strategic project planning

Process: Work phasing less prone to interference Process: Better communication of construction status to project stakeholders Process: Well-coordinated renovation and facility operation

Process: Winning the construction contract by showing the contractor’s capability Process: Better understanding of the engineer’s specification or owner’s intention by the contractors Process: Fast construction permitting

Process: Improved reliability of master schedules

Process: Bids closer in range

Process: Better communication and coordination in constructability review

Process: Timely meeting of project milestones Process: Reduced field C.O.s and rework and improved site safety Process: Smooth field construction, subcontractors’ work less prone to interference

Process: Better communication and coordination of site operations

121


Engineering and Design Phase Pre-construction

Phase

Construction

Phase Operations and Maintenance Phase Schematic

Design

Design

Development

Construction

Documents

Legend: Timing of Model Use

Timing of Impact on Product, Organization, and Process

Facility Management

Product: Better response to end users’ space needs

Product: Well-performed operation of technical systems and better working conditions

Process: Seamless transfer and reuse of as-built information, and building performance reporting to facility manager

122

Crosswalk 2 (Table 7-8) shows that, among all the benefits attainable from one particular

BIM use, some benefits come along immediately with that BIM use while other benefits

occur later. The immediate benefits often affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the

current design process as well as the communication and coordination within the project

organization; while the late benefits mostly have an impact on the downstream

construction and O&M process as well as the quality and performance of the building.

For example, the use of BIM for design checking (as manifested in cases 2, 3, 7, 8, 11,

14, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, and 32) facilitates a more efficient and reliable design

process by easy clash detection (benefit to the design process) and allows earlier and

more frequent feedback from other designers and contractors (benefit to the

organization). These are immediate benefits reaped along with the use of BIM for design

checking. The benefits occurring after the design checking include a reduction in field

RFIs, change orders, and rework in the construction phase (benefits to the construction

process) and a completed building product that has well-coordinated systems (benefits for

the product).

In crosswalk 2 (Table 7-8), some immediate and late benefit “boxes” are shown in the

same row. This means that the late benefits are the ripple effects of the immediate

benefits that have been realized early on. For instance, 3D visualization in the schematic

design phase can assist designers in space planning. This immediate benefit subsequently

leads to a finished building product that better responds to end users’ space needs in the

O&M phase.

The last column in crosswalk 2 (Table 7-8) identifies benefits (in the O&M phase) which

have lasting and positive effects on the facility. For example, the improvement of overall

project performance in case 5 was demonstrated by a 10%-15% savings in first cost and a

5%-25% potential savings in the life-cycle cost. These lasting impacts (demonstrated by

cases 5, 18, and 32) were brought about by using 3D models in the early planning and

design phase. For example, BIM facilitates evaluation of product (building) design forms

vs. functions and helps project teams set and manage towards aggressive but realistic

targets for energy, cost, and environmental performance. In addition, BIM supports

123

space-planning by color-coding different user units and departments, involve end-users

early in a project’s decision-making process, and assist designers in exploring alternatives

of building shape and space layout via simulation and analysis. Crosswalk 2 also shows

that these BIM uses are initiated from the start of schematic design throughout design

development.

Therefore, the earlier BIM is created and used, the more lasting the benefits of BIM. The

use of BIM early in the design phase results not only in immediate benefits (which relate

to the ongoing project process and organization) but also late benefits (which accrue

during the downstream processes and relate to the performance of a finished building

product). However, the use of BIM in the preconstruction and construction phases mostly

leads to immediate benefits.

3) Crosswalk 3: How stakeholder involvement affects benefits

The researcher developed crosswalk 3 by comparing the following factors and measures

(in the characterization framework for BIM implementations) across the 40 cases (Table

7-9).

Key stakeholders on a project include the owner/developer and AEC service providers,

i.e., the designers, general contractors, and subcontractors. Key stakeholders involved in

the BIM process play two primary roles, i.e., they lead (i.e., initiate and control the whole

BIM process) or they are involved (i.e., participate partially in the process of building,

reviewing, or using BIM). Crosswalk 3 (Table 7-10) links the situations in which key

stakeholders take on different roles to the number of benefits that accrue to them

individually.

124


Crosswalk

3

Factors Measures







B3.12 Stakeholder organization(s) receiving BIM benefits

B3.13 Number of benefits for stakeholder organizations









125

Table 7-10: Crosswalk 3 links the key stakeholders’ roles in the BIM process with the

benefits to them as individual stakeholders

Situations

• Leading

• Involved

(applicable cases listed in parentheses)

Average # of

Benefits per

Case

(for Owner)

Average # of

Benefits per

Case (for

Designer)

Average # of

Benefits per

Case (for

GC)

Average #

of Benefits

per Case

(for Subs)

Owner Leading

Situation 1:

Owner leading and GC involved (4) (26) (27) (34)

6 1 8 5

Owner leading and designer involved (18) (37) 2 1 0 0

Situation 2:

Owner leading and designer, GC, and

subs involved (24) (25) (28) (29) (23) (32)

9 12 10 10

Situation 3: Only owner leading and involved (9) (10) (16) (17)

3 0 0 0

GC Leading

Situation 4:

GC leading and owner, designer, and

subs involved (2) (20) (21)

4 3 7 8

Situation 5:

GC leading and owner and subs involved (7)*

3 2 4 6

Situation 6: GC leading and owner involved (12)*

2 0 7 3

Situation 7:

GC leading and only subs involved (19) (36)

0 0 6 6

Situation 8: Only GC leading and involved (1) (6) (13) (33) (35)

1 0 3 3

Designer Leading

Situation 9:

Designer leading and owner, GC, and

subs involved (3) (8) (11) (14)

2 7 9 11

Situation 10: Designer leading and GC and owner involved (5) (31)

5 11 3 2

Situation 11:

Designer leading and owner involved (22) (23) (38) (39) (40)

3 10 2 2

Note (*): More cases are needed

126

Often individual stakeholders evaluate the benefits of BIM purely from their

“stakeholder” perspectives (i.e., with a “WIIFM” (“what’s in it for me”) attitude).

Although the viewpoint of each individual stakeholder is important because each of them

makes the decision whether or not to implement BIM, it is also important to reflect on the

impacts on the whole project team as well.

Based on crosswalk 3 (Table 7-10), the researcher drew “spider” diagrams (Figure 7-5,

Figure 7-6, and Figure 7-7) to reveal not only the benefits of BIM to each individual

stakeholder but also the “scope of impacts” (i.e., number of benefits) of BIM for the key

project stakeholders as a whole.

In these charts, the four axes stand for the owner, designer, general contractor, and

subcontractors respectively. The number of benefits to each stakeholder (as shown in

Table 7-10) is measured along the axis and highlighted by the axis marker. The BIM’s

“scope of impacts” for the key project stakeholders as a whole is the area enclosed by the

lines that join the markers.

In Figure 7-5, Figure 7-6, and Figure 7-7, i.e., for the cases where the owner, GC, or

designer leads and use BIM development respectively, the biggest area is bounded by the

bold solid lines. This pattern illustrates that, no matter who is leading, the benefits (i.e.,

BIM’s scope of influence) are maximized for the project team as a whole when all the

key stakeholders are involved. For example, on case 20, one of the MEP subs commented

that the more other trades participate in the model the more accurate the model becomes.

Therefore, the MEP subs can fabricate more items.

No matter who is leading, the scenario where all the key stakeholders are involved offers

most benefits for the whole project team. It is also interesting to note that in most cases,

the benefits that accrue to the owner, designer, GC, and subcontractors individually are

also maximized when all parties participate in the BIM efforts. This is a win-win

opportunity that all stakeholders can take advantage of. The benefits to individual

stakeholders and to the whole project team are maximized when all the key stakeholders

are involved in creating and using BIM.

127

Figure 7-5: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the “owner leading” situations

Stakeholders' Benefits

in the "Owner Leading" Situations

0

3

6

9

12

Owner - Benefits

Designer - Benefits

GC - Benefits

Subs - Benefits

Owner

leading and

designer, GC,

and subs

involved

Owner

leading and

GC involved

Owner

leading and

designer

involved

Only owner

leading and

involved

128

Figure 7-6: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the “GC leading” situations


in the "GC Leading" Situations

0

2

4

6

8

Owner - Benefits

Designer - Benefits

GC - Benefits

Subs - Benefits

GC leading and

owner, designer,

and subs involved

GC leading and

owner and subs

involved

GC leading and

only owner

involved

GC leading and

only subs involved

Only GC leading

and involved

129

Figure 7-7: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the “designer leading” situations


in the "Designer Leading" Situations

0

3

6

9

12

Owner - Benefits

Designer - Benefits

GC - Benefits

Subs - Benefits

Designer

leading and

owner, GC,

subs

involved

Designer

leading and

GC

Only owner

leading and

involved

130

4) Crosswalk 4: How the level of detail in BIMs affects benefits

The researcher developed crosswalk 4 by comparing the following factors and measures

(in the characterization framework for BIM implementations) across the 40 cases (Table

7-11).


Crosswalk

4

Factors Measures

B1 BIM uses B1.3 Types of model uses

B2 Timing of BIM B2.1 Project phase(s) when BIM were

built

B4 Modeled data

B4(a).2 Modeled disciplinary systems

B4(c).1 Levels of detail in the 3D/4D model


C1.3 Number of perceived impacts of BIM on product


C2.3 Number of perceived impacts of BIM on organization


C3(a).3 Number of perceived impacts of BIM on design process

C3(b).3 Number of perceived impacts of BIM on construction process

C3(c).3 Number of perceived impacts of BIM on operation & maintenance process

As shown in Figure 7-8, each column in the matrix corresponds to a certain level of detail

in BIM, including the project (building/site), system, sub-system, component, and part.

Each row represents a phase during the design and construction process. The text under

the double-arrowed lines at the bottom of these figures exemplifies model uses that the

131

levels of detail need to serve. Each cell in the table maps the level of detail to the

information available in a project phase and needed for a particular model use. Thus, the

appropriateness of the level of detail is twofold: 1) the level of detail in BIM should

accommodate the model use (i.e., the amount of information needed is a function of what

it will be used for); 2) the level of detail in BIM is subject to the information available at

different design and construction stages.

Figure 7-8: Crosswalk 4 (part I) links the level of detail in BIM with the timing of BIM.

132

Figure 7-8 maps the evolving level of detail in BIM along the typical project timeline to

accommodate a particular model use.

• Level of detail of architectural system: Cases 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25,

27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, and 40 demonstrate that the BIM of the architectural

system evolved throughout the phases of schematic design and design development.

In the early schematic design phase, the architectural BIM was a dimensionally

accurate summary of the fundamental form and geometry of a building or site. These

models were used to communicate the essential forms of a building to

nonprofessionals, e.g., clients, end users, authorities, or communities. In the late

schematic design phase (50% SD) and the design development phase, the basic

building form was enriched with details about the actual sizes, styles, material types,

and finishes of the architectural subsystems including walls, floors, roof, windows,

and doors.

• Level of detail of structural system: Cases 3, 8, 11, 14, 20, 23, 24, 25, 37, 38, and 39

demonstrate that the BIM of the structural system was often started in the design

development phase. Structural engineers often used the architect’s model as input for

strength calculations of the preliminary framing plan, evaluated the appropriateness

of the architectural design, and compared different options for the framing plan in the

schematic design phase. Case 32 is an exception of the above pattern. On this project,

the structural engineers started BIM for a number of alternative structural systems and

material combinations early in the schematic design phase. For example, they

modeled three alternatives for foundation beams, i.e., steel, pre-cast concrete

(selected), and cast-in-place concrete. These options were then evaluated to meet the

criteria with regard to the architectural appearance, material costs based on the BOM,

and the contractor’s specialization and expertise. Cases 3, 8, 11, 14, 20, 23, 24, 25,

38, and 39 also demonstrate that the level of detail in the structural 3D model evolved

throughout the design development phase. In the early design development phase, the

structural model had rough framing information of the superstructure (and/or

foundation). In the late design development phase, the structural BIM included more

133

detail about the geometry, dimensions, member properties, connection types, and

materials of the structural subsystems, e.g., beams, columns, plates, bolts, etc.

• Level of detail of the MEP systems: Cases 2, 3, 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, and

32 demonstrate that building system designers started the BIM of the MEP system in

the design development phase Building system designers typically used the

architect’s model as the basis to set up the preliminary sizing of the heating, cooling,

and ventilation systems (cases 2, 3, 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32) and

supported the optimization of the building shape from the viewpoint of energy

performance (cases 5, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32) in the schematic design

phase. When the system specifications were in place and the best system solution was

chosen, they started to model the HVAC and electrical systems in the design

development phase. Late in design development, the MEP BIM was combined with

the architectural and/or structural BIM to check for interferences between these

models (cases 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32).

In addition to identifying the two factors related to the “appropriateness” of the level of

detail and illustrating the evolving pattern of the level of detail in relation to the two

factors, Figure 7-8 also categorizes the timing of developing the level of detail in BIM as

“just in time”, “too early”, and “too late”.

• Just in time: If a case example fell into the grey box that depicts the ideal timing

of producing a certain level of detail, the BIM on that project was created or

modified to represent the on-going design.

• Too early: If a case example fell into an upper-right blank area, the BIM on that

project was built too early, i.e., the information necessary for a BIM at that level

of detail was not yet available.

• Too late: If a case example fell into a lower-left blank area, the BIM model on

that project was generated too late despite the earlier availability of the required

level of detail.

Table 7-12 links the timing of developing the level of detail in BIM to the average

number of benefits reaped on each case project. It demonstrates that creating BIM just in

134

time and at the appropriate level of detail that matches a particular model use is critical in

maximizing benefits.

Table 7-12: Crosswalk 4 (part II) links the timing of developing the level of detail in BIM

with the corresponding benefits.

Scenario Timing and Level of Detail Average # of

Benefits per

Case

1 BIM was created just in time and at the appropriate level of detail to serve a particular model use.

Case Examples: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28,

29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40

5

2 BIM was created too early to serve a particular model use because the necessary information for the higher level of detail in BIM was not yet available. Case Examples: 20, 21

2

3 BIM was created too late to serve a particular model use, even though the necessary information for the higher level of detail in BIM would have been available earlier. Case Examples: 1, 26, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36

2

135

7.2.3 Validating the methodological rigor of the characterization framework for

BIM implementations

The researcher validated the methodological rigor of the characterization framework for

BIM implementation by applying techniques in research design and data analysis (see

more details in the chapter of research methods).

1) Generality of the framework

The researcher ensured the generality of the framework by applying theoretical sampling

method in the selection of case projects. The 40 case projects range in size from a few

million dollars to several hundred million dollars, include public and private projects in a

range of construction sectors (residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and

transportation), were delivered with several contractual arrangements (design-bid-build,

design/build, and CM/GC) (Figure 7-9), and took place in several regions on the globe

(North America, Europe, Asia).

Figure 7-9: Framework applied to different project types, delivery methods, and sizes

Project Type Delivery Method Project Size

2) Validity of the framework

The validity of the framework is ensured by the use of four techniques in research design.

• Ethnographic interviews: The interview questions became refined and more

specific in the course of data collection and analysis.

Commercial

Facilities

20%

Institutional

Facilities

30%Industrial

Facilities

10%

Transportation

Facilities

8%

Residential

Facilities

32%

Design-Bid-

Build

54%Design-Build

23%

Construction

Managers /

General

Contractors

23%

Small (=< $ 5

million)

25%

Medium ($ 5 –

100 million)

37%

Large (>= $

100 million)

38%

136

• Triangulation: The researcher used multiple data sources (i.e., primary data from

face-to-face interviews and secondary data from available project documents) as

opposed to relying solely on one avenue of collecting data.

• Selection of interviewees: To collect accurate and concrete project data, the

researcher selected key persons who were directly responsible for BIM practices

on projects.

• Interviewee validation: The researcher requested the interviewees to double-

check the project data documented in the framework.

137

Table 7-13 is a summary of the validation results. Therefore and in contrast to currently-

available BIM stories and guidelines, the researcher claims that the characterization

framework enables the structured documentation as well as sufficient and consistent

capture of BIM implementations to support cross-project comparisons of why, when, for


implementations are done.

138

Table 7-13: A summary of the validation results

Requirements Validation Results

DO

CU

ME

NT

AT

ION

PO

WE

R

• Structured

capture

The framework consists of 3 categories, 14 factors, and 74 measures that characterize a BIM implementation at three levels of detail.

• Sufficient

capture

The sufficiency of the framework is 100%. Within the scope of 40 case projects, the framework is able to capture all the major characteristics related to why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM implementations are done.

• Consistent

capture

After applying the framework to 40 case projects, the researcher found that: 1) 56% of the 74 measures were occurred in more than 75% of the 40 case projects; 2) 20% of the 74 measures were occurred in 25% - 75% of the 40 case projects; 3) 24% of the 74 measures were occurred in fewer than 25% of the case projects. Since the framework has a high percentage of measures that have a medium or high level of occurrence (20% + 56% = 76%), the researcher have confidence that the framework is consistent.

• Support of

comparison

The researcher found four implementation patterns from documenting and comparing 40 case projects with the framework.

• How model uses affect benefits: The higher the number of BIM uses on a project, the higher the number of benefits.

• How timing of BIM affects benefits: The earlier BIM is created and used, the more lasting the benefits of BIM.

• How stakeholder involvement affects benefits: The benefits to individual stakeholder and to the whole project team are maximized when all the key stakeholders are involved in creating and using BIM.

• How the level of detail in BIM affects benefits: To maximize benefits, it is critical to create BIM at the appropriate level of detail that matches a particular model use and is just in time with

the information available at different design and construction stages.

ME

TH

OD

O-L

OG

ICA

L R

IGO

R

• Generality The 40 case projects range in size from a few million dollars to several hundred million dollars, include public and private projects in a range of construction sectors, were delivered with several contractual arrangements, and took place in several regions on the globe (North America, Europe, Asia).

• Validity Four techniques are used in research design to ensure the validity of the data collection and analysis process.

• Ethnographic interviews

• Triangulation

• Selection of interviewees

• Interviewee validation

139

CHAPTER 8 – SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the practical significance and the intellectual merits of the

framework. The future work is also discussed here.

8.1 Practical Significance of the Framework

Practitioners can use the characterization framework for BIM implementations to:

• document BIM implementations to enable sufficient and consistent capture;

• compare BIM implementations across projects and examine the implementation

patterns (i.e., how to plan a BIM implementation to maximize benefits); and

• develop BIM guidelines based on the understanding of implementation patterns.

This framework has the potential to help practitioners to develop an empirical knowledge

base for BIM implementations on projects. Based on this knowledge base, practitioners

can guide and prioritize their own implementation efforts instead of creating project-

specific implementation plans on the basis of anecdotes from prior BIM implementations.

For example, practitioners document their BIM implementation projects using the eight

measures, i.e., model uses, number of model uses, modeled systems, number of modeled

systems, involved stakeholders, number of involved stakeholders, project phases, and

number of project phases. After documenting a sufficient number of BIM

implementation projects, they can identify the range of possible model uses and figure

out the implementation plan of BIM. That is to say, practitioners can design the

implementation in terms of the level of detail in BIM (i.e., modeling product), the

stakeholders to be involved in building and using BIM (modeling organization), and the

timing to start BIM modeling (modeling process) and customize the modeling product,

organization, and process to different model uses.

140

8.2 Intellectual Merits of the Framework

Compared to currently available BIM guidelines (Table 3-4), the characterization

framework for BIM implementations focuses on project-level implementation of BIM

and is validated through 40 case studies. Implementation patterns discerned from

applying the framework to compare BIM across projects confirm or adjust general

beliefs, hypotheses, and anecdotes of BIM implementations and impacts (Table 8-1).

Table 8-1: Implementation patterns confirm or adjust the general beliefs about BIM

implementations

General Beliefs Confirmation

or Adjustment Implementations Patterns Discerned

from 40 Case Projects

(Legend: √ confirmation; ∆ adjustment)

• How model uses affect benefits

There are many 3D/4D models developed for many different uses (Bedrick et al. 2005).

∆ The higher the number of BIM uses on a project, the higher the number of benefits (Figure 7-4).

• How timing of BIM affects benefits

It is essential to capitalize on project opportunities early to make 3D/4D models have a lasting and positive effect on the facility over its total life span (Kam 2002).

√ The earlier BIMs are created and used, the more lasting the benefits of BIM (Table 7-8).

• How stakeholder involvement affects benefits

The more stakeholders involved in implementing 3D/4D modeling; the more benefits accrue to them (Fischer 2004).

∆

The benefits to individual stakeholder and to the whole project team are maximized when all the key stakeholders are involved in creating and using BIM (Figure 7-5, Figure 7-6, and Figure 7-7).

• How the level of detail in BIMs affects benefits

Creating 3D and 4D models at the appropriate level of detail is critical in reaping their benefits (Fischer 2004).

∆

To maximize benefits, it is critical to create BIMs at the appropriate level of detail that matches a particular model use and is just in time with the information available at different design and construction stages (Table 7-12).

141

Researchers can use the framework to conduct a large-size case survey which allows

statistical analysis of implementation patterns across cases (Larsson 1993). This

framework provides a structured form and well-defined measures for documenting a

large number of cases. Researchers can apply the framework as a coding scheme to case

studies and systematically convert those qualitative case measures into quantifiable

variables. In doing so, researchers will be able to statistically analyze their cases with

coded data and cross-validate or extend the findings from our case studies.

The framework provides a foundation for identifying new knowledge, such as additional

implementation patterns. For instance, the four crosswalks categorize nine BIM uses,

eleven situations of key stakeholder involvement, and three situations of the timing of

developing levels of detail in BIM. The classification of a particular implementation

factor (e.g., the model use, stakeholder involvement, and the level of detail) provides the

opportunity for cross-case analysis and generalization of the patterns pertinent to that

particular implementation factor. For example, researchers can pool relevant cases of the

four primary uses of BIM (i.e., interaction with non-professionals, construction planning,

drawing production, and design checking) into data sets that are sufficiently large for

statistical analysis of the implementation patterns pertinent to these model uses. This will

assess the magnitude of the relationship between the effort and the value of creating

different kinds of BIM more precisely than the assessment made in this thesis.

8.3 Future Work

The following steps are suggested for further studies:

1. Developing a better way of quantifying the value of benefits and differentiating the

value of benefits to different stakeholders.

In this thesis, the researcher simply counted the number of benefits as a way of

quantification. In a future study, it is necessary to collect the financial data (such as

the project cost and the cost (work-hours) of creating BIM) for all the projects. It is

also important to capture the value of benefits and differentiate the value of benefits

to different stakeholders.

142

2. Validating how helpful the framework is for generating BIM guidelines and

managing BIM implementations.

The use of the framework was demonstrated by comparing BIM experiences across

projects. A further step is to validate how helpful the framework is for generating

BIM guidelines and managing BIM implementations.

3. Investigating the benefits and uses of BIM in different contexts of companies or

countries.

This thesis focused on documenting and comparing BIM implementations at the

project level. This project-based approach did not consider the organizational and

social contexts of the implementation of BIM modeling at the company level as well

as at the regional and country industry level. A next step is to further develop the

framework to document:

• how the implementation approach of BIM in one company differs from

implementations in other firms with respect to issues such as their BIM

software platform choices, data standardization, research and development

activities, external strategic alliance, and internal organizational alignment;

and

• how the implementation of BIM is different in one national or regional

context from another, given the influences of institutional factors, e.g., market

structure, organizational forms, work practices, national and professional

culture, technology support, and government support/policy, etc.

Therefore, it is necessary to carry out further case studies to support the specific

understanding with regard to the benefits and uses of BIM in different contexts of

companies or countries.

4. Conducting case studies on more recent projects to extending the scope of BIM uses

emerging from the 40 case studies.

143

Based on the 40 projects, the researcher categorized nine BIM uses. This is by no

means an exhaustive list of all BIM uses in practice but it gives an indication of

primary model uses taking place. The researcher suggests that future research

extends BIM uses emerging from the 40 case studies: 1) to other important model

uses such as 3D-laser scanning for accurate as-built documentation and CNC usage

(e.g., metal cutting) by MEP subs; 2) to new areas of model uses such as 4D

workflow automation and optimization; 3) to the use of BIM in the project operation

and maintenance phases.

5. Studying inter-organizational implementation of BIM and addressing lessons learned

from facilitating exchange and interoperability of information and standardizing the

work methods for BIM modeling implementations.

Like Adriaanse (2007), in this study, the researcher did not find plenty of experiences

related to inter-organizational implementation of BIM. This is a problem of

implementing data-exchange integration standard in software (e.g., the Industry

Foundation Classes (IFC)) and developing standardized work methods for clear

definitions of objects (e.g., IFD library) and clear definitions of process protocols and

exchange requirements (e.g., the Information Delivery Manual (IDM)).

• Researchers and software companies need to develop a better way to

exchange BIM data electronically between software applications. Researchers

have already invested a vast amount of work in developing BIM standards or

BIM exchange interfaces for the building sector by developing IFC.

• Different models used for the different software applications by the various

stakeholders require different levels of detail. Standardized work methods are

needed to switch between different levels of detail and views among

construction practitioners from different stakeholder organizations.

Therefore the researcher suggests further case studies to focus on inter-organizational

implementation of BIM and to address lessons learned from implementing

interoperability and standardizing the work methods for BIM implementations.

144

REFERENCES

Ackoff, R. L. (1989). “From Data to Wisdom.” Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16,

3-9.

Adriaanse, Arjen (2007). “The Use of Interorganisational ICT in Construction Projects.”

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente, the Netherlands.

Alavi, M. (1992). “Revisiting DSS Implementation Research: A Meta-analysis of the

Literature and Suggestions for Researchers.” MIS Quarterly, 16(1), pp. 95-116.

Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., and Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers Investigate

Their work: An Introduction to Action Research across the Professions (2nd edition).

Routledge.

AGC (2006). The Contractors' Guide to BIM — Edition 1. Associated General

Contractors of America (AGC).

Autodesk (2010). Autodesk BIM Deployment Plan: A Practical Framework for

Implementing BIM, Autodesk Inc..

Azhar, S., and Brown, J. (2009). “BIM for Sustainability Analyses.” International

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 5(4), pp. 276-292.

Barbour, R. S. (2001). “Checklists for Improving Rigor in Qualitative Research.” British

Medical Journal, 322, pp. 1115-1117.

Bauman, L.J. and Greenberg, E. (1992). “The Use of Ethnographic Interviewing to

Inform Questionnaire Construction.” Health Education Quarterly, 19(1), pp. 9-23.

Bedrick, J. and Davis, G. (2005). “VDC from the Executive Office (Webcor Builders).”

Presentation to CIFE Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering,

Stanford, CA, June 22, 2005.

145

Bedrick, J., Rinella, T., Bevins, R., and Hecht, L. (2005). “Interoperability Challenges

for BIM Implementers.” Presentation to Building Connections 2005, the 2nd Congress

on Digital Collaboration in the Building Industry, AIA, Washington D.C., Nov 10, 2005.

Bergsten, S. and Knutsson, M. (2001). “4D CAD-An Efficient Tool to Improve

Production Method for Integration of Apartments in Existing Buildings.” Proceedings of

the CIB-W78 International Conference IT in Construction in Africa 2001: Implementing

the next generation technologies, CSIR, Division of Building and Construction

Technology, Pretoria, South Africa, also available at

http://buildnet.csir.co.za/constructitafrica/au, pp. 3-1 to 3-10

BIPS (2008), Digital construction –3D Working Method. Danish Government.

Bogdan, R. C. and Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative Research for Education: An

Introduction to Theories and Methods (5th ed.), Pearson Education Group, Boston.

Byrne, M.M. (2001). “Evaluating the Findings of Qualitative Research.” AORN Journal.

73(3), pp. 703-706.

Carzaniga, A., Fuggetta, A., Hall, R. S., van der Hoek, A., Heimbigner, D., and Wolf, A.

L. (1998) “A Characterization Framework for Software Deployment Technologies.”

Technical Report CU-CS-857-98, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Colorado.

Cerovsek, T. (2010) “A Review and Outlook for a ‘Building Information Model’ (BIM):

A Multi-standpoint Framework for Technological Development.” Advanced Engineering

Informatics, 25(2), pp. 224-244.

Clevenger, C. and Haymaker, J. (2009). “Framework and Metrics for Assessing the

Guidance of Design Processes.” Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on

Engineering Design (ICED’09), Vol. 1, Norell Bergendahl, M.; Grimheden, M.; Leifer,

L.; Skogstad, P.; Lindemann, U. (Ed.), pp. 411-422.

Coble, R.J., Theisen, D., and Blatter, R.L. (2000). “Application of Four-Dimensional

Computer-Aided Design (4D CAD) in the Construction Workplace.” Proceedings of the

Congress, Orlando, FL, Feb 20-22, 2000, Walsh, Kenneth D. (Ed.) ASCE. pp. 984-989.

146

Collier, E. and Fischer, M. (1995). “Four-Dimensional Modeling in Design and

Construction.” Technical Report Nr. 101, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering

(CIFE), Stanford.

CRC-CI (2008), National Guidelines for Digital Modeling. CRC Construction

Innovation, Brisbane, Australia.

Cunz, D. and Knutson, G. (2005). “VDC for Construction Coordination (M.A. Mortenson

Co.).” Presentation to CIFE Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility

Engineering, Stanford, CA, June 21, 2005.

CURT (2006). Optimizing the Construction Process: An Implementation Strategy. CURT

WP 1003, The Construction Users Roundtable.

CURT (2010). BIM Implementation: An Owner's Guide to Getting Started, The

Construction Users Roundtable.

Danso-Amoako, M.O., Issa, R.R.A., and O’Brien, W. (2003). “Framework for a Point-N-

Click Interface System for 3D CAD Construction Visualization and Documentation.”

Towards a Vision for Information Technology in Civil Engineering: 4th

Joint

International Symposium on Information Technology in Civil Engineering. Flood, Ian

(Ed.), November 15–16, 2003, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. pp. 1-9.

Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook (5th edition). Aldine

Transaction.

de Vries, B. and Broekmaat, M. (2003). “Implementation Scenarios for 4D CAD in

Practice.” In Maas, G. and van Gassel, F. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 20th International

Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction. Eindhoven University of

Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands. pp. 393-398.

Eberhard, D. (2005). “Case Examples (Parsons Brinckerhoff).” Presentation to CIFE

Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June 20,

2005.

147

E-BOUW (2008). E-BOUW Framework BIM — Building Information Model(ling). E-

BOUW, Netherlands.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 532-550.

Ferber, R. (1977). Research by Convenience. The Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1).

pp. 57-58.

Fischer, M., Aalami, F., and Akbas, R. (1998). “Formalizing Product Model

Transformations: Case Examples and Applications.” Artificial Intelligence in Structural

Engineering: Information Technology for Design, Collaboration, Maintenance, and

Monitoring. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1454, Smith, Ian (Ed.), Springer,

July 1998, pp. 113-132.

Fischer, M., Haymaker, J., and Liston, K. (2003). “Benefits of 3D and 4D Models for

Facility Managers and AEC Service Providers.” 4D CAD and Visualization in

Construction - Developments and Applications, Issa, R.R.A., Flood, I., and O'Brien, W.

(Ed.), Balkema, pp. 1-32.

Fischer, M. (2004). “VBE Metrics.” Presentation to VBE Meeting at CIFE, Center for

Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June 14.

Fischer, M. (2005). “Virtual Builders Roundtable Workshop – Introduction.”

Presentation at Virtual Builders Roundtable, Seattle, WA, June 13.

Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. (1990). “Performance Indicators.” BERA Dialogue, Vol. 2, Multi-

lingual Matters.

Forgues, D. and Iordanova, I. (2010). “An IDP-BIM Framework for Reshaping

Professional Design Practices.” Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for

Reshaping Construction Practice - Proceedings of the 2010 Construction Research

Congress, Ruwanpura, J., Mohamed, Y., and Lee, S. (Eds), University of Alberta, Banff,

Alberta, Canada. pp. 172-182.

148

Forze, C. and Di Nuzzo, F. (1998). “Meta-analysis Applied to Operations Management:

Summarizing the Results of Empirical Research.” International Journal of Production

Research, 36(3), pp. 837-61.

Gao, J., Tollefsen, T., Fischer, M., and Haugen, T. (2005). “Experiences with 3D and 4D

CAD on Building Construction Projects: Benefits for Project Success and Controllable

Implementation Factors.” 22nd CIB-W78 Conference on Information Technology in

Construction, CIB Publication 305, Raimar J. Scherer, Peter Katranuschkov, Sven-Eric

Schapke (Eds), Institute for Construction Informatics, Technical University Dresden,

Germany, July 19-21, pp. 225-234.

Gläser, J. and Laudel, G. (2004). The Expert Interview and Content Analysis. Wiesbaden:

VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Gonzales, J. (2005). “VDC for Facility Operations Planning (Intel).” Presentation to

CIFE Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June

21, 2005.

Gonzales, D. (2005). “Comments & Discussion on the Recommendations for Lean

Virtual Design & Construction (RQ Construction).” Presentation to Lean Design Forum,

Lean Construction Institute, Chicago, IL, June 1, 2006.

Griffis, F.H., Hogan, D., and Li, W. (1995). “An Analysis of the Impacts of Using Three

Dimensional Computer Models in the Management of Construction.” CII Research

Report 106-11, Construction Industry Institute.

Griffis, F.H. and Sturts, C.S. (2003). “Fully Integrated and Automated Project Process

(FIAPP) for the Project Manager and Executive.” 4D CAD and Visualization in

Construction: Developments and Applications, Issa, R., Flood, I., and O’Brien, W. (Eds).

A. A. Balkema, Lisse, Netherlands, pp. 55-73.

149

GSA (2006). The National 3D–4D-BIM Program Guidelines, U.S. General Services

Administration – Public Buildings Service, Office of the Chief Architect, Washington,

DC.

Hagan, S. and Graves, T. (2005). “VDC for Facility Owner (GSA).” Presentation to

CIFE Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June

22, 2005.

Hamblen, M. (2005). “Project at World Trade Center Site Puts Advanced Design Tools to

Test.” Computerworld, 39(10), pp. 7-7.

Hastings, J., Kibiloski, J., Fischer, M., Haymaker, J., and Liston K. (2003). “Four-

Dimensional Modeling to Support Construction Planning of the Stata Center Project.”

Leadership and Management in Engineering, 3(2), ASCE. pp. 86-90.

Haymaker, J., Fischer, M., Kunz, J., and Suter, B. (2004). “Engineering Test Cases to

Motivate the Formalization of an AEC Project Model as a Directed Acyclic Graph of

Views and Dependencies.” ITCon (Electronic Journal of Information Technology in

Construction) Vol. 9, pp. 419-441, http://www.itcon.org/2004/30.

Hänninen, R. and Laine, T. (2004). “Product Models and Life Cycle Data Management.”

Xth International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering

(ICCCBE-X conference). Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Weimar, pp.1-6.

Hedges, L.V., and Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. New York:

Academic Press.

Holm, C., Addeman, F., Tyson, W., and Ford, B. (2005). “Case Study: Disney's

Expedition Everest (Walt Disney Imagineering).” Presentation to CIFE Summer

Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June 20, 2005.

Holsapple, C. W. and Joshi, K. D. (1999) “Description and Analysis of Existing

Knowledge Management Frameworks.” Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, volume 1, pp.1072-1086.

150

Jensen, J. L. and Robert, R. (2001). “Cumulating the Intellectual Gold of Case Study

Research.” Public Administration Review 61(2): pp. 236-246.

Joch, A. (2005) “Virtual Reality and Digital Modeling Go On Trial for a Federal

Courtroom design.” Architectural Record, 193(1), pp. 184-184.

Jongeling, R., Kim, J., Mourgues, C., Fischer, M., and Olofsson, T. (2005). “Quantitative

Analyses using 4D Models – An Explorative Study.” 1st International Conference on

Construction and Engineering Management (ICCEM 2005), C. Park (Eds), KICEM

Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management, Seoul, Korea, pp. 830-

835.

Jung, Y. and Joo, M. (2011) “Building information modelling (BIM) framework for

practical implementation.” Automation in Construction, 20(2), pp. 126-133.

Kam, C., Fischer, M., Hanninen, R., Lehto, S., and Laitinen, J. (2002). “Capitalizing on

Early Project Opportunities to Improve Facility Life-Cycle Performance.” Proceedings

of International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, 19th (ISARC).

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, pp. 73-78.

Kam C., Fischer M., Hänninen R., Karjalainen A., and Laitinen J. (2003). “The product

model and Fourth Dimension project.” ITcon (Electronic Journal of Information

Technology in Construction), Special Issue IFC - Product models for the AEC arena,

Vol. 8, pp. 137-166.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart,

& Winston.

Khanzode, A., Fischer, M., and Reed, D. (2005). “Case Study of the Implementation of

the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS) using Virtual Building Technologies on a large

Healthcare Project.” Proceedings 13th

Annual Conference of the International Group for

Lean Construction (IGLC-13), Sydney, July 19-21, pp. 153-160.

151

Koerckel, A. (2005). “VDC for Site Operations (Strategic Project Solutions).”

Presentation to CIFE Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering,

Stanford, CA, June 21, 2005.

Koivu, T., Laine, T., Iivonen, V. and Gonzales, D. (2003). “Options for the Finnish

FM/AEC Software Packages for Market Entry in the U.S.” VTT Research Note 2211,

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland. 2003.

Koo, B. and Fischer, M. (2000). “Feasibility Study of 4D CAD in Commercial

Construction.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 126 (5),

pp. 251-260.

Korman, T.M., Fischer, M., and Tatum, C.B. (2003). “Knowledge and reasoning for

MEP coordination.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE,

129(6), pp. 627–634.

Kunz, J. and Fischer, M. (2005). “Virtual Design and Construction: Themes, Case

Studies and Implementation Suggestions.” The Center for Integrated Facility

Engineering (CIFE) Working Paper #097, Stanford University, June 2005.

Kuzel, A.J. (1992). “Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry.” in Crabtree BF, Miller WL (Eds).

Doing qualitative research. London: Sage.

Larsson, R. (1993). “Case survey methodology: Quantitative analysis of patterns across

case studies.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 1515–1546.

Lee, G., Sacks, R., and Eastman, C. M. (2006). “Specifying Parametric Building Object

behavior (BOB) for a Building Information Modeling System.” Automation in

Construction, 15(6), pp. 758-776.

London, K., Singh, V., Gu, N., Taylor, C., and Brankovic, L. (2010) “Towards the

Development of a Project Decision Support Framework for Adoption of an Integrated

Building Information Model Using a Model Server.” Underwood, J. and Isikdag, U.

(eds), Handbook of Research on Building Information Modeling and Construction

152

Informatics : Concepts and Technologies, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA,

pp. 270-301.

Majumdar, T. and Fischer, M. (2006).”Virtual Reality Mock-up Model.” Proc. Joint

International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building

Engineering. Rivard, H., Melhem H., and Miresco, E. (Eds), Montreal, Canada, pp. 2902-

2911.

Malafsky, G.P. (2003) “Technology for Acquiring and Sharing Knowledge Assets.”

Handbook on Knowledge Management, Volume 2: Knowledge Directions. Holsapple,

C.W. (Eds.), Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 85-108.

Mason, R.O. (1984). “Summary of IT Impacts Research.” The Information Systems

Research Challenge. McFarlan, F.W. (Eds). Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA,

pp. 279-307.

Maxwell, J. A. (1992). “Understanding and validity in qualitative research.” Harvard

Educational Review, 62, pp. 279 - 300.

McQuary, J. (2004). “Case Example (Fluor).” Presentation to CIFE Summer Program,

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June 24, 2004.

Messner, J. I., and Lynch, T. (2002). “A Construction Simulation Model for Production

Planning at the Pentagon Renovation Project.” International Workshop on Information

Technology in Civil Engineering 2002. Anthony D. Songer and John C. Miles (Eds),

Washington, D.C., USA. pp. 145-153.

Minsky, M. (1975). “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” Reprinted in The

Psychology of Computer Vision, P. Winston (Eds.), McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Moore, G. A. (1999). Crossing the Chasm – Marketing and Selling High-tech Products to

Mainstream Customers. Harper Business. New York.

153

NIST (2001). Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Construction Systems

Integration and Automation Technologies in Commercial Buildings. National Institute of

Standards and Technology.

NIST (2007). National Building Information Modeling Standard – part 1: Overview,

Principles and Methodologies, National Institute of Building Sciences.

O’Brien, W. (2003). “4D CAD and Dynamic Resource Planning for Specialist

Contractors: Case Study and Issues.” 4D CAD and Visualization in Construction:

Developments and Applications, Issa, R., Flood, I., and O’Brien, W. (Eds). A. A.

Balkema, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 101-124.

Ohio GSD (2010). The State of Ohio Building Information Modeling (BIM) Protocol,

Office of the Chief Architect, General Services Division: Ohio.

Orlikowski, W.J. (1993). “CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating

Increment.” MIS Quarterly, 17(3), pp. 309-340.

Penn State (2010). BIM Project Execution Planning Guide and Templates – Version 2.0

BIM Project Execution Planning, CIC Research Group, Department of Architectural

Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK.

Riley, D. (2000). “The Role of 4D modeling in Trade Sequencing and Production

Planning.” Proc. of Construction Congress VI, ASCE, pp. 1029-1034.

Rischmoller, L., Fischer, M., Fox, R., and Alarcon, L. F. (2001). “4D Planning and

Scheduling (4D-PS): Grounding Construction IT Research in Industry Practice.”

Proceedings of the CIB-W78 International Conference IT in Construction in Africa 2001:

Implementing the next generation technologies, CSIR, Division of Building and

Construction Technology, Pretoria, South Africa, also available at

http://buildnet.csir.co.za/constructitafrica/au, pp. 34-1 to 34-11.

154

Robson, C. (1993), Real World Research: A resource for Social Scientists and

Practitioner-Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rockart, J.F. (1986) “A Primer on Critical Success Factors.” The Rise of Managerial

Computing: The Best of the Center for Information Systems Research, Christine V.

Bullen (Eds), McGraw-Hill, 1986.

Roe, Andrew (2002). “Building Digitally Provides Schedule, Cost Efficiencies.”

Engineering News Record, 248(7), pp. 29-31.

Rubin, A., and Babbie, E.R. (2008). Research Methods for Social Work. Thomson

Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.

Sampaio, A.Z., Henriques, P.G., Ferreira P.S., and Luizi R.P. (2005). “Vizualizing

Construction Processes by Means of Virtual 3D Models: Two Study Cases.”

Proceedings (469) Applied Simulation and Modelling. Hamza, M. H. (Eds)

Benalmádena, Spain, pp. 469-020.

Sawyer, T. (2005). “Maturing Visualization Tools Make Ideas Look Real.” ENR:

Engineering News-Record, 255(2), pp. 28-33.

Schwegler, B.R., Fischer, M., O’Connell, J.M., Hanninen R., and Laitinen J. (2001).

“Near- Medium- and Long-Term Benefits of Information Technology in Construction.”

CIFE Working Paper #65, Stanford University, July 2001.

Schwegler, B., Fischer, M., and Liston, K. (2000). “New Information Technology Tools

Enable Productivity Improvements.” North American Steel Construction Conference,

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Las Vegas, pp. 11-1 to 11-20.

Seibold, C. (2002). “The Place of Theory and the Development of a Theoretical

Framework in a Qualitative Study.” Qualitative Research Journal, Vol.2, pp. 3-15.

SENATE Properties (2007). Building Information Model (BIM) Requirements. SENATE

Properties, Helsinki, Finland.

155

Sim, J. (1998). “Collecting and Analyzing Qualitative Data: Issues Raised by the Focus

Group.” Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 28, pp. 345–353.

Singh, V., Gu, N., and Wang, X. (2011) “A Theoretical Framework of a BIM-based

Multi-disciplinary Collaboration Platform”. Automation in Construction, 20 (2), 134-144.

Somekh, B., and Lewin, C. (2005). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Snowden, Dave (2009). “Everything is Fragmented – the Core Principles.” KMWorld

Magazine, 18(1). http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/News/News-Analysis/Everything-is-

fragmented--The-core-principles--52016.aspx.

Statsbygg (2006). HITOS Documented Pilots, Statsbygg (Norwegian Directorate of

Public Construction and Property), Oslo, Norway.

Staub-French, S., Fischer, M., Kunz, J., and Paulson, B. (2003). “An Ontology for

Relating Features with Activities to Calculate Costs.” Journal of Computing in Civil

Engineering, 17(4), pp. 243-254.

Staub-French, S. and Fischer, M. (1998). “Constructibility Reasoning based on a 4D

Facility Model.” Structural Engineering World Wide, T191-1 (CD ROM Proceedings),

Elsevier Science Ltd.

Staub-French, S. and Khanzode, A. (2007). “3D and 4D Modeling for Design and

Construction Coordination: Issues and Lessons Learned.” ITCON, Vol. 12, pp. 381-407.

Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

SUCCAR, B. (2009). “Building information modelling framework: A research delivery

foundation for industry stakeholders.” Automation in construction. Vol. 18, pp.357-375.

156

Teicholz, P. (2004). “Labor Productivity Declines in the Construction Industry: Causes

and Remedies.” AECbytes Viewpoint #4:

http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/issue_4.html.

USACE (2006). Building Information Modeling: A Road Map for Implementation To

Support MILCON Transformation and Civil Works Projects within the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center,

Washington, DC.

Wang, R.Y., Kon, H.B., and Madnick, S.E. (1993). “Data Quality Requirements Analysis

and Modeling.” Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Data

Engineering. Vienna, Austria, pp. 670-677.

Webb, R.M. and Haupt, T.C. (2004). “The Potential of 4D CAD as A Tool for

Construction Management.” Journal of Construction Research, 5(1), pp. 43-60.

Whyte, J. (2001) “Business Drivers for the Use of Virtual Reality in the Construction

Sector.” Conference on Applied Virtual Reality in Engineering &

Construction Applications of Virtual Reality: Current Initiatives and Future Challenges.

Chalmers University of Technology Goteborg, Sweden. pp. 99-105.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research Design and Method. 2nd Edition, Sage Publication

Inc., CA.

157

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Benefit of BIM The benefits of BIM refer to the advantageous results that project stakeholders attain from using BIM on their projects.

BIM

Implementations

BIM implementations are the practical application of BIM tools for helping AEC professionals with their tasks on a project. It can also be called as a BIM Project Execution Plan (Penn State 2010).

Building

Information

Modeling (BIM)

Building Information Modeling (BIM) is the process of generating and managing building data during its life cycle (Lee et al. 2006).

Building

Information

Model (BIM)

Building Information Model (BIM) involves representing a design as objects that carry their geometry, relations and attributes.

Case Study Case study is a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence (Yin 1994).

Categories Categories are concepts that stand for a given phenomenon. They depict the matters that are important to the phenomena being studied. In this report, categories are related to the main tasks AEC professionals need to carry out when implementing BIM.

Crosswalk A crosswalk is a form of cross-tabulation that qualitatively shows the correlation between two factors (NIST 2001).

Factors Factors specify a category further by denoting information such as when, where, why, and how a phenomenon is likely to occur.

Impact of BIM The impact of BIM is the effect BIM has on building product design and project processes and organization. It includes the benefits accruing to project stakeholders and the efforts/costs required to overcome obstacles.

Impact of BIM

on Process

The impact of BIM on the tasks and their execution in the design and construction processes (Kunz and Fischer 2005), e.g., making the execution easier, faster, or earlier.

Impact of BIM

on Product

The impact of BIM on the design of physical elements within a building or plant (Kunz and Fischer 2005), e.g., better design quality in terms of meeting design functions.

Impact of BIM

on Organization

The impact of BIM on the work responsibility and role relationships between organizational groups that design, construct and operate a project (Kunz and Fischer 2005).

158

APPENDIX A (cont’d): GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Implementation

Factors

Implementation factors are the main aspects that shape and affect the implementation of BIM. For example, one factor of implementing BIM is “model use” which explains “why” BIM was used.

Implementation

Patterns

Patterns are formed when classifications of characteristics align themselves along a continuum or range. For example, the pattern of “model use” is shown by aligning nine types of model uses along the project timeline and by ranking them according to their frequency of occurrence on the 40 case projects.

Measures Measures capture a factor in terms of its characteristics. For example, the factor “model uses” is measured (qualified) by specifying “types of model uses.” Types of model uses can be classified into nine types of model uses according to the tasks BIM facilitates.