D31MI Construction Practice and IT

Building Information Modeling in the AEC Industry

Imperatives, Benefits and Challenges
D31MI Construction Practice and IT
Anupam, Koul
Reg. No. H00140413
Abstract: The construction industry faces criticism for being inefficient with a poor productivity record. Several
studies and reports have clearly indicated that there needs to be a fundamental shift in the methods employed by
the industry to achieve this. Building Information Modelling is emerging as a solution with the potential to affect
fundamental changes, not only in the project delivery process, but throughout the project life cycle. Even so,
most of the Architectural, Engineering and Construction industry remains unaware of BIM and the manner in
which it can impact their work. This study uses literature review to evaluate the status of BIM in the AEC
industry, imperatives for adopting BIM, benefits to be gained and challenges facing a successful adoption of
BIM. The existing literature on the subject indicates that for the projects that have adopted BIM, there has been a
significant value addition for all of the stakeholders. Even so, BIM faces challenges which are both technical and
managerial. Better awareness of BIM in the industry and increased usage can assist in overcoming these
challenges, as the industry becomes more aware of the potential and limitations of BIM.
Keywords: Building Information Modelling, Benefits, Challenges, Imperatives, Literature Review
1. Introduction
It has been long recognized that the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC)
industry lags behind comparable industries in efficiency and productivity. The poor
performance by the industry has been the subject of several studies and analyses and
proposals have been put forward on how to improve performance. (Kymmell, 2008).
However, even after two decades when Sir Michael Latham produced his critical review of
the construction industry in the UK (Latham, 1994), followed by the Sir J ohn Egans report
(Egan, 1998), there are still mounting calls for changes in the manner that the industry
delivers projects (Elmualim, 2010). There is a widely held belief that construction projects
suffer from unpredictibility where primary objectives of timely delivery, quality and cost are
concerned (Egan, 1998).
Sir Egan in his report (Egan, 1998) has called for creation of integrated project process
around the four key elements of product development, project implementationpartnering the
supply chain and production of components. This requires a paradigm shift in an industry
that has for long maintained a fragmented character and the different participants are often
working to different purposes. Under such circumstances, Building Information Modelling is
increasingly being touted as the panacea that has the potential to engender a climate of
collaboration and create a common platform for project development. Studies have shown
that use of BIM in construction projects has resulted in significant improvements across the
three primary objectives identified by Egan (1998).
This paper aims to evaluate the benefits that BIM can bring to the project delivery process,
the imperatives for implementing BIM and what challenges, if any are present to the
successful adoption of BIM by the AEC industry. This has been done by a literature survey of
several studies carried out on the subject and deriving conclusions from the same.
2. Building Information Modelling.
The increased interest in BIM over the past few years and the application to a wide section of
the AEC industry processes has meant that BIM has been defined in different terms by

D31MI Construction Practice and IT
different participants, and no single definition can be assumed to be provide a comprehensive
description.. However, in simplistic terms, building information modelling is a project and
process simulation (Kymmell, 2008).
A more detailed definition is provided by National BIM Standard (NBIMS) Project
Committee of the Buiding SMART alliance and cited by Barlish & Sullivan (2012).
A Building Information Model (BIM) is a digital representation of physical and functional
characteristics of a facility. As such it serves as a shared knowledge resource for information
about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life-cycle from inception
onward. The BIM is a shared digital representation founded on open standards for
interoperability
(Azhar, 2011) defines BIM as a virtual process that encompasses all aspects, disciplines,
and systems of a facility within a single, virtual model, allowing all design team members
(owners, architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers) to collaborate
more accurately and efficiently than using traditional processes.
These definitions provide an indication of the overarching nature of Building information
Modelling which does not only include the software for creating 3D models of the facility but
includes the project and construction process. The model can also be utilized for extracting
information about quantities, construction sequencing and product data for down stream
manufacturing.

Figure 1: Graphical representation of different components of a Building Information Model: Source
Azhar (2011)


D31MI Construction Practice and IT
3. Literature Review
The increased use of BIM across the AEC industry over the past decade has meant that there
is a greater interest in carrying out studies on the topic. These range from case studies,
quantifiable findings based on primary or secondary data and general theories and
assumptions. The objectives of a vast majority of the studies pertain to ascertaining the status
of BIM in the industry, the benefits to be derived from implementation of BIM and the
challenges to successful BIM adoption. However, the studies differ vastly in the methodology
employed to evaluate the different aspects of BIM implementation, especially related to
quantifying the gains to be derived from application of BIM to design and construction
management. The studies indicate that the perception and perspectives on BIM within the
industry are quite mixed, thus creating a general misunderstanding of the expected outcomes.
(Barlish & Sullivan, 2012). It is also to be seen that the extent of research on the subject is
relatively limited and sporadic in that no one comprehensive research or study has been
conducted across the global AEC industry.
Bryde, et al. (2013) have in their paper, The project benefits of Building Information
Modelling (BIM) presented a study of the extent to which implementation of BIM has
benifited constructon projects around the world. The authors have used secondary data from
35 case studies available in acedemic journals or from data placed in the public domain on
world wide web.
The study developed a list of success criteria related to the expected objectives of the project
in terms of time, cost and quality and mnagement of the process. The study has taken a
broader view of success criteria and incorporates both project and project management
success, thus utilizing the notion of project success being a multi dimensional concept
(Shenhar, et al., 2001).
A total of 9 criteria were developed by the authors to measure the benefits from
implementation of BIM across these 35 case studies, as illustrated in Figure 1
The criteria that saw the biggest benefits attributed to the adoption of BIM was the cost
success criterion. Cost reduction or cost control was cited in 21 case studies as having the
highest benefit from BIM. While some case studies articulated significant cost savings to the
design or planning stage, some of the most striking benefits were accured during the
cnstruction stage with one case study attributing savings of approx. 10% of the project value.
The second highest benefits were accrued from the time success criterion with 17 projects
reporting a saving in the project time line due to the implementation of BIM. While benefits
from BIM on the cost criterion was majorily reported on the construction phase, the time
benefit was reported to be significant on the planning or design stage.
On the communication success criterion 15 instances from 13 projects were reported to have
benifited from the implementation of BIM. What is significant is that there were no negative
instances reported on this criterion, thus indicating the impact the implementation of BIM had
on improving communication between the stakeholders. This was primarily a result of the
access to the project information that all stakeholders had because of the 3D modeling, thus
reducing the necessity to reduce information from other sources.
Figure 1 is a graphical representation of the results of the study and provides an overview of
the impact that BIM had on the various success criterion.

D31MI Construction Practice and IT

Figure 2: Number of instances reported for each success criterion
As is evident from Figure 1, the positive instances reported due to the implementation of BIM
far outweigh the negative instances. The only significant reporting of negative instances was
on the criterion of software issues, which primarily related to the interoperability issues
between the various BIM packages and a lack of knowledge of software programming.
A significant finding of the study is that there were no negative instances reported on three
success criterion, namely, quality, communication and scope clarification indicating the
extent of benefits accrued on these very important criterion for project success.
The study by Bryde, et al.(2013), represents one of the most comprehensive analysis of real
time data related to the benefits gained from implementation of BIM on construction projects.
The selected projects were from all across the globe, although a significant number were from
USA, indicating the traction that BIM has gained in the US construction industry.
While the data used by the authors is secondary in nature, the findings of the analysis provide
a telling insight into the positive impact that the adoption of BIM could have on the success
criteria of construction projects. The significant cost and time savings from conflict resolution
prior to commencement of construction and procurement activities represents a paradigm shift
in an industry marked by a high degree of confrontation on site, arising from perceived lack
of co-ordination at the planning stage.
Perhaps the most important contribution of the study has been to compare the data from
construction projects on diverse, but relevant success criteria and measure the impact of BIM
implementation against these criteria. While there are a number of studies reporting on the
benefits of BIM to construction projects, the criteria developed by Bryde, et al.(2013)
represent the most relevant to measuring the success of construction projects. It is for this
reason that their findings have a greater relevance in terms of evaluating gains from BIM
implementation on the AEC industry.
While the research has presented its findings in a relevant manner, it is in their conclusion to
the study that the authors seem to have ignored their own findings and have deviated into
challenges to BIM implementation a subject which does not form the body of the study.
Nevertheless the authors have included a section recommending further areas of research
where the study could focus on individual projects and how the project characteristics have
influenced the impact of BIM on the success criteria. The study is also, quite dated with some
of the projects used in the study having been started in the late 1990s. The findings from this

D31MI Construction Practice and IT
study should be complemented with more recent studies to evaluate the impact of BIM
adoption on construction projects.
A more theoretical approach to understanding the benefits of implementing BIM into the
AEC industry has been undertaken by Azhar (2011). This paper is one of the few that
provides a comprehensive overview in terms of benefits, challenges, trends and risks
associated with BIM adoption by the AEC industry. The author has used case studies and data
from secondary sources to conclude that increased use of BIM improves the predictibility of
the planning, construction and operation of buildings (Azhar, 2011).
Some of the key benefits identified by Azhar (2011), from sources such as surveys conducted
by Stanford University - Center for Integrated Facilitiec Management, and other literary
sources (Kunz & Gilligan, 2007) are:
Increased efficiency of information exchange between different stake holders.
Improved designs resulting from a quicker simulation and analysis of different options
which can be shared among all the stakeholders and thus a more comprehensive
review obytained.
Better understanding of life cycle costs.
The design output is dynamic and flexible can be utilized in downstream process and
exploited by sub-contractors and manufacturers of structural elements.
Conflict resolution to the extent never possible before, even with 3D graphical
softwares used previously, resulting in savings of upto 10% of the project costs.
Significant (upto 40%) elimination of unbudgeted changes.
Azhar (2011) has also provided an excellent overview of the challenges facimg the adoption
of BIM across the AEC industry and has classified these under two headings managerial
and technical.
The technical challenges are well understood and have been identified by other studies also.
These range from interoperability of softwares to facilitate information exchange, limited
computability of BIM data affecting utilisation of the data by a wider body of stakeholders
and lack of practical strategies for integration of BIM components.
The managerial challenges to the adoption of BIM identified by the paper relate to a lack of
consensus on the strategies to be adopted for BIM implementation and absence of a
contractual and legal frameowrk for the same
The paper relies on data gatherd by other sources, but succeeds in presenting a meaningful
overview of the state of BIM application in the industry. The benefits outlined make a strong
case for adoption of BIM, providing statistical evidence of gains to be accrued. In terms of
challenges and risks, the paper has based the conclusions on literature survey rather than on
data from actual studies or surveys carried out. However, it is acknowledged that perhaps very
little survey data on challenges faced in the real life applications of BIM or risks arising from
use of the same were available at the time of writing the paper.
The same is not true for study carried out by GU & London (2010) where they conducted
Focus Group Interviews of AEC industry participants to gather data on BIM
implementation in AEC industry. Although the data collection is limited to the Australian
AEC industry, the study presents a meaningful insight into the perceptions towards BIM
adoption among industry participants.

D31MI Construction Practice and IT
The authors have identified two distinct and diverse approaches to identifying these issues
and correspondingly address the same. The two approaches identified are technical
requirements and needs and non-technical considerations. The study finds that one of the
main challenges that the industry faces is the different levels of practical experience that
exists with respect to knowledge of BIM. The findings also reveal that these challenges could
be mitigated by fostering Trans- industry collaboration.
Perhaps the most significant contribution of the study is the development of a decision
framework for establishing standards for BIM applications in the ACE industry. The authors
recognize the lack of coherence related to the use and development of BIM systems in the
ACE industry, ironically echoing the fragmented nature of the industry.
As noted earlier, the authors have gathered primary data from Focus Group Interviews to
conclude that the following challenges are affecting the adoption of BIM by the industry.
Absence of any standards or strategy for data management.
Interoperability issues between the various components of the model.
Integrity and validity of data exchanged between various participants to the BIM.
Updation of the BIM during construction phase to allow for a meaningful tool for
facility management.
Gu & London (2010) have presented one of the few instances where the authors have relied
on primary data to base their conclusions on. The FGI with industry participants has
highlighted the actual issues being faced by industry professionals in application of BIM
systems to their work. The reliance on primary data has enabled the authors to address real
time concerns within the industry and propose solutions dovetailed to the requirements for
increased adoption of BIM by the ACE industry.
Arayici, et al. (2011) in their study have focused on researching the non technical aspects of
these challenges in a socio-cultural/technical context. The research aims to identify lean
design practices by the implementation of BIM in a small architectural practice through a
Knowledge Transfer Partnership between the University of Salford and a small architectural
practice based in Liverpool, UK.
The authors have identified that one of the most definitive challenges to adoption of BIM has
been resistance to change. It must be noted however, that this study is limited to experiences
within a single SME in Liverpool. The selected research approach of analysing the
implementation of BIM in the socio-cultural context limits the applicability of the research to
the geographical and social environs in which the study has been conducted and applicability
of the findings to a wider context could be challenged.
Be that as it may, the research identifies a solution in that the authors advocate a bottom-up
approach for implementation of BIM process in an organization of this size, which they
conclude is likely to offer a better success in managing change.
The authors also conclude that implementation of BIM within the industry is as much about
the people involved in the adoption as it is about the technology. Successful adoption of the
BIM process within the AEC industry would require an increase in the employee skills and
understanding.
As a corollary the research reinforces the efficiency of BIM in design management practices.
Elmualim & Gilder (Elmualim & Gilder, 2014), have attempted to carry out a review on the
experience, application and status of Building Information Modeling within the AEC

D31MI Construction Practice and IT
industry. The methodology adopted was to conduct an online survey among a diverse body of
design management professionals from across the world and critically review the implications
of adopting BIM within their organisations. The survey was open to professionals from the
AEC industry for three months in May 2009 during which a total of 143 respondents filled out
the survey.
The authors found that most respondents were of the opinion that implemation of innovative
technologies such as BIM would have a profound impact on performance indicators such as
Time and Quality. More importantly, the survey indicated that most respondents had a
positive outlook towards BIM and would gladly embrace the application of BIM should their
organisations implement such. There were however, significant variations in the
understanding of how BIM could be implemented in the construction industry and who within
the design management and construction process would have the most impact on innovation.
The authors have acknowledged that most of the respondents came from organisations that
employed design managers and thus were biased towards the influence that the planning stage
managers have on the process.
The study has also attempted to identify the challenges to extending the application of BIM
within the respondent organisations. The stated reasons were quite varied, ranging from lack
of capital investment required to the perception that the lack of legal framework governing the
application of BIM increases the risk of legal liabilities on the organisation. A significant
number of respondents (15.3%) felt that the costs associated with application of BIM far
outweigh the benefits that could be accured from application of such. A significant number of
respondents (37.8%) were not clear on the reasons why their organisations had not
implemented BIM as yet.
The study has concluded that application of innovation within the AEC industry is essential to
improve the efficiency and productivity of the industry and that BIM offers significant
technological innovation to achieve this. There are however challenges to the implementatin
of BIM within the industry, most of which are socio-technological in nature.
The research paper by Elmualim & Gilder (2014), is quite significant if the challenges facing
the implementation of BIM in the AEC industry are to be understood. The study is one of the
most recent to be reviewed and the only one that has tried to collect real time data on the
socio technological context for BIM implementation. As the earlier study by Arayici, et al
(2011)., has demonstrated, involvement of the people within the industry is critical to
extending the application of BIM within the ACE industry. The study by Elmualim & Gilder
(2014), has attempted to identify the perceptions that the people within the industry hold
towards implementation of BIM.
Although the study has presented survey data to support its conclusions, it must be understood
that the number of respondents in the survey is actually quite small compared to the number
employed by the AEC industry. Also, socio technological reasons can actually be quite varied
across the globe and it cannot be said for certain that the respondents actually represent the
viewpoints within their geographical regions. While the authors cannot be faulted for the
small number of respondents in their survey, being limited by the willingnes of the industry
professionals to participate in the survey, it might be more accurate to limit the scope of such
studies to the geographical boundaries of different socio-economin zones. More such studies
would be required for different parts of the world before firm conclusions can be drawn on the
perceptions regarding BIM within the AEC industry and the particular challenges that the
industry faces in different regions.

D31MI Construction Practice and IT
4. Conclusions.
A review of the literature existing on the implementation of BIM within the AEC industry
indicates heightened interest on the subject within the past decade. There are numerous papers
highlighting the status of BIM adoption, the benefits to be gained from implementing BIM
and the challenges and risks associated with the same. However it becomes evident that,
analogous to the fragmented character of the industry there is a degree of disconnect between
the perceptions held by the industry participants towards the meaning of BIM and how it
could be adopted in the most beneficial manner. As Elmualim & Gilder (2014) found in their
online survey, their respondents held quite varying viewpoints on what BIM could mean for
their work and how best they could apply it. Many respondents actually believed that
someone other than themselves should be responsible for implementing BIM.
However, a universal theme that emerges from the literature survey is that BIM could be a
solution to remove the malaise of poor productivity and inefficiency that has plagued the AEC
industry for long. Very few industry participants held a negative view point on BIM adoption
and the benefits of the same are quite evident to all. These findings whether from case studies,
surveys or literature reviews indicate benefits to the building industry across all stages of
project life cycle and encompass almost all of the stakeholders. Case studies of 35 projects
undertaken by Bryde, et al. (2013) quantify the benefits in terms of actual cost savings made
by the stakeholders, besides the several qualitative benefits accrued. As such the lack of any
significant progress in BIM adoption by the industry is particularly intriguing and could
perhaps be explained by the challenges highlighted by several papers.
One of the most significant of these has been highlighted by Gu & London (2010), who have
argued that the lack of coherence in establishing a set of standards and policies for BIM
implementation is affecting the development of fully integrated collaborative
multidisciplinary mode of operation. This is especially critical since one of the most touted
advantages of BIM is that it encourages collaboration between parties who have hereto,
shared adversarial relationships. The absence of a clear direction and development of industry
led standards and policies can be attributed to an almost complete dearth of initiatives from
within the industry to drive the agenda. This is hardly surprising since, as the surveys by
Elmualim & Gilder (2014) and Gu & London (2010), have indicated, most in the AEC
industry are still struggling with the concept of BIM and what it actually means.
The second most significant challenge that the industry faces in widening the application of
BIM is the culture of mistrust and an absence of legal safeguards to mitigate this. Most of the
projects executed in the industry are governed by contractual relationships and while the
success of the project remains the stated goal of all the stakeholders, safegaurding their
interests is the priority. Under such an environment, BIM presents a scenario where the limits
of liability get blurred and many respondents in the surveys noted above, felt uncomfortable
with this lack of clarity, to the extent that adopting BIM for eecuting their projects was not on
their agenda. Even where BIM had been adopted for application to their work, it is being used
primarily as an internal tool for collaboration between various teams within the same
company, thus avoiding any issues with legal liabilities.
So what is the way forward for BIM in the AEC industry? It is obvious that BIM should be
embraced by the industry but in a manner that it achieves its full potential and actually
becomes the tool for fostering collaboration across the industry and drives the agenda for
better productivity and efficiency. In order for this to happen, it seems imperative that the
awareness of BIM within the industry needs to be improved. Once the industry participants
becoem aware of the various aspects of BIM, they would be in a better position to advise on
and seek the required legal framework for incorporating BIM into their execution strategies.

D31MI Construction Practice and IT
5. References
Arayici, Y. et al., 2011. Technology adoption in the BIM implementationfor lean architectural
practice. Automtion in Construction, Volume 20, pp. 189-195.
Azhar, S., 2011. Building Information Modeling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks Challenges for the AEC
Industry. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 11(3), pp. 241-252.
Barlish, K. & Sullivan, K., 2012. How to measure the benefits of BIM - A case study approach.
Automation in Construction, Volume 24, pp. 149 - 159.
Bryde, D., Broquetas, M. & Volm, J. M., 2013. The Project benefits of Building Information Modelling
(BIM). International Journal of Project Management, Volume 31, pp. 971-980.
Egan, S. J., 1998. Rethinking Construction, s.l.: s.n.
Elmualim, A., 2010. Culture and leadership in stakeholder management. In: E. A. C. &. P. Olomolaiye,
ed. Construction Stakeholders Management. London: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, pp. 174-192.
Elmualim, A. & Gilder, J., 2014. BIM: innovation in design management, influence and challanges of
implementation.. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 10(3-4), pp. 183 - 199.
Gu, N. & London, K., 2010. Understanding and Facilitating BIM Adoption in the AEC Industry..
Automation in Construction, Volume 20, pp. 988-999.
Kunz, J. & Gilligan, B., 2007. Stanford University - Centre for Integrated Facility Engineering. [Online]
Available at: http://cife.stanford.edu/VDCsurvey.pdf
[Accessed 22 8 2009].
Kymmell, W., 2008. Building Information Modelling. s.l.:McGraw Hill Construction.
Latham, S. M., 1994. Constructing the Team - Final report of the government/industry review of
procurement and contractual arrangements in the UK construction industry., s.l.: The Department of
teh Environment HMSO.
Olatunji, O., 2014. Views on building information modeling procurement and contract management..
Management, Procurement and Law, June, pp. 117-126.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. & Maltz, A. C., 2001. Project Success: a multidimensional strategic
concept.. Long Range Planning, 34(6), pp. 699-725.