Building information modeling (BIM) is one of the most promising recent developments in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. With BIM technology, an accurate virtual model of a building is digitally constructed. This model, known as a building information model, can be used for planning, design, construction, and operation of the facility. It helps architects, engineers, and constructors visualize what is to be built in a simulated environment to identify any potential design, construction, or operational issues. BIM represents a new paradigm within AEC, one that encourages integration of the roles of all stakeholders on a project. In this paper, current trends, benefits, possible risks, and future challenges of BIM for the AEC industry are discussed. The findings of this study provide useful information for AEC industry practitioners considering implementing BIM technology in their projects.
The architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry has long sought techniques to decrease project cost, increase productivity and quality, and reduce project delivery time. Building information modeling (BIM) offers the potential to achieve these objectives (Azhar, Nadeem et al. 2008). BIM simulates the construction project in a virtual environment. With BIM technology, an accurate virtual model of a building, known as a building information model, is digitally constructed. When completed, the building information model contains precise geometry and relevant data needed to support the design, procurement, fabrication, and construction activities required to realize the building (Eastman et al. 2008). After completion, this model can be used for operations and maintenance purposes. Fig. 1 depicts the typical applications of BIM at different stages of the project life cycle.
Fig. 1. Different components of a building information model: MEP = mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (Courtesy of Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).
A building information model characterizes the geometry, spatial relationships, geographic information, quantities and properties of building elements, cost estimates, material inventories, and project schedule. The model can be used to demonstrate the entire building life cycle (Bazjanac 2006). As a result, quantities and shared properties of materials can be readily extracted. Scopes of work can be easily isolated and defined. Systems, assemblies, and sequences can be shown in a relative scale within the entire facility or group of facilities. Construction documents such as drawings, procurement details, submittal processes, and other specifications can be easily interrelated (Khemlani et al. 2006).
BIM can be viewed 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. As the model is being created, team members are constantly refining and adjusting their portions according to project specifications and design changes to ensure the model is as accurate as possible before the project physically breaks ground (Carmona and Irwin 2007).
It is important to note that BIM is not just software; it is a process and software. BIM means not only using three-dimensional intelligent models but also making significant changes in the workflow and project delivery processes (Hardin 2009). BIM represents a new paradigm within AEC, one that encourages integration of the roles of all stakeholders on a project. It has the potential to promote greater efficiency and harmony among players who, in the past, saw themselves as adversaries (Azhar, Hein et al. 2008). BIM also supports the concept of integrated project delivery, which is a novel project delivery approach to integrate people, systems, and business structures and practices into a collaborative process to reduce waste and optimize efficiency through all phases of the project life cycle (Glick and Guggemos 2009).
Applications of Building Information Modeling
A building information model can be used for the following purposes:
•
Visualization: 3D renderings can be easily generated in house with little additional effort.
•
Fabrication/shop drawings: It is easy to generate shop drawings for various building systems. For example, the sheet metal ductwork shop drawings can be quickly produced once the model is complete.
•
Code reviews: Fire departments and other officials may use these models for their review of building projects.
•
Cost estimating: BIM software has built-in cost estimating features. Material quantities are automatically extracted and updated when any changes are made in the model.
•
Construction sequencing: A building information model can be effectively used to coordinate material ordering, fabrication, and delivery schedules for all building components.
•
Conflict, interference, and collision detection: Because building information models are created to scale in 3D space, all major systems can be instantly and automatically checked for interferences. For example, this process can verify that piping does not intersect with steel beams, ducts, or walls.
•
Forensic analysis: A building information model can be easily adapted to graphically illustrate potential failures, leaks, evacuation plans, and so forth.
•
Facilities management: Facilities management departments can use it for renovations, space planning, and maintenance operations.
The key benefit of a building information model is its accurate geometrical representation of the parts of a building in an integrated data environment (CRC Construction Innovation 2007). Other related benefits are as follows:
•
Faster and more effective processes: Information is more easily shared and can be value-added and reused.
•
Better design: Building proposals can be rigorously analyzed, simulations performed quickly, and performance benchmarked, enabling improved and innovative solutions.
•
Controlled whole-life costs and environmental data: Environmental performance is more predictable, and lifecycle costs are better understood.
•
Better production quality: Documentation output is flexible and exploits automation.
•
Automated assembly: Digital product data can be exploited in downstream processes and used for manufacturing and assembly of structural systems.
•
Better customer service: Proposals are better understood through accurate visualization.
•
Lifecycle data: Requirements, design, construction, and operational information can be used in facilities management.
After gathering data on 32 major projects, Stanford University’s Center for Integrated Facilities Engineering reported the following benefits of BIM (cited in CRC Construction Innovation 2007):
•
Up to 40% elimination of unbudgeted change,
•
Cost estimation accuracy within 3% as compared to traditional estimates,
•
Up to 80% reduction in time taken to generate a cost estimate,
•
A savings of up to 10% of the contract value through clash detections, and
•
Up to 7% reduction in project time.
Role of BIM in the AEC Industry: Current and Future Trends
In this section, the role of BIM in the AEC industry and its current and future trends are discussed based on the results of two questionnaire surveys. McGraw-Hill Construction (2008) published a comprehensive market report of BIM’s use in the AEC industry in 2008 and projections for 2009 based on the findings of a questionnaire survey completed by 82 architects, 101 engineers, 80 contractors, and 39 owners (total sample size of 302) in the United States. Some of the key findings are as follows:
•
Architects were the heaviest users of BIM—43% used it on more than 60% of their projects—while contractors were the lightest users, with nearly half (45%) using it on less than 15% of projects and only a quarter (23%) using it on more than 60% of projects.
•
Eighty-two percent of BIM users believed that BIM had a very positive impact on their company’s productivity.
•
Seventy-nine percent of BIM users indicated that the use of BIM improved project outcomes, such as fewer requests for information (RFIs) and decreased field coordination problems.
•
Sixty-six percent of those surveyed believed use of BIM increased their chances of winning projects.
•
Two-third of users mentioned that BIM had at least a moderate impact on their external project practices.
•
Sixty-two percent of BIM users planned to use it on more than 30% of their projects in 2009.
The report predicted that prefabrication capabilities of BIM would be widely used to reduce costs and improve the quality of work put in place. As a whole, BIM adoption was expected to expand within firms and across the AEC industry.
Kunz and Gilligan (2007) conducted a questionnaire survey to determine the value from BIM use and factors that contribute to success. The main findings of their study are as follows:
•
The use of BIM had significantly increased across all phases of design and construction during the past year.
•
BIM users represented all segments of the design and construction industry, and they operated throughout the United States.
•
The major application areas of BIM were construction document development, conceptual design support, and preproject planning services.
•
The use of BIM lowered overall risk distributed with a similar contract structure.
•
At the time of the survey, most companies used BIM for 3D and 4D clash detections and for planning and visualization services.
•
The use of BIM led to increased productivity, better engagement of project staff, and reduced contingencies.
•
A shortage was noted of competent building information modelers in the construction industry, and demand was expected to grow exponentially with time.
The results of these surveys indicate that the AEC industry still relies very much on traditional drawings and practices for conducting its business. At the same time, AEC professionals are realizing the power of BIM for more efficient and intelligent modeling. Most of the companies using BIM reported in strong favor of this technology. The survey findings indicate that users want a BIM application that not only leverages the powerful documentation and visualization capabilities of a CAD platform but also supports multiple design and management operations. BIM as a technology is still in its formative stage, and solutions in the market are continuing to evolve as they respond to users’ specific needs.
BIM Benefits: Case Studies
In the above-mentioned surveys, the AEC industry participants indicated that BIM use resulted in time and cost savings. However, no data were provided to quantify and support these facts. The following four case studies illustrate the cost and time savings realized in developing and using a building information model for the project planning, design, preconstruction, and construction phases. All the data reported in this section were collected from the Holder Construction Company (HCC), a midsize general contracting company based in Atlanta, Georgia (hereinafter referred to as the general contractor, or GC).
Case Study 1: Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn, Atlanta, Georgia
The Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn project comprised a mixed-use hotel, retail shops, and a parking deck. Brief project details are as follows:
•
Project scope: $46 million, 484,000-square-foot hotel and parking structure
•
Delivery method: Construction manager at-risk (CM at-risk)
•
Contract type: Guaranteed maximum price
•
BIM scope: Design coordination, clash detection, and work sequencing
•
BIM cost to project: $90,000, or 0.2% of project budget ($40,000 paid by owner)
•
Cost benefit: Over $200,000 attributed to elimination of clashes
•
Schedule benefit: 1,143 hours saved
Although the project had not been initially designed using BIM technology, beginning in the design development phase, the GC led the project team to develop architectural; structural; and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing models of the proposed facility, as shown in Fig. 2. These models were created using detail-level information from subcontractors based on drawings from the designers.
Fig. 2. Building information models of the Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn Project (Courtesy of Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).
After the initial visualization uses, the GC began to use these models for clash detection analysis. This BIM application enabled the GC to identify potential collisions or clashes between various structural and mechanical systems. During the design development phase, 55 clashes were identified, which resulted in a cost avoidance of $124,500. Just this stage alone yielded a net savings of $34,500 based on the original building information model development cost of $90,000. At the construction documents phase, the model was updated and resolved collisions were tracked. Each critical clash was shared with the design team via the model viewer and a numbered collision log with a record of individual images of each collision per the architectural or structural discipline. The collision cost savings values were based on estimates for making design changes or field modifications had the collision not been detected earlier. More than 590 clashes were detected before actual construction began. The overall cost savings based on the 590 collisions detected throughout the project was estimated at $801,565, as shown in Table 1. For calculating net cost savings, a conservative approach was adopted by assuming that 75% of the identified collisions can be detected through conventional practices (e.g., sequential composite overlay process using light tables) before actual construction begins. Thus, the net adjusted cost savings was roughly considered to be $200,392.
Table 1. An Illustration of Cost and Time Savings via Building Information Modeling in the Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn Project
Collision phase
Collisions
Estimated cost avoidance
Estimated crew hours
Coordination date
100% design development conflicts
55
$124,500
n/a
30-Jun-06
Construction (MEP collisions)
Basement
41
$21,211
50 hrs
28-Mar-07
Level 1
51
$34,714
79 hrs
3-Apr-07
Level 2
49
$23,250
57 hrs
3-Apr-07
Level 3
72
$40,187
86 hrs
12-Apr-07
Level 4
28
$35,276
68 hrs
14-May-07
Level 5
42
$43,351
88 hrs
29-May-07
Level 6
70
$57,735
112 hrs
19-Jun-07
Level 7
83
$78,898
162 hrs
12-Apr-07
Level 8
29
$37,397
74 hrs
3-Jul-07
Level 9
30
$37,397
74 hrs
3-Jul-07
Level 10
31
$33,546
67 hrs
5-Jul-07
Level 11
30
$45,144
75 hrs
5-Jul-07
Level 12
28
$36,589
72 hrs
5-Jul-07
Level 13
34
$38,557
77 hrs
13-Jul-07
Level 14
1
$484
1 hrs
13-Jul-07
Level 15
1
$484
1 hrs
13-Jul-07
Subtotal construction labor
590
$564,220
1,143 hrs
20% MEP material value
$112,844
Subtotal cost avoidance
$801,565
Deduct 75% assumed resolved via conventional methods
($601,173)
Net adjusted direct cost avoidance
$200,392
Source: Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA.
Note. MEP = mechanical, electrical, and plumbing.
During the construction phase, subcontractors also made use of these models for various installations. Finally, the GC’s commitment to updating the model to reflect as-built conditions provided the owner a digital 3D model of the building and its various systems to help aid operation and maintenance procedures down the road.
In a nutshell, the Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn project realized some excellent benefits through the use of BIM technology and certainly exceeded the expectations of the owner and other project team members. The cost benefits to the owner were significant, and the unknown costs that were avoided through collaboration, visualization, understanding, and identification of conflicts early were in addition to the reported savings. After this project, the architect and GC began to use BIM technology on all major projects, and the owner used the developed building information model for sales and marketing presentations (Azhar and Richter 2009).
Case Study 2: Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia
This case study illustrates the use of BIM at the project planning phase to perform options analysis (value analysis) for selecting the most economical and workable building layout. The project details are as follows:
•
Project: Higher education facility, Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia
•
Cost: $12 million
•
Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maximum price
•
BIM scope: Planning, value analysis
•
BIM cost to project: $5,000
•
Cost benefit: $1,995,000
For this project, the GC coordinated with the architect and the owner at the predesign phase to prepare building information models of three different design options. For each option, the BIM-based cost estimates were also prepared using three different cost scenarios (budgeted, midrange, and high range), as shown in Fig. 3. The owner was able to walk through all the virtual models to decide the best option that fit his requirements. Several collaborative 3D viewing sessions were arranged for this purpose. These collaborative viewing sessions also improved communications and trust between stakeholders and enabled rapid decision making early in the process. The entire process took 2 weeks, and the owner achieved roughly $1,995,000 cost savings at the predesign stage by selecting the most economical design option. Although it could be argued that the owner may have reached the same conclusion using traditional drawings, the use of BIM technology helped him make a quick, definitive, and well-informed decision.
Fig. 3. Scope and budget options for the Savannah State Academic Building: GSF = gross square foot; sf = square foot (Courtesy of Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).
Case Study 3: The Mansion on Peachtree, Atlanta, Georgia
The Mansion on Peachtree is a five-star mixed-use hotel in Atlanta, Georgia. The project details are as follows:
•
Cost: $111 million
•
Schedule: 29 months (construction)
•
Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maximum price
•
BIM scope: Planning, construction documentation
•
BIM cost to project: $1,440
•
Cost benefit: $15,000
It was a fast-track project, and the GC identified the following issues at the project planning phase:
•
Incomplete design and documents,
•
Multiple uncoordinated consultants,
•
Field construction ahead of design,
•
Constant design development, and
•
Owner’s frequent scope changes.
The biggest challenge was how to maintain schedule and ensure quality with incomplete and uncoordinated design and how to minimize risk and rework. The project team decided to use BIM for project planning and coordination. First, contract documents were analyzed to flush out discrepancies and identify missing items. Then coordinated shop drawings were prepared via model extractions. These shop drawings were reviewed with the design team to resolve any conflicts and issue a field use set to subcontractors for coordination and construction.
Initially, the project designers presented two finishing options (brick vs. precast) to the owner, as shown in Fig. 4(a). Via BIM viewer software, the owner visually compared both options and selected the precast one based on appearance and cost. Then, based on the project drawings, the GC prepared the 3D interior elevations to clarify interior details, as illustrated in Fig. 4(b). If any component was found missing or conflicting with the other component, an RFI was issued to the designer to resolve this conflict before construction. Finally, a 4D scheduling model was prepared (Fig. 4(c)) to decide the construction sequence and align all resources. Through these measures, the project team was able to complete the project on time and within budget.Fig. 4. Use of BIM in the Mansion on Peachtree Project (Courtesy of Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).
Case Study 4: Emory Psychology Building, Atlanta, GA
The Emory Psychology Building is a LEED-certified, 110,000-square-foot facility on the campus of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a multipurpose structure designed to provide instructional and research space. The project details are as follows:
•
Cost: $35 million
•
Schedule: 16 months
•
Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maximum price
•
BIM scope: Sustainability analyses
•
BIM cost to project and cost benefit: n/a
The project architect developed the building information model of the facility at the early design phase to determine the best building orientation and evaluate various skin options such as masonry, curtain wall, and window styles, as shown in Fig. 5. The building information model was also used to perform daylight studies, which, in effect, helped to decide the final positioning of the building on the site. To achieve this, views of the facility were established within BIM software using the software’s sun positioning feature. Subsequently, shading and lighting studies and right-to-light studies were conducted to determine the effects of the sun throughout the year and the effects of the facility on surrounding buildings. Right-to-light studies were also conducted to evaluate lighting conditions at the proposed facility’s courtyard space and those spaces adjacent to the courtyard.
Fig. 5. Use of BIM for options analysis and sun studies in the Emory Psychology Building (Courtesy of Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).
As a direct result of these studies, the building’s design was adjusted as follows:
•
Window openings on the west façade were reduced.
•
The penthouse, which is located on the roof of the building, was reduced in overall square footage.
•
The overall height of the building was reduced.
As all of these design adjustments were able to be incorporated during the design phase, the analyses prevented costly and time-consuming redesign at later stages in the project life cycle.
BIM Return on Investment Analysis
The return on investment (ROI) analysis is one of the many ways to evaluate a proposed investment. It compares the gain anticipated (or achieved) from an investment against the cost of the investment (i.e., ROI = earning/cost). ROI is typically used to evaluate many types of corporate investments, from research and development projects to training programs to fixed asset purchases (Autodesk 2007).
The McGraw-Hill Construction (2008) survey of AEC industry participants indicated that 48% of respondents were tracking BIM ROI at a moderate level or above. It also found that the initial system cost did not seem to be a problem. Doubling the system cost could reduce ROI only by up to 20% (Autodesk 2007). For this study, detailed cost data from 10 projects were acquired from HCC to perform the BIM ROI analysis. The results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Building Information Modeling Return on Investment Analysis
Year
Cost ($M)
Project
BIM scope
BIM cost ($)
Direct BIM savings ($)
Net BIM savings ($)
BIM ROI (%)
2005
30
Ashley Overlook
P/PC/CD
5,000
(135,000)
(130,000)
2600
2006
54
Progressive Data Center
F/CD/FM
120,000
(395,000)
(232,000)
140
2006
47
Raleigh Marriott
P/PC/VA
4,288
(500,000)
(495,712)
11560
2006
16
GSU Library
P/PC/CD
10,000
(74,120)
(64,120)
640
2006
88
Mansion on Peachtree
P/CD
1,440
(15,000)
(6,850)
940
2007
47
Aquarium Hilton
F/D/PC/CD
90,000
(800,000)
(710,000)
780
2007
58
1515 Wynkoop
P/D/VA
3,800
(200,000)
(196,200)
5160
2007
82
HP Data Center
F/D/CD
20,000
(67,500)
(47,500)
240
2007
14
Savannah State
F/D/PC/VA/CD
5,000
(2,000,000)
(1,995,000)
39900
2007
32
NAU Sciences Lab
P/CD
1,000
(330,000)
(329,000)
32900
Total all types
260,528
4,516,620
4,256,092
1633%
Totals without planning/VA phase
247,440
1,816,620
1,569,180
634%
Source: Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA.
Note: CD = construction documentation; D = design; F = feasibility analysis; FM = facilities management; GSU = Georgia State University; NAU = Northern Arizona University; P = planning; PC = preconstruction services; ROI = return on investment; VA = value analysis.
As evident from Table 2, the BIM ROI for different projects varied from 140% to 39,900%. On average, it was 1,633% for all projects and 634% for projects without a planning or value analysis phase. Because of the large data spread, it is hard to conclude a specific range for BIM ROI. The probable reason for this spread is the varying scope of BIM in different projects. In some projects, BIM savings were measured using “real” construction phase “direct” collision detection cost avoidance, and in other projects, savings were computed using “planning” or “value analysis” phase cost avoidance. Also, none of these cost figures account for indirect, design, construction, or owner administrative or other “second wave” cost savings that were realized as a result of BIM implementation. Hence, the actual BIM ROI can be far greater than reported here.
BIM Risks
BIM risks can be divided into two broad categories: legal (or contractual) and technical. In the following paragraphs, key risks in each category are briefly discussed.
The first risk is the lack of determination of ownership of the BIM data and the need to protect it through copyright laws and other legal channels. For example, if the owner is paying for the design, then the owner may feel entitled to own it, but if team members are providing proprietary information for use on the project, their proprietary information needs to be protected as well. Thus, there is no simple answer to the question of data ownership; it requires a unique response for every project depending on the participants’ needs. The goal is to avoid inhibitions or disincentives that discourage participants from fully realizing the model’s potential (Thompson 2001). To prevent disagreement over copyright issues, the best solution is to set forth in the contract documents ownership rights and responsibilities (Rosenberg 2007).
When project team members other than the owner and architect/engineer contribute data that are integrated into the building information model, licensing issues can arise. For example, equipment and material vendors offer designs associated with their products for the convenience of the lead designer in hopes of inducing the designer to specify the vendor’s equipment. While this practice might be good for business, licensing issues can arise if the designs were not produced by a designer licensed in the location of the project (Thompson and Miner 2007).
Another contractual issue to address is who will control the entry of data into the model and be responsible for any inaccuracies. Taking responsibility for updating building information model data and ensuring its accuracy entails a great deal of risk. Requests for complicated indemnities by BIM users and the offer of limited warranties and disclaimers of liability by designers are essential negotiation points that need to be resolved before BIM technology is used. It also requires more time spent inputting and reviewing BIM data, which is a new cost in the design and project administration process. Although these new costs may be dramatically offset by efficiency and schedule gains, they are still a cost that someone on the project team will incur. Thus, before BIM technology can be fully used, not only must the risks of its use be identified and allocated, but the cost of its implementation must be paid for as well (Thompson and Miner 2007).
The integrated concept of BIM blurs the level of responsibility so much that risk and liability are likely to be enhanced. Consider the scenario in which the owner of the building files suit over a perceived design error. The architect, engineers, and other contributors to the BIM process look to each other in an effort to try to determine who had responsibility for the matter raised. If disagreement ensues, the lead professional not only will be responsible as a matter of law to the claimant but may have difficulty proving fault with others such as the engineers (Rosenberg 2007).
As the dimensions of cost and schedule are layered onto the building information model, responsibility for the proper technological interface among various programs becomes an issue. Many sophisticated contracting teams require subcontractors to submit detailed critical path method schedules and cost breakdowns itemized by line items of work prior to the start of the project. The general contractor then compiles the data, creating a master schedule and cost breakdown for the entire project. When the subcontractors and prime contractor use the same software, the integration can be fluid. In cases where the data are incomplete or are submitted in a variety of scheduling and costing programs, a team member—usually a general contractor or construction manager—must re-enter and update a master scheduling and costing program. That program may be a BIM module or another program that is integrated with the building information model. At present, most of these project management tools have been developed in isolation. Responsibility for the accuracy and coordination of cost and scheduling data must be contractually addressed (Thompson and Miner 2007).
One of the most effective ways to deal with these risks is to have collaborative, integrated project delivery contracts in which the risks of using BIM are shared among the project participants along with the rewards. Recently, the American Institute of Architects released an exhibit on BIM to help project participants define their BIM development plan for integrated project delivery (Building Design and Construction 2008). This exhibit may assist project participants in defining model management arrangements, as well as authorship, ownership, and level-of-development requirements, at various project phases.
BIM Future Challenges
The productivity and economic benefits of BIM to the AEC industry are widely acknowledged and increasingly well understood. Further, the technology to implement BIM is readily available and rapidly maturing. Yet BIM adoption has been much slower than anticipated (Azhar, Hein et al. 2008). There are two main reasons, technical and managerial.
The need for well-defined transactional construction process models to eliminate data interoperability issues,
2.
The requirement that digital design data be computable, and
3.
The need for well-developed practical strategies for the purposeful exchange and integration of meaningful information among the building information model components.
The management issues cluster around the implementation and use of BIM. Right now, there is no clear consensus on how to implement or use BIM. Unlike many other construction practices, there is no single BIM document providing instruction on its application and use (Associated General Contractors of America 2005). Furthermore, little progress has been made in establishing model BIM contract documents (Post 2009). Several software firms are cashing in on the “buzz” of BIM and have programs to address certain quantitative aspects of it, but they do not treat the process as a whole. There is a need to standardize the BIM process and to define guidelines for its implementation. Another contentious issue among the AEC industry stakeholders (i.e., owners, designers, and constructors) is who should develop and operate the building information models and how the developmental and operational costs should be distributed.
To optimize BIM performance, either companies or vendors, or both, will have to find a way to lessen the learning curve of BIM trainees. Software vendors have a larger hurdle of producing a quality product that customers will find reliable and manageable and that will meet the expectations set by the advertisements. Additionally, the industry will have to develop acceptable processes and policies that promote BIM use and govern today’s issues of ownership and risk management (Post 2009).
Researchers and practitioners have to develop suitable solutions to overcome these challenges and other associated risks. As a number of researchers, practitioners, software vendors, and professional organizations are working hard to resolve these challenges, it is expected that the use of BIM will continue to increase in the AEC industry.
In the past, facilities managers have been included in the building planning process in a very limited way, implementing maintenance strategies based on the as-built condition at the time the owner takes possession. In the future, BIM modeling may allow facilities managers to enter the picture at a much earlier stage, in which they can influence the design and construction. The visual nature of BIM allows all stakeholders to get important information, including tenants, service agents, and maintenance personnel, before the building is completed. Finding the right time to include these people will undoubtedly be a challenge for owners.
Conclusions
Building information modeling is emerging as an innovative way to virtually design and manage projects. Predictability of building performance and operation is greatly improved by adopting BIM. As the use of BIM accelerates, collaboration within project teams should increase, which will lead to improved profitability, reduced costs, better time management, and improved customer–client relationships. As shown in this paper, average BIM ROI for projects under study was 634%, which clearly depicts its potential economic benefits. At the same time, teams implementing BIM should be very careful about the legal pitfalls, which include data ownership and associated proprietary issues and risk sharing. Such issues must be addressed up front in the contract documents.
BIM represents a new paradigm within AEC, one that encourages integration of the roles of all stakeholders on a project. This integration has the potential to bring about greater efficiency and harmony among players who all too often in the past saw themselves as adversaries. As in most paradigm shifts, there will undoubtedly be risks. Perhaps one of the greatest risks is the potential elimination of an important check and balance mechanism inherent in the current paradigm. An adversarial stance often brings a more critical review of the project in a kind of mutual guarding of each participant’s own interests. In the early stages of BIM, constructors worked from architectural plans since digital models were not shared by architects with contractors. The construction modelers inevitably discovered errors and inconsistencies in the plans as they created the building information models. This brought about a natural redundancy as the construction model put the design to this virtual building test. With a more trustful sharing of architectural drawings, which can easily be imported and serve as the basis for the building information model, there may be a loss of this critical checking phase. In other words, when all players see themselves as being on the same team, they may cease to look for and find mistakes in each other’s work. In the past, a lack of critical review has been at least one of the component ingredients of building failure.
The future of BIM is both exciting and challenging. It is hoped that the increasing use of BIM will enhance collaboration and reduce fragmentation in the AEC industry and eventually lead to improved performance and reduced project costs.
References
Associated General Contractors of America. (2005). The contractor’s guide to BIM, 1st Ed., AGC Research Foundation, Las Vegas, NV.
Azhar, S., Hein, M., and Sketo, B. (2008). “Building information modeling: Benefits, risks and challenges.” Proc., 44th Associated Schools of Construction National Conference, Auburn, AL.
Azhar, S., Nadeem, A., Mok, J. Y. N., and Leung, B. H. Y. (2008). “Building information modeling (BIM): A new paradigm for visual interactive modeling and simulation for construction projects.” Proc., First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries, Karachi, Pakistan, 435–446.
Azhar, S., and Richter, S. (2009). “Building information modeling (BIM): Case studies and return-on-investment analysis.” Proc., Fifth International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century, Istanbul, Turkey, 1378–1386.
Bernstein, P. G., and Pittman, J. H. (2005). “Barriers to the adoption of building information modeling in the building industry.” Autodesk Building Solutions Whitepaper, Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA.
CRC Construction Innovation. (2007). Adopting BIM for facilities management: Solutions for managing the Sydney Opera House, Cooperative Research Center for Construction Innovation, Brisbane, Australia.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., and Liston, K. (2008). BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors, Wiley, New York.
Glick, S., and Guggemos, A. (2009). “IPD and BIM: Benefits and opportunities for regulatory agencies.” Proc., 45th Associated Schools of Construction National Conference, Gainesville, FL.
McGraw-Hill Construction. (2008). Building information modeling: Transforming design and construction to achieve greater industry productivity, New York.
Thompson, D. B. (2001). “e-Construction: Don’t get soaked by the next wave.” Construction Law Briefing Paper. 〈http://www.minnlaw.com/Articles/68553.pdf〉 (August 29, 2009).
Thompson, D. B., and Miner, R. G. (2007). “Building information modeling—BIM: Contractual risks are changing with technology.” 〈http://www.aepronet.org/ge/no35.html〉 (August 22, 2009).
Salman Azhar is assistant professor, McWhorter School of Building Science, College of Architecture, Design and Construction, Auburn University, Auburn, AL. The author expresses his gratitude to Mr. Michael Lefevre, Vice President, Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA, for providing necessary data and feedback. Appreciation is also due to undergraduate students Mr. Blake Sketo, Ms. Sara Richter, and Mr. Russell Glass for collecting the necessary literature and compiling the presented information. This study was supported by Seed Grant 2008 provided by the College of Architecture, Design and Construction, Auburn University. Dr. Azhar can be contacted at [email protected].
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
LM.1943-5630.0000127/asset/3a17e98c-7d30-400a-b8fd-f70a61f8897f/assets/images/large/1.jpg)
LM.1943-5630.0000127/asset/0d949b1f-4e1d-4f70-b082-4f5f52fd4169/assets/images/large/2.jpg)
LM.1943-5630.0000127/asset/c3e73127-19a1-4541-b2e4-7d085a4ac41a/assets/images/large/3.jpg)
LM.1943-5630.0000127/asset/6ef2a2a3-1aba-436e-b2d5-2e9051ac385e/assets/images/large/4.jpg)
LM.1943-5630.0000127/asset/d25a4476-6404-41b6-88ca-7c40041aa486/assets/images/large/5.jpg)
