BIM ThinkSpace

Global Trends in BIM Research

In this guest post, Amarnath CB (PhD candidate, National Taiwan University) provides an overview of Global BIM research trends by analyzing a large number of BIM-focused publications. The simple methodology adopted, shear extent of review effort and visual nature of analysis provide an excellent overview of BIM research coverage. The approach taken represents a solid basis for researchers to expand this study by analyzing more publications and identify the knowledge gaps to be addressed in the BIM domain [Editor].

 

Introduction

There is an increasing need to critically evaluate the BIM research covering a building’s Project Lifecycle. This is intended to combine present-day’s “body of knowledge” and deliver a comprehensive perspective of global BIM research conducted to date.

This post is a short summary of a much larger scoping study covering 1500 papers published over the past 25 years by BIM researchers from 65 countries. The papers selected for analysis include journal publications, conference proceedings, research reports, master’s and doctoral theses. To analyze such a large set and analyze any trends discovered, the research team combined three components into a new framework: (a) the BIM Research Compass by Iskidag & Underwood (2010); (b) the Model Uses Taxonomy by Succar (http://bimthinkspace.com/) and (c) Project Lifecycle Phases categorization (adapted from Succar, 2009). We used this framework and a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze and then visualize 1000 featured BIM publications. Based on this analysis, we identified the highly-, moderately- and least-explored Research Directions, Model Uses and Project Lifecycle Phases. Subsequently, we generated a number of interactive maps to explain our findings and provided a number of conclusions. These are presented below after briefly explaining the research method and raw results.

 

Research Method

In this study, three BIM research frameworks were adopted for BIM publications categorization: (a) the “BIM Research Compass” developed by Isikdag and Underwood (2010) is a classification system reflecting current directions in BIM-focused research; (b) the model uses taxonomy introduced in BIM ThinkSpace which includes 52 General Model Uses (GMUs), 73 Domain Model Uses (DMUs) and unlimited number of Custom Model Uses (CMUs); and (c) the Project Lifecycle Phases framework introduced by Succar (2009) is a classification system reflecting three major lifecycle phases: Design, Construction and Operations. For better understanding towards BIM publications compilation process in this study, we encourage you to read our publication, i.e. Amarnath et al. 2016.

 

Results and discussions

Research Directions

The below image clarifies the distribution of 1000 featured BIM papers according to the 12 Research Directions: Figure 1a (left) shows the percentage published in each Research Direction, and Figure 1b (right) identifies the number of papers published by the top three contributing countries:

1a	1b

 Figure 1. Distribution of BIM papers according to Research Directions

Upon analysis of Research Directions, Process Simulation & Monitoring was the top Direction accounting for 22% on its own (Figure 1a) with China generating most publications, followed by Korea, UK and Taiwan (Figure 1b). The second and third most-highly researched Directions Were Building Information Services (16%) and Standardization (14%) in the UK, US and the Netherlands.

These numbers are useful to confirm some of the trends witnessed across markets. For example, the strong showing of standardization in the above graph is hardly surprising with the proliferation of BIM mandates for government sector projects (Cheng & Lu, 2015) which – through explicit and implicit policies - stress the need for standardized components and processes. One interesting trend observed in Figure 1b is that - among the top three Research Directions, researchers in established North American and European markets focus more on Standardization and Building Information Services, while researchers in emerging Asian markets focus more on the Process Simulation and Monitoring. One possible reason for this difference may well be market maturity with, on one hand, North American and European countries - already realizing the basic benefits of BIM tools and workflows – are now moving towards deeper interoperability and process standardization. On the other hand, Asian countries are still to realize the main benefits of BIM and are this still focused on construction process visualization and optimization.

Reflecting these finding and trends, the below Interactive Map A (takes a few seconds to load) organizes the 1000 featured BIM papers according to the 12 Research Directions identified by Isikdag and Underwood. The map allows users to select a Research Direction and visualize the list of BIM papers falling under it. The users can also click on a country they are interested in and view the BIM papers within a selected Research Direction:

 

---

 

 

---

 Interactive Map A: Categorization of BIM publications into Research Directions (external link)

 

Model Uses

General Model Uses (GMUs)

There are 52 General Model Uses (GMU)s defined in episode 24 of BIM ThinkSpace (also refer to Succar et al., 2016). The study - upon which this post is based - categorized 119 BIM papers according to 16 GMUs (see Figure 2a): 45% of these papers fell under Parametric Modelling; 11% under Architectural Modelling; and the remaining 44% were distributed across remaining 14 GMUs. Among all 52 GMUs, Parametric Modelling proved to be the leading (highly researched) General Model Use:

 

2a	2b

Figure 2. BIM publications categorization into GMUs (left) and CMUs (right)

 

Custom Model Uses (CMUs)

Additionally, this study organized featured BIM papers according to 54 Custom Model Use categories identified by this study (please refer to Notes). Within the 1000 papers reviewed, 445 were tagged by these CMUs and - as illustrated in Figure 2b - BIM Implementation was the most researched CMU with 29% of all papers falling under this category. Also, BIM for Collaboration Communication and Coordination (hereinafter BIM for CCC) was a close second with 28% of all papers covered.

Domain Model Uses (DMUs)

Episode 24 identified 73 Domain Model Uses (DMU)s organized under 7 model use series. This study identified two additional DMUs - Construction Monitoring and PLC Management – that can be added into the Monitoring & Controlling series. These 75 DMUs were used as ‘tags’ and applied to 865 of the 1000 featured BIM papers. The tagging helped identify both Simulating & Quantifying and Planning & Designing as two highly explored/researched Model Use series, applicable to 65% of all BIM papers.

Figure 3 below clarifies the distribution of publications according to the Model Use series (the large graph in the center) and the distribution against each Domain Model Use within each series (the seven smaller graphs on the periphery). Figure 3 reveals that Design Authoring, Laser Scanning, Cost Estimation, Construction Logistics, Asset Maintenance, Construction Monitoring and BIM/FM Integration are explored more extensively by global researchers.

Figure 3. Distribution of BIM papers across Model Use series and Domain Model Uses

 

Based on the aforementioned, the below Interactive Map B (takes a few seconds to load) was developed to reflect how the 75 Domain Model Uses appear across 865 papers. This interactive map provides an opportunity for users to isolate the BIM papers which fall under a particular DMU category. The users can also select a country on a map and view all BIM papers published out of that country.

---

 

 

---

 Interactive Map B: Categorization of BIM papers according to Model Uses (External link)

 

Project Lifecycle Phases

As presented in Figure 4 below, the study classifies the featured BIM papers according to Project Lifecycle Phases categorization: Design Phase, Construction Phase and Operations Phase (Succar, 2009). However, few publications fell into another group i.e. Whole Lifecycle. In Whole Lifecycle group, BIM research papers falling under combinations of Design, Construction and Operations Phases were included. Out of the 1000 papers, 54% cover the Design Phase (see Figure 4a) and thus indicate higher research saturation when compared to other Project Lifecycle Phases where BIM research is still evolving. Figure 4b (right) identifies the 20 countries (covering 89% of BIM papers considered in this study) with number of BIM papers published in Project Lifecycle Phases. When it comes to overall research turnover, the USA and UK have published a large percentage – 21% and 14% respectively – of the 1000 BIM papers reviewed (see Figure 4b).

 

4a	4b

Figure 4. Distribution of BIM papers across the Project Lifecycle Phases

 

Based on the this, the below Interactive Map C (takes a few seconds to load) was developed to clarify the distribution of 1000 featured BIM papers across the Project Lifecycle Phases. This interactive map provides an opportunity for users to select a Project Lifecycle Phase and view a list of BIM papers falling under it. The users can also select a country on a map and view the BIM papers published out of that country.

 

---

 

 

---

 Interactive Map C: Distribution of BIM publications across Project Lifecycle Phases (external link)

 

Conclusion

This study provided an overview of global BIM research trends through a systematic review of 1000 featured BIM papers. Three interactive maps were developed to showcase the distribution of these papers according to Research Directions, Model Uses and Project Lifecycle Phases. The papers reflect the published BIM research over the past 25 years. According to our study, the US, UK, China and Australia have released a large percentage of all BIM papers during the investigated period. Also, among the 12 Research Direction, Process Simulation and Monitoring, Building Information Services and Standardization are the most researched Directions to date. With respect to Model Uses, Parametric Modelling proved to be the most explored General Model Use and BIM Implementation and BIM for CCC are the most studied CMUs (research topics). As for Domain Model Uses, Planning & Designing and Simulation & Quantifying are the most researched series and Design Authoring, Construction Planning, Cost Estimation and Laser Scanning are the most widely explored. Further investigations on global trends in BIM research can include social networking and keywords analysis.

 

Notes and Limitations

This post adopts a different definition to Custom Model Uses than that introduced by Succar in Episode 24. This will be rectified or clearly identified in future publications. As a study limitation, this study only has only covered publications available in English and those included in databases accessible by the researchers. While these databases may not be inclusive of all papers released during the period targeted, they still provide a representative sample of published BIM papers. If you discover any inaccuracies in the above post or the study, and you’d like to suggest improvements, please contact the author directly.

 

---

 

More information

This study is part of an ongoing research effort supervised by Prof. Shang-Hsien (Patrick) Hsieh of National Taiwan University (Taiwan). To read the full peer-reviewed article upon which this post is based, please download: An Overview of Global Research trends in BIM from Analysis of BIM Publications, as presented at the 16^th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBE2016), Osaka, Japan on July 6^th, 2016.

 

References

Amarnath CB, Yun-Tsui Chang & Shang-Hsien Hsieh (2016). An Overview of Global Research Trends in BIM from Analysis of BIM Publications. In the proceedings of 16th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, ICCCBE 2016, 6th-8th, July 2016, Osaka, Japan.

BIM ThinkSpace. (2015). Episode 24: Understanding Model Uses. Retrieved from BIM Think Space website: http://www.bimthinkspace.com/, accessed on September 10, 2015.

Cheng, J.C.P. & Lu, Q. (2015). A Review of the Efforts and Roles of the Public Sector for BIM Adoption Worldwide, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 20 (October), 442–478.

Cooper, H.M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1 (x), 104-126.

Isikdag, U. & Underwood, J. (2010). A Synopsis of the Handbook of Research on Building Information Modeling. Proceedings of CIB 2010 World Building Congress. May: Salford, MA, 2010.

Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction,18(3), 357-375.

Succar, B., Saleeb, N., Sher, W. (2016). Model Uses: Foundations for a Modular Requirements Clarification Language, Australasian Universities Building Education (AUBEA2016), Cairns, Australia, July 6-8, 2016. http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA10

 

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Bilal Succar for this opportunity to share our research through BIM ThinkSpace to reach the Global BIM community. I am thankful to Prof. Shang-Hsien Hsieh for his support throughout this research process. I would like to thank my co-researchers, Yuntsui Chang for her contributions in this research and Er-Xuan Sung for his assistance in data visualization. Finally, special thanks to my parents for their constant support in life.

 

Guest Author

Amarnath CB Civil Engineer | PhD Candidate at National Taiwan University, Taiwan Amarnath CB is currently pursuing his PhD studies in CAE Division, Civil Eng. Dept. of National Taiwan University (Taiwan) where he is investigating on maturity assessment of BIM uses in AECO projects. He is progressing towards BIM research with several other directions, i.e. BIM adoption, lean & green, building information services, industry-wide adoption, education & training and real-life cases. He is the founder of India BIM Association (IBIMA). Playing an active role as a member of editorial team for IJM&P and ISCCBE BIM technical committee member. He is also the member of ASCE, CIOB & RICS. Amarnath CB can be contacted through ResearchGate & LinkedIn

 

Data Aggregation and Information Search in AEC/FM Industry

In this guest post, Mehmet Yalcinkaya (PhD Candidate) and Vishal Singh (Assistant Professor - both at Aalto University, Finland) introduce their innovative approach to project information visualisation. Their background research is solid and the tool they've developed is very promising:

 

Introduction

It is astounding that not many of us realise that we spend nearly one year of our life looking for misplaced objects. Yes, one year lost in looking for misplaced objects! No wonder, the same problem plagues us in our professional lives as well. On average, AEC-FM professionals and technicians spend 46% of their time looking for the information they need (Juhla and Suvanto 2015). That is, when we are seeking some input to base our actions on, nearly half of the time we can’t find the “right information”. Of course, this is also true of data and digitised information. So we know there’s a problem in locating information, but is there a solution to this?

In this short post, we will summarise our research covering key pain points - information management challenges that our industry is suffering from. We will also introduce a few basic principles that we’ve adopted, and a digital solution that we’ve developed, to address these pain points.

 

What is the problem?

The effective access, delivery and management of digital facility information has remained a major challenge over the past few decades. Despite the increasing digitalisation of the AEC-FM sector, and the proliferation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Internet of Things (IoT) solutions, challenges related to information management continue to expand and grow. Project-related information is vast, diverse, fragmented, and widely distributed across different sources, systems and actors. More often than not, we – the information managers - assume that those who need specific project information would be able to easily search diverse information sources and make sense of what they find. We also assume that everyone who needs information knows where information they seek is stored, and how to seamlessly navigate between vastly different data sources and data structures. We also assume that, in order to support data integration, we only need to create standards, enforce their adoption top-down, and then everyone will magically understand what to do and when to do it! In all these assumptions, we are actually overly reliant on the information seeker’s ability to find information, especially if we’ve not clarified where information is stored and how information retrieval need to be handled. So when these poor information seekers can’t find the information they need, many of us tend to either blame the information standards, the individual seeker, or the software systems used. Many of us may attempt to remedy this by creating new information standards or developing new information management tools. In doing so, we tend to forget that, without addressing the root causes, the problem is bound to persist and we’ll find ourselves facing the same challenge, over and over again.

 

How can we address this challenge?

The most important way to address the aforementioned challenge is to question the many underlying assumptions we’ve discussed above. In this post, we propose two key approaches: first, we need to focus on the information seekers, understand their decision making processes, and the cognitive aspect dictating how information is being parsed. Second, we need to acknowledge that current information standards and information structures have merit and do not need to be replaced or replicated. So rather than trying to create new standards, we need to focus on making them easier to understand and follow by non-experts.

 

Putting the approach to test: from concept to implementation.

To test our aforementioned approach, we’ve built a data aggregation and visual search platform - called VisuaLynk – using a network/graph-based data infrastructure. In building this platform, we avoided capturing information entities in a siloed manner as most current IT systems do. That is, most project information systems try to capture the whole lifecycle project information in files, folders and digital repositories. Such an approach cannot capture the relations between the information entities, cannot clarify the hidden interactions within the network, and thus these relations and interactions would remain misunderstood and underutilized.

To counter this, instead of capturing data in a static and siloed system, we’ve adopted a dynamic, network-based configuration to display relations between information entities (Figure 1).

  Figure 1. A network/graph based data infrastructure to solve the problem of data-silos

 

To further improve the user’s experience, we introduced an interactive graph-based visualization and a visual search - a knowledge map of the linked facility data. This visual approach allows information seekers to more easily find the information they need and understand the relation between information entities (Figure 2). Also, the knowledge map simplifies the data structure that can correspond – in theory – to any information standard. For example, we’ve developed VisualCOBie, a graph visualization of the COBie standard (Construction Operations Building information Exchange – refer to Yalcinkaya & Singh 2016a) which makes COBie data structure visual and thus easier to understand by the non-expert user. Our preliminary research trials attracted much the positive feedback from industry partners in Finland. The key finding is that interactive graph visualizations of standardised data structures is a good way to clarify information standards to non-experts, and to increase their acceptance and adoption rates. Based on these positive results, it may be worth investigating to take trial this on more complex data structures and possibly develop a VisualIFC module or similar.

Figure 2. Implementation of the data aggregation and visual search platform

 

Discussion

There is a limit to the amount of information that people can process. Efficient documentation and effective representation of data is critical to improve communication and collaboration between people. This has always been the best approach (to date) to deliver structured project information through CAD/BIM files, PDF documents, spreadsheets, emails, etc. However, despite the importance of documentation to exchange project/facility information, the  knowledge and experience of individuals cannot be stored as documents. Even basic knowledge similar where information is stored, how to read different data formats, and how to build connections/links between stored data and documented information across different sources, remain stubbornly tacit (hidden) within the mind of the individual information seeker.

To address this, we need to develop a new kind of data aggregation platform which – to a degree – can act as a Transactive Memory System (Wegner 1995). That is, if the system can represent how information is connected, information seekers – a project team for example – can more easily locate the information they need, when they need it.

So, instead of categorizing project information into disconnected silos (files and folders), we’ve managed to create a visual layer that (a) uncovers existing data structures, and (b) clarifies many of the relations between these structures across the project’s whole lifecycle. The relations uncovered include (c) those between a single individual (project actor) with other individuals, and (d) those between individuals and information entities. By making these relations explicit, we have come closer to building a ‘transactive memory system’ that – not only represents the original hierarchical relations between information entities but also – shows many alternative paths between entities (Yalcinkaya & Singh, 2016b).

To achieve such a visual memory system, we developed a knowledge graph/network using a linked data approach. The integration between different data sources and the aggregation platform is established via API (application programming interface) connections. In addition, the integration of BIM/IFC files is established via the semantic web technology by conversion of IFC file to resource description framework (RDF) format (Hoang & Seppo 2015). Therefore in our approach, instead of trying to collect all data in a single repository, we’ve opted to aggregate and semantically link existing data from across various sources. Such an approach has also been adopted by BuildingSmart and the Linked Building Data Community Group, which are currently conducting much research activity around  BIM and Web of Data.

Since we are focusing on the individual user, we go a step beyond the back-end linked data capability to provide a user-friendly and interactive interface that also explicitly shows the relationships between the linked data. The User Interface presents the data structure, data connections and spatial organization in a visually-appealing, space-saving node-link diagram.

Such visualization facilitates navigation between information entities using pre-attentive figures (symbols) assigned to information entities (nodes) which are directly related (links) to individuals and/or other information entities (Figure 3).

The node-link visualization is also able to connect bi-directionally with interactive 2D floor plans and 3D BIM models thus allowing information seekers to interrogate specific spaces, equipment and components. This ability to concurrently navigate data structures using varied representations (2D, 3D, tree-structure, node-link diagram) enhances user experience.

 

 Figure 3. Representation of a graph-based data model with node-link diagram

 

In summary, our research has addressed the ‘information management’ challenge in two ways: focusing on the individual information seeker, and enhancing the usability of data aggregated from different sources. This has been accomplished by applying the following key principles:

• Developing a transactive memory system (TMS) which allows project team members to locate information in multiple formats;
• Developing a semantic web of data residing in different databases;
• Developing a Visual management and communication system for enhanced user experience and reduced cognitive load;
• Showing explicit relations between information entities/sources; and

This post reflects our early research findings with more empirical evidence currently being collected through pilot projects.  However, these findings are very promising as they suggest that visual communication, explicit representation of relations between information entities, and server-side linked-data approach can markedly (a) improve user experience, and (b) increase adoption of information systems!

 

---

References

Hoang, Nam Vu, and Seppo Törmä. "Implementation and Experiments with an IFC-to-Linked Data Converter." http://itc.scix.net/data/works/att/w78-2015-paper-029.pdf

Tuuli Jylhä , Maila Elina Suvanto , (2015) "Impacts of poor quality of information in the facility management field", Facilities, Vol. 33 Iss: 5/6, pp.302 - 319

Wegner, Daniel M. "A computer network model of human transactive memory." Social cognition 13.3 (1995): 319.

Yalcinkaya M. & Singh V., (2016a). Evaluating the Usability Aspects of Construction Operation Building Information Exchange (COBie) Standard. CIB World Building Congress, At Tampere, Finland https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303811016_Evaluating_the_Usability_Aspects_of_Construction_Operation_Building_Information_Exchange_COBie_Standard

Yalcinkaya M. & Singh V., (2016b). A Visual Transactive Memory System Approach Towards Project Information Management, [Manuscript in review]

 

More Information

This study is a part of an ongoing research at Aalto BIM Collaboration led by Dr. Vishal Singh (@SinghV_Aalto), Assistant Professor at the Department of Civil Engineering, Aalto University, Finland. To read peer-reviewed paper related to this post, please see the references above. Additional and upcoming articles related to this blog can be found through the author’s public research profiles.

This is currently an ongoing research and development project, requiring improvements and revision of both on theoretical and practical aspects. For any inaccuracies, inquiry for further discussions and/or comments/suggestions, please contact the researcher directly.

 

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Bilal Succar for this opportunity to publish this research through BIM ThinkSpace. We would also like to thank Senior Researcher Seppo Törma and PhD Candidate Nam Vu Hoang for their collaboration and intensive support to this research.

 

---

Guest Authors

	Mehmet Yalcinkaya PhD Candidate at Aalto University, Finland Mehmet is a PhD Candidate and Researcher at Aalto BIM Collaboration where he is currently investigating a number of topics including: Facility Management (FM) practices, computational and usability aspects of BIM-based FM solutions, and how standardization processes affect industrial and technological knowhow. His PhD study resulted in the development of a data aggregation and visual search platform called VisuaLynk. Mehmet has previously worked on the DRUMBEAT research project and is currently the project manager for the DigiBuild research project. He has industrial experience in large-scale residential and infrastructure construction projects in both Turkey and the USA. Mehmet ([email protected]) can also be contacted via Linkedin, Twitter, ResearchGate, and Githu
	Vishal Singh Assistant Professor at Aalto University, Finland Vishal Singh is the professor of Computer Integrated Construction (Building Information Modeling) at the Department of Civil Engineering, Aalto University, Finland. He leads the BIM research program and works closely with both industry and national/international research partners. Vishal’s research focuses on the interaction of products, processes and people - aiming to understand the decision making processes, and developing tools and methods to support this decision making. Vishal’s research combines his expertise in the areas of design thinking and computational thinking with a focus on BIM, multidisciplinary collaboration, and digitally-enabled innovation across the AEC-FM industry. Vishal ([email protected]) can also be contacted via Linkedin, Twitter and ResearchGate

 

The Many Faces of ‘LOD’

In this guest post, Marzia Bolpagni (PhD Candidate, Politecnico di Milano, Italy) provides a comprehensive review of the 'LOD' term and its many nuances from across the world. I’m sure you’ll find her insights, comparative tables and detailed charts very informative:

 

Introduction

All practitioner who use Building Information Modelling tools and workflows in their daily practice must have already faced the ‘information exchange dilemma’. That is, to effectively deliver a project, it is first essential to define what information is needed, from whom, and at what level of detail. To meet this challenge, several international specifications have been developed to address the definition of modelled objects and information embedded within them - these include: Model Progression Specification (MPS), Model Development Specification (MDP), Level of Development, and Level of Detail. Usually, these specifications are included within a BIM Execution Plan (BEP) or a similar document. However, much confusion still surrounds these concepts due to the large number of acronyms and definitions across countries and sometimes within the same market. Thus, this post will focus on clarifying the principles, surveying historical data, differentiating between different specifications, and reflecting upon a possible future scenario.

 

History of ‘LOD’

In 2004, Vico Software (now part of Trimble) introduced the Model Progression Specification (MPS) concept to facilitate the management of information within BIModels. The ‘LOD' acronym was thus used for the first time to indicate ‘Level of Detail’ and to establish the progressive reliability of information over a period of time. In 2008, a similar concept was adopted by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), California Council’s Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Task Force, and later by the AIA National Documents Committee. The AIA introduced five ‘Levels of Development’ (LOD100-LOD500) in the E202™–2008. Building Information Modeling Protocol Exhibit, which was updated in 2013. Also in 2013, the BIMForum published the Level of Development Specification based on the AIA protocols. These documents then became the point of reference of several BIM Guidelines and documents in a number of countries – including Australia, Canada, Singapore, China, Taiwan, Germany and France. Other countries developed their own variant specification. For example, in New Zealand, the LOD specification follows the AIA (2013) but defines ‘Level of Development’ (LOD) as a sum of four different aspects: ‘Level of detail’ (LOd), ‘Level of accuracy’ (LOa), ‘Level of information’ (LOi) and ‘Level of coordination’ (LOc).

In 2007, Denmark developed a different classification system based on seven ‘Information Levels’ (0-6) covering geometric and non-geometric data within virtual building elements that different parties rely upon. This concept was then incorporated into the Australian CRC National BIM Guidelines document (2009) and the ‘Nederlandse BIM informatieniveaus’ (2014), although the US Levels of Development (LOD100-LOD500) were the dominant system used in both countries.

Following that, the Hong Kong BIM Project Specification (2011) incorporated several tables for defining the minimum ‘Level of Detail’ required with models but without providing a classification.

Figure 1: The History of ‘LOD’ (Updated July 22, 2016 - Full-size Image)

 

In 2009 the AEC(UK) released a BIM Protocol introducing a Model Development Methodology incorporating the Level of Detail/Grade within a classification dedicated purely to geometric aspects (G0-G3). In 2012, the same concept was adopted in Canada by AEC(CAN). However, in 2014, the second version of the BIM Protocol now only refers to the BIMForum LOD Specification released in 2013. In the UK, PAS1192-2, was then published in 2013 and introduced the ‘Level of Definition’, a new classification system with seven levels (1-7) representing both a ‘Level of Model Detail’ (LOD) (for graphic content) and ‘Level of Model Information’ (LOI) (for non-graphic content). This concept was later incorporated, in 2015, into both the NBS BIM Toolkit and the AEC(UK) BIM Technology Protocol, while the CIC BIM Protocol (2013) continues to refer only to Levels of Detail. The UK approach has influenced the last version of the BIMForum LOD Specification (2015) which for the first time includes both Element Geometry and Associated Attribute Information. A new version will be available by July 2016 for public comments.

 

Other LoXs

Another classification deals with the Level of Accuracy (LOA) to represent and document existing conditions. The USIBD guideline (2016) uses different levels (LOA10-LOA50) and incorporates the validation process.

Finally, CityGML has developed five Levels of Detail (LOD0-LOD4) to define geometric details and semantic precision to link BIM with Geographic Information System (GIS) data.

 

Figure 2: ‘LoX’ relations and evolution (Updated July 22, 2016 - Full-size Image)

 

Conceptual Differentiation

The above variations of the same concept have – understandably – caused a large degree of confusion. Below are a few examples:

• The original ‘Level of Detail’ index was intended to measure the reliability of both geometric and non-geometric data, it now focuses more on the geometric attributes;
• The same ‘LOD’ acronym is interchangeable used for both Level of Detail and Level of Development;
• Identical concepts are occasionally referred using different terms (e.g. ‘Level of Information’ and ‘Associate Attribute Information’);
• The Level of Development – while intended to be associated with Model Components – it is sometimes mistakenly associated with whole BIModels; and
• Many BIM documents that these classifications are based on are now out of date.

 

Comparisons

The below two tables summarize the many different classification systems, within the main BIM documents, intended to specify the level of detail, development or information embedded within Model Components.

 
Table 1: Comparison of the intended coverage of LoX systems (Updated July 22, 2016 - Full-size Image)

 

Several classifications (included in Table 2) are already established. However, it is important to underline that – while many share the same name/acronym – they do not necessarily carry the same connotations. For this reason, there is not a perfect coincidence between levels of different classifications and some of them are not well defined as recently discussed by fellow researcher Brian Renehan. In addition, US classifications tend to mainly cover the design and construction phases and focus to a lesser degree on the operation, management and maintenance phase.

 

Table 2: Comparison of classification systems within different LoX systems (Updated July 22, 2016 - Full-size Image)

 

Reflections

To date, the many and increasing LoX concepts have been associated with the incremental progression of information definition within models. However, there are now voices who question whether these types of classification systems accurately represent reality. For example, in order to represent the iterative workflows within the design phase, Drobnik and Riegas (2015) suggest the introduction of Level of Development zero (LOD 0) as well as a negative one (LOD -100).

Also, there has been very little attention given to the link between LoX systems and Model uses as applicable in practice (even if some definitions mention ‘Authorized Uses’). In my opinion, for a LoX system to be applied more intuitively, it needs to be linked (i.e. change according to) targeted Model Uses at each project stage/phase.

 

Future Work

An important part of the BIM Processes that is yet to attract ample attention is Verification and Validation. The manual, automatic and semi-automatic compliance checking of information requirements within BIModels is still to be adequately resolved. Current approaches to Model Validation focus on static entities rather than on performing dynamic validation. It is therefore important that future research takes into account - not only the discrete Level of Detail (dLOD) but – the continuous LOD (cLOD), the continuous Level of Information (cLOI), and link both to specific Model Uses as applicable at each project phase/stage.

Another important aspect to address is how to apply LoX systems to existing buildings, as most classifications tend to focus on new construction.

Based on the above, and in collaboration with a number of colleagues, I will be investing additional efforts in trying to resolve some of the issues identified above. I therefore invite all BIM researchers and practitioners to do the same.

 

More Information

The study is part of an ongoing research effort conduced in collaboration with Prof Angelo Luigi Camillo Ciribini (@Ciribini) of University of Brescia (Italy). To review the peer-reviewed paper upon which this post is based, please  download ‘The Information Modeling and the Progression of Data-Driven Projects’, as presented at the CIB World Building Congress, Tampere Finland on June 3, 2016.

The topic is in constant flux: new definitions and approaches are being developed and existing definitions are constantly revised. If you discover any inaccuracies or would like to highlight missing information, please add a comment below or contact the author directly.

 

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Bilal Succar for this opportunity to publish through BIM ThinkSpace. I am thankful to Brian Renehan for his comments on earlier works and for exchanging thoughts on different Model Progression Specifications. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by graphic designer Fabiola Pizzuto. Prof. Angelo Ciribini, Amarnath Chegu Badrinath, Prof. Shang-Hsien Hsieh and Zhe Liu. Finally, special thanks to my grandfather for his constant support.

 

Guest Author

Marzia Bolpagni Architectural Engineer | PhD Candidate at Politecnico di Milano, Italy Marzia Bolpagni is a PhD Candidate at Politecnico di Milano (Italy) where she is investigating ways to manage and control public works through innovative digital approaches. She has worked as BIM researcher at VTT (Finland), ITC-CNR (Italy) and Massachusetts Port Authority (US). She also worked with designers, contractors, public authorities and the Italian Standard Body (UNI) on implementing BIM-based processes. She has presented her work at both national and international fora. After serving as a member of the WBC16 International Scientific Programme Committee for the CIB World Building Congress 2016 and the BIM Roundtable at AIA BSA Foundation, she is currently a member of the VDC & MEP Committee Roundtable at Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts (AGC MA). Marzia can be contacted through LinkedIn, Twitter, ResearchGate, and Academia

 

BIM for Project Managers, a UK perspective

In this guest post, Ralph Montague (Managing Partner of ArcDox, a BIM consultancy practice based in Dublin, Ireland) offers his insights into the changing role of the project manager in the UK following the Government’s BIM requirements and rapidly-changing market landscape. I’m sure you’ll find his insights very useful (editor).

 

Introduction

In 2011, the UK Government implemented an ambitious construction strategy intended to reduce construction cost and waste; improve the quality and performance of buildings; reduce carbon emissions; improve the competitiveness of the UK construction industry in a global market; and drive economic growth in the sector. With a clear vision and Task Group leadership, they set out to implement this strategy from the cabinet office down through all government departments. Part of this strategy was to make Building Information Modelling (BIM), an information production and management process, mandatory on Government’s projects by 2016. To implement this strategy and mandate, the Government supported the development of standards and protocols that would enable BIM processes.

This approach resulted in significant BIM-related discussions and developments. From among all these discussions and chatter, it is important to isolate the BIM issues that are important to project directors, leaders, and managers. It is also important to identify the project manager’s BIM role.

BIM is discussed across numerous documents with lots of terms and acronyms. Many of these can sound overly technical, complicated and overwhelming. This article will hopefully provide project managers with some clarity and identify the documents that facilitate managing BIM projects more effectively. After a brief introduction, the post will provide five basic questions that each project manager will need to ask the project team, and then ensure proper responses are received. At the end of the post, a checklist is provided for project managers to use during project meetings and team workshops.

 

The Problem

To the uninitiated, BIM can seem both complicated and overwhelming. This is typically because we, as an industry, are attempting to do something quite novel; bring together a diverse range of professionals, consultants, contractors and sub-contractors; encourage them to work together in a collaborative and coordinated way; ask them to use new industry standards; and adopt innovative digital workflows. However, although these changes may appear overwhelming, at its essence, it is simply about improving the way we currently work. Even if it takes some initial additional effort to adopt all these changes, there are significant improvements to be gained in design coordination, construction quality, and information accuracy. As demonstrated in the UK government BIM pilot projects (refer to www.bimtaskgroup.org), there are measureable reductions in construction waste as well as time-savings across the construction programme.

Keeping this in mind, when all these changes seem too complicated and overwhelming, try to remember why you want BIM in the first place, or in other words, identify the many benefits of using BIM tools and workflows, which include:

• Better communication and understanding of the project (the 3D virtual building is far easier to understand than 2D documents)
• Better analysis of building structure, energy, cost, and project programme
• Better information flows through digital transfers, reduced duplication of effort, etc.
• Improved design coordination allowing better tenders, and a reduction in construction cost/waste
• Improved building performance leading to reduced operation costs
• Improved cost/time certainty and a reduction of risk
• Effective project delivery
• Better information capture, storage and sharing across project stages, particularly for ‘handover’ from design to construction, and from construction to operation.

 

BUT, a word of caution…

It is important to remember that the benefits of BIM cannot be fully realized without a clearly defined and well managed BIM processes which project participants are required to adhere throughout the project. Without such processes, the use of BIM on a project may cause unnecessary costs and delays. This is where a well-informed project manager, armed with knowledge and experience in industry protocols and standards, will shine! To ensure the implementation of BIM has a positive impact on the project programme, cost and outcomes, a project manager needs to ensure that (a) clearly defined and well managed BIM processes are in place; and (b) check that every project participant will be making the necessary contributions into the project.

As part of its BIM mandate, the UK Government has supported the development of a suite of documents and standards that would support widespread BIM implementation (Figure 1). BS1192, the British Standard for managing the production, distribution and quality of construction information, has been extended to include four additional Publically Available Specifications (PAS). These are PAS1192:2 specifies requirements for achieving building information modelling (BIM) Level 2 during capital delivery phase, PAS1192:3 specifies information management for the operational phase of assets using BIM, PAS1192:4 specifies employers’ information exchange requirements using COBie, and PAS1192:5 specifies security-related matters for BIM and smart asset management. Obviously all these parts are important, but from a project manager’s perspective, PAS1192:2 is the key document.

 

Figure 1. PAS1192- Level 2 BIM Process Protocols and Standards.

To achieve success across BIM projects, project managers need to ask the right questions and ensure key standards are implemented in a timely fashion. While the responsibility for dealing with these questions can be delegated to other parties – e.g. the legal team, commercial contracts team, consultants, contractor, and sub-contractors, it is the project manager’s role to ensure they are properly answered.

 

To assist project managers to fulfil their BIM role, below are five basic questions that they need to consistently ask in every meeting:

Question 1: is all required BIM documentation - as set out in PAS1192:2 – in place?

Question 2: are all participants aware of the BIM-related requirements for producing, managing, and exchanging project information?

Question 3: is all project information being generated, managed, exchanged using the right BIM-suitable formats?

Question 4: is the federated model being used and shared at design coordination and stakeholder meetings?

Question 5: is the information content within models being regularly checked for compliance with employers’ information requirements?

Let's address each of the five basic questions in some detail:

 

Question 1

Is all required BIM documentation - as set out in PAS1192:2 – in place?

The below table clarifies a number of sub-questions and provide reference material to answer each:

	Sub-Question	Reference Material
1.1	Have Pre-qualification Questionnaires (PQQ)s covering BIM capability been included in tender requests for both design and construction services?	Refer to Table 8 in PAS91:2013 (Link)
1.2	Have all appointed designers/contractors agreed and signed the BIM Protocol (as an addendum to their appointment/ contract)?	Refer to CIC BIM Protocol template: (link)
1.3	Is an Employers Information Requirements (EIR) provided as part of tender requirements? Note that the EIR is a document setting out the client’s BIM objectives and deliverables, including a preliminary Model Information Delivery Plan (MIDP).	Refer to Core Content and Guidance from UK BIM Task Group (link)   The NBS also has BIM Toolkit to help prepare the EIR & MIDP https://toolkit.thenbs.com/
1.4	Have all tendering designers/contractors provided a Pre-Contract BIM Execution Plan (BEP) as part of their tender submission, in response to the EIR? Providing a template to guide tenderer’s response is very useful when trying to assess multiple suppliers submissions	Refer to CPIx template Pre-Contract BEP (link) including BIM Capability Assessments for BIM Projects, Staff & IT Resource (link)
1.5	Has the lead designer signed up to the role of Project Information Manager (Design Stage)? Has the main contractor signed up the role of Project Information Manager (Construction Stage)?	Refer to CIC (UK) Outline Scope of Services for Information Management (link)
1.6	Have all parties - involved in design - informed their PI insurance brokers that they are participating in a BIM project?	Refer to guidance from CIC (UK) (link)
1.7	Has the Project Information Manager (for both the design and construction stages) provided a coordinated Post-Contract BIM Execution Plan (BEP), detailing how the team will deliver the Employers Information Requirements (EIR)?	Refer to CPIX template Post-Contract BEP (link)
1.8	Is there a Common Data Environment (CDE) in place for the design and construction stages, in compliance with PAS1192:2, and acting as a central repository for all project information (graphical and non-graphical)?	Requirements need to be specified within the tender documents to outline who will provide the CDE, and what features/functions the CDE needs to include.

Note: BS1192 & PAS1192-2 are currently being considered as a base for ISO 19650, and may well become international best-practice in the future.

 

Question 2

Are all participants aware of the BIM-related requirements for producing, managing, and exchanging project information?

According to UK Level 2 BIM documentation, each discipline need to generate, manage and exchange their project information in a digital format. This requirement must be clearly communicated, highlighted and accounted for in tender prices. Such digitisation is important in order for different work elements to be federated into an overall coordination model for review and eventual handover to the client. Where documentation has not been derived from models, it needs to be clearly highlighted and agreed upon. By requiring every participant to provide their pre-contract BEP and BIM capability assessment, and participate in preparing the post-contract BEP, we can be certain that each member of the project team is aware of their respective role and responsibility.

 

Question 3

Is all project information being generated, managed, exchanged using the right BIM-suitable formats?

The project manager needs to ensure there is no pseudo-BIM being provided or BIM wash being committed. If team members are not generating their information in a BIM-suitable digital format, it is imperative to ask them to justify that and – if no valid reason is given – request they provide it as soon as possible. It may be reasonable that some work elements do not require the use of BIM tools and workflows, and that this may change at later stages of the project. This is perfectly acceptable if this is documented and agreed upon by the project team, and if duplication and additional costs are avoided. This is why the Master Information Delivery Plan (MIDP) is an important document to complete as it details the building elements that need to be modelled, at what stage, by whom, and at what Level of Definition (Level of Model Detail and Level of Model Information). This would provide clarity and transparency and manage team expectations.

 

Question 4

Is the federated model being used and shared at design coordination and stakeholder meetings?

The project team should use federated models through a Model Viewer to facilitate communication and information sharing at every meeting. The use of these federated models allow enhanced visualizations and understanding, and can facilitate better analysis and multiple Model Uses such as Clash Detection; programme analysis and sequencing (4D); cost analysis and quantity take-off (5D); Structural Analysis; Energy Use; Lighting Analysis; Egress and Ingress analysis; Safety Simulation; quality control/snagging; Commissioning; operational cost; Life Cycle Assessment; and multiple uses in FM/operations. That is, if the project team are investing their efforts in creating models and populating them with information, it makes sense to leverage these models to benefit the project and better inform the project team.

 

Question 5

Is the information content within models being regularly checked for compliance with employers’ information requirements?

As a project manager, you need to ensure that a model checking procedure is included in the EIR, and is documented/implemented through the BEP. It is also important that, at key project stages -particularly before handover - all project information is accurate and assessed for:

• Compliance with the COBie standard BS1192:4 by checking data integrity;
• Continuity by detecting the addition/removal of objects and attributes between data drops; and
• Completeness by assessing information against object properties/attributes expected at the completion of each project stage (as detailed in the EIR/MIDP).

 

A Checklist for BIM Project Managers

Based on the above discussions, please find below a quick BIM Level 2 checklist for project managers to be included into project’ meeting agendas. This checklist reflects the five basic questions and ensures related matters are being considered and addressed:

• Identify high-level BIM objectives and benefits for the project;
• Appoint the employer’s representative and technical advisor;
• Agree on BIM standards for project delivery (refer to BS1192, PAS1192, BS8541, Uniclass2015);
• Define the BIM questions to be used in pre-qualifying the supply chain (refer to PAS91 Table 8);
• Define the Employer’s Information Requirements (EIR) (refer to BIM Task Group Guidance & PAS1192-2);
• Assess the BIM Capability of the supply chain (use CPIx templates);
• Pre-appointment the supply chain by asking them to respond to the EIR by completing a Pre-Contract BIM Execution Plan (use CPIx pre-contract BEP Template);
• Ensure the supply chain is informed about Professional Indemnity Insurance implications (refer to CIC Guidance);
• Ensure the BIM Protocol is part of all appointments and contracts (use CIC BIM Protocol)
• Appoint a Project Information Manager for the Design and Construction stages (refer to CIC Scope of Service for Information Management);
• Ask the Project team and the Information Manager – once appointed – to draft the Post-Contract BIM Execution Plan (refer to CPIx  post-contract BEP Template);
• Agree-on and set-up a Common Data Environment (CDE);
• Develop a Digital Plan of Work or MIDP including responsibilities, stages, and levels of definition (consider using the NBS BIM Toolkit);
• Define the Digital BIM Deliverables including file formats, COBie, Uniclass2015 and IFC;
• Establish a training and support programme to address any capability issues;
• Facilitate workshops and induction meetings until information management roles are well established.

 

Conclusion

Project managers play a vital role in a project’s programme and outcomes. With the wide-spread adoption of BIM, digital Information Management has become a key part of that role. That is, project programme and outcomes are now – more than ever – directly impacted by the quality and timeliness of information generated and shared by all project participants. Receiving the correct information, at the right time, and in a usable format is critical for decision makers to keep each project moving in the right direction, and to avoid decision reversals, wasteful delays, and abortive work. While project managers do not generate 3D models themselves, it is important they understand all critical BIM-related technologies, workflows and protocols, so they can adequately manage the BIM process and achieve successful project outcomes. While the use of BIM on projects can yield great benefits to project stakeholders, these won’t be achieved without a clear plan, the right technologies, a committed project team, and – most importantly – a well-informed project manager.

 

Further Reading

• Understanding BIM in a project management environment (link)
• CIOB Project Managers' Guide Updated for BIM Era (link)
• The Design Manager's Handbook (link)

 

Guest Author

Ralph Montague Architect, BArch MRIAI | Managing Partner, ArcDox Ralph Montague is managing partner of ArcDox, a specialist BIM consultancy practice based in Dublin, Ireland. ArcDox (www.arcdox.com) provides professionally-managed advice, production, support, and training services to the construction industry. Ralph is an architect with extensive experience in managing large projects. Since 2009, Ralph played a leading role in the adoption of BIM in Ireland. He is currently the Chairman of the RIAI Practice Committee for BIM, and the Coordinator of the Construction IT Alliance (CITA) BIM Group. Ralph is also a part-time lecturer (BIM and Technology in Construction) in the Project Management programme at Trinity College, Dublin. You can contact Ralph by email: Ralph[at]ArcDox[dot]com

 

 Download Guest Post as a PDF File (835KB)

 

BIM Scope Creep

This viewpoint is by guest author Rexter Retana.

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an essential part of the construction procurement process. However, when BIM deliverables are indiscriminately injected into the scope of services of project players, or across the construction supply chain, a BIM scope creep will occur.

 

What is a BIM scope creep?

The project management discipline recognizes three project ‘boundary elements’ – scope, cost and schedule - acting in tandem with each other (Wagner, 2013). When one boundary element is increased or diminished, the other two elements must also increase/diminish in order to regain project equilibrium (Fig. 1). According to the Project Management Institute (PMI, 2013), ‘scope creep’ is the incremental expansion of the project’s scope – e.g. through additional work requests - without the necessary readjustment of the other two elements:

Fig. 1 Project Boundaries (Retana, 2014)

 

BIM scope creep are two main types - demand-side and supply-side:

A. Demand Side Scope Creep - when clients set ambiguous or unrealistic BIM requirements:

Below is an excerpt from a recent Request for Proposal (RFP) whereby a client injects BIM into a project scope using a single generic clause [1], devoid of justification or detail:

“This project will be undertaken utilizing BIM design processes and tools and is to be at Level 2 standard and in line with BS1192. The Architect will be responsible for this process as lead designer and is expected to undertake the BIM Manager role.”

Such a blanket clause is increasingly common and highlights two main issues:

• Either the client/owner is not sure what BIM deliverables to request, and thus resorts to embedding a generic catch-all phrase into the RFP; or
• The client/owner has low BIM maturity and does not fully recognize the impact BIM requirements place on project cost and schedule.

B. Supply Side Scope Creep - when project players ‘gold plate’ their deliverables:

Gold plating occurs when project participant(s) include processes/deliverables which do not improve the execution of the project, are not requested by the client/owner, and do not necessarily improve the final product (the actual facility). Gold plating has several negative consequences (Project Management Learning, 2014):

• Gold plating increases project cost by consuming additional time and resources;
• It increase project risk especially if additional deliverables are undocumented;
• Raises client expectations for future projects; clients may grow accustomed to additional unnecessary deliverables; and
• Heightens the possibility of client dissatisfaction and may lead to legal disputes.

 

Preventing BIM scope creep

To prevent both demand-side BIM scope creep and supply-side BIM gold plating, project participants – especially the Design Lead and Project BIM Manager - should use their experience and available knowledge to educate clients/owners and clarify BIM project requirements:

a) Educate the client

The Design Lead  (the Architect in traditional contracts) needs to invest time and effort in educating the client/owner of BIM’s deliverables and limitations. Clients should be also encouraged to evaluate their own BIM abilities (Giel and Issa, 2014) and improve their internal BIM capability/maturity (Succar, 2010) so they benefit from BIM deliverables and workflows [2].

b) Clarify BIM requirements

The Design Lead (plus other project participants) should identify the generalities and inaccuracies within the project’s RFP or tender documents. This is preferably done during the feasibility phase or – if difficult – during the pre-tender clarification period. If Design Lead(s) lack the internal experience to do this, there are a number of noteworthy BIM publications which clarify BIM’s benefits/challenges, and the impact of BIM tools and workflows on a project’s Capital Expenditures (CapEx) and Operational Expenditures (OpEx).

One such noteworthy publication is the Uses of BIM framework (CIC, 2013) which identifies 25 BIM Uses across four facility lifecycle phases (plan, design, construct and operate). BIM Uses (or Model Uses[3]) are a clear way to identify, structure and communicate project requirements/objectives and thus reduce the risk of BIM scope creep.

Another approach to improving clarity is the development or adaptation of BIM protocols and standardized workflows. For example, the Project Initiation diagram (Fig. 2) explains the basic steps necessary to initiate a collaborative BIM project.

 

Fig 2. Project Initiation diagram - adopted from Succar et al. (2013 – page 186) – direct link

 

The diagram is intended to clarify the many steps necessary during the early planning phase – including:

• Establish project scope based on the project brief or Employer’s Information Requirement (EIR);
• Identify project’s target model uses (e.g. sustainability analysis, design validation, structural analysis, etc.) as derived from the project brief or EIR;
• Establish modelling standards, elemental Level of Development (LoD) and communication protocols (e.g. file naming conventions, annotation standards, etc.) to be used throughout the project;
• Identify software solutions (e.g. structural analysis software, wind simulation software, lifecycle costing software, etc.), information exchange formats (e.g. IFC4, NWD, RVT, CIS/2, etc.) and network infrastructure solutions (e.g. content management solutions);
• Agree on model review and data verification processes to ensure model quality and compliance with the client/owner’s information requirements; and
• Document all technologies, processes and protocols through a BIM management/execution plan or similar.

 

Gold Plating

To prevent supply-side BIM scope creep, the Project Manager (or project’s BIM manager) should actively combat BIM gold platting as it adds no value to the project (PMI, 2013). In order to inhibit or minimize gold plating, Project Manager(s) need to:

• Educate the project team of the need to strictly adhere to the agreed scope of services; and
• Continuously monitor all BIM deliverables as to meet – neither exceed or fall short of – the client/owner’s requirement.

 

In summary

BIM scope creep and BIM gold platting are two faces of the same coin and – if not addressed - will increase project cost and schedule. Only when limiting BIM deliverables to those of benefit to the project or to the end product can BIM scope creep be minimized.

 

---

About the author

Rexter Retana is a Senior BIM Coordinator and Lead BIM Implementer at RSP Architects Planners & Engineers Pte Ltd (Singapore). Rexter works across both the architectural and structural departments and his responsibilities include: BIM implementation, BIM management, staff training, R&D and the generation of BIM standards and protocols.

Rexter is a Member of the Structural Engineering Institute, an Associate Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of San Carlos (Philippines). Rexter is currently undertaking a Master’s of Science in BIM Management at Middlesex University (UK).

Rexter can be contacted by email: rexterretana(at)gmail(dot)com.

 

---

References:

Computer Integrated Construction, (2013), The Uses of BIM: Classifying and Selecting BIM Uses, Version 9, Pennsylvania State University (link)

Giel, B. and Issa, R. R. A. (2014) 'Framework for Evaluating the BIM Competencies of Building Owners', in Issa, R. and Flood, I., eds., Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (2014), Florida, US, June 23-25, 2014 ASCE, 552-559 (link)

Project Management Institute, (2013), The Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5^th Edition, PMI (link)

Project Management Learning, (2014), Gold Plating in Project Management (online article)

Succar, B. (2010) 'Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix' in Underwood, J. and Isikdag, U., eds., Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies, Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing, pp. 65-103 (link)

Succar, B., Sher, W. and Williams, A. (2013) 'An integrated approach to BIM competency acquisition, assessment and application', Automation in Construction, 35, pp. 174-189 (link)

Wagner, T. (2013), Preventing Scope Creep, [Online] Accessed on July 31, 2014 (www.lynda.com)

 

---

Endnotes:

[1] Editor’s note: the terminology used in this post are mostly based on UK’s evolving standards. Reader’s from Australia, US and other countries need to replace these with their local equivalents.

[2] For an extended discussion of BIM capability/maturity please refer to Episode 11 and Episode 13.

[3] Editor’s note: BIM Uses are referred to as Model Uses within BIM Excellence (BIMe). BIMe currently includes 51 Model Uses distributed across 3 project lifecycle phases (design, construction and operation) and 8 Operations Competency Topics.