2
Building Information Modeling in Canadian Public-Private-Partnership Projects
3
J. J. McArthur 1*, X. Sun 2
1
1,2
4 5
Dept. Architectural Science, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada Word count: 5644 excluding references
*
Corresponding Author: Email:
[email protected], Dept. Architectural Science, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Ave, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3 CANADA 1
6
Abstract
7
The Public-Private-Partnership (P3) procurement model and Building Information Modeling (BIM)
8
are transforming the Canadian project delivery context. The number of BIM uses throughout the project
9
lifecycle is increasing. This paper reviews the current state of BIM adoption within the Canadian P3
10
context, drawing from both the academic literature as well as a 2015 survey of design and construction
11
firms who have successfully delivered such projects using BIM in this context. This survey investigated
12
the perceived benefits and frequency of 29 selected BIM use cases, risk perception, and BIM execution
13
planning approaches within the Canadian market and compares and contrasts it with other contemporary
14
research. Survey respondents represented 85% of construction firms, 87.5% of engineering firms, and
15
50% of architectural design firms having completed Canadian P3 projects using BIM since 2010, and the
16
detailed results are presented, providing detailed insight into Canadian BIM practice in this context.
17
La réalisation des projets partenariat public-privé (PPP) et l’utilisation (BIM) transforment le
18
contexte canadien de l'exécution du projet. Les usages de BIM au travers du cycle de vie du projet
19
augmentent. Cet article examine l'état actuel de l'adoption BIM dans le contexte canadien PPP, avec un
20
revu des littératures académiques ainsi qu’une enquête réalisée en 2015 des entreprises d’architecture, de
21
génie, et de construction qui ont livré de tels projets en utilisant BIM. Cette enquête a étudié les avantages
22
et la fréquence de 29 cas d'utilisation du BIM, les risques perçus, et la gestion de BIM – particulièrement
23
les plans d'exécution BIM, et compare les approches au sein du marché canadien contraste avec d'autres
24
recherches contemporaines. Les répondants au sondage ont représenté 85% des entreprises de
25
construction, 87,5% des entreprises d'ingénierie, et 50% des entreprises de conception architecturale ayant
26
complété des projets P3 canadien utilisant BIM depuis 2010. Les résultats détaillés sont présentés,
27
fournissant un aperçu détaillé de la pratique de BIM canadienne dans ce contexte.
2
28
Keywords
29
BIM, project planning, public-private-partnerships (PPP), project lifecycle, Canadian practice
30
1
31
Introduction It is widely recognized that Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a powerful tool for delivering
32
construction projects throughout their lifecycle (Love, et al. 2014; (Clevenger & Khan, 2013) (Kiviniemi
33
& Codinhoto, 2014)). Documented benefits include reduction in cost, time, error and negative risk,
34
improvement in communication and collaboration, and quality control (Bryde, Broquetas and Volm
35
2013). The impact of BIM on P3 performance and studies on how to leverage this approach through
36
planning frameworks have been the topics of recent studies internationally (Love, et al., 2015) (Liu, et
37
al., 2016) and this paper complements this recent work with a study specific to the Canadian context. The
38
contribution of this paper is that it documents specific practices of Canadian P3 project partners within the
39
AECO (Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations) industry who used BIM in project
40
delivery within the 2010-2015 period; to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first detailed
41
survey of BIM practice in Canadian P3 projects to be undertaken. This paper begins by providing an
42
overview of the P3 context in Canada and discusses critical success factors from the literature. Next,
43
recent research and industry trends in current BIM practice are discussed and presented to set the larger
44
context for this research. Finally, a detailed, targeted survey of this population is presented and the results
45
are discussed within this context.
46
2
47
Public-Private-Partnership (P3) Projects in Canada Despite over 20 years of practice, Public-Private-Partnership (P3) projects are still considered to be a
48
relatively new project delivery method that allows governments to transfer infrastructure expansion risks
49
(e.g. financing and management) to the private sector so that their efforts can be better directed to making
50
regulation and planning investment (Chou, et al., 2012). Among the various P3 models, including the
51
popular Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT), Design Build Operate Maintenance (DBOM), and Design Build 3
52
Finance Operate (DBFO), DBFO is adopted the most for construction projects globally (Kwak, et al.,
53
2009). P3 is proven to improve operational efficiency, minimize deficit, and strengthen private-public
54
collaborative relationship (Hwang, et al., 2013).
55
P3 projects in Canada are delivered differently than in the rest of the world (Siemiatycki, 2015). The
56
primary procurement models are Design-Build-Finance (DBF) and Design-Build-Finance-Operate-
57
Maintain (DBFOM). In the former, a consortium of contractors and designers (“ProjectCo”) designs,
58
builds, and provides financing of the projects, while in the latter, there is a second consortium
59
(“ServiceCo”) providing Operations (DBFOM) and Maintenance services over a project concession
60
period. In both models, following a Request For Qualifications (RFQ), short-listed teams compete in a
61
pursuit phase of the project where each develops a technical (design) and financial (bid) proposal in
62
response to a Request for Proposals (RFP). At the end of this phase, a preferred proponent is selected and
63
the final agreement of project delivery is negotiated at Financial Close. After this point, the project is
64
quickly fast-tracked through detailed design and construction. In DBF projects, the project is handed over
65
to the owner at the end of construction, while in DBFOM projects, ServiceCo operates and/or maintains
66
the constructed facility for a fixed “concession period”, at the end of which the facility is restored to Day
67
1 condition and is handed over at the end to the owner to complete the P3 contract.
68
Because of the competitive nature of the pursuit phase of the project, combined with the high level of
69
effort required to develop the technical and financial submissions, project teams must balance three goals:
70
to submit the lowest bid in order to win the project, develop this bid with adequate detail to minimize risk,
71
and do so at the lowest possible cost. Once the successful team has been awarded the contract, the design
72
process continues and construction begins. Because of high schedule incentives and penalties and fixed
73
price bids, the team’s priorities change to focus on reducing construction cost and schedule while
74
maintaining a compliant design. Introducing BIM into P3 projects can significantly improve project
75
delivery efficiency by minimizing rework and facilitating information exchange. Figure 1 illustrates the
76
process of a P3 Design-Build-Finance-Maintain project delivery at high level. Note that while the 4
77
financial aspect is of significant importance to this procurement method, it has minimal, if any, effect on
78
the day-to-day design and construction activities of the project and is not relevant to this discussion of
79
planning and using BIM to improve project delivery.
80
Pursuit Phase
Government
Post Award
82 83
Contractors
Facility Manager
Invests in infrastructure & initializes RFP Solicits capable private partners
Executes agreement with winning bidder
81
Designers
Oversees contractor’s performance to substantial completion
Design with input from contractors & provide the most competitive bid Design development & construction documents Construct the facility Manage the facility Figure 1 Canadian P3 project timeline
3
Building Information Modeling (BIM) State of Practice BIM is a process in which graphic and nongraphic properties of building elements may be retrieved
84
by different stakeholders (e.g. architects, engineers, contractors, and facility managers) to fulfill their
85
specific needs within a building lifecycle (Becerik-Gerber & Kensek, 2010; Love, et al., 2014; Kassem,
86
et al., 2014). BIM is an effective tool to enhance communication and ease collaboration among these
87
stakeholders (Ahmad, et al., 2012).
88
It is not yet common practice to implement BIM throughout a project lifecycle from design,
89
construction, to operation and maintenance (Eadie, et al., 2013) despite the fact that BIM’s benefits are
90
widely supported (Leite, et al., 2011). A systematic review of industry reports noted 40 use cases, with
91
varying adoption rates, across the project lifecycle (Shou, et al., 2015). In the conceptual design to detail 5
92
design stage, a BIM model visually represents the project’s accurate geometry and helps to identify
93
design conflicts that can cause issues during construction (Shen & Issa, 2010). As design progresses,
94
BIM uses such as 3D coordination and design reviews are the most widely adopted applications, followed
95
by design authoring and existing conditions modeling (Kreider, et al., 2010). The use of BIM for
96
sustainable building design and evaluation is significant as summarized in (Wong & Fan, 2013), and a
97
specific discussion of BIM to support Canadian LEED® projects is presented in (Jalaei & Jrade, 2015). A
98
survey of the design industry (Elmualim & Gilder, 2014) found that 63% of respondents believed that a
99
greater use of BIM would result in an overall improvement in construction best practice.
100
In the construction stage, BIM reduces rework, increases phasing and scheduling productivity, and
101
improves construction management efficiency (Love, et al., 2011), and its use to assess, manage, and
102
mitigate risk (Zou, et al., 2016). To prevent such safety risks from occurring, a BIM approach has also
103
been developed to identify and mitigate potential construction safety risks during the design phase
104
(Malekitabar, et al., 2016). Such risks have been further addressed in studies of BIM applications to
105
improve construction safety and analyse hazards (Zhang, et al., 2013) , (Zhang, et al., 2015), and use
106
BIM’s visualization capability to improve site safety management (Park & Kim, 2013), (Riaz, et al.,
107
2014). Other BIM uses in construction – and areas of significant research focus – are virtual scheduling
108
(Liu, et al., 2015), design-to-fabrication (Clevenger & Khan, 2013), and real-time progress management
109
(Matthews, et al., 2015). This work is no longer limited to general contractors (Farnsworth, et al., 2015;
110
Farnsworth, et al., 2015); subtrade adoption of BIM is also increasing, particularly within the mechanical
111
and electrical industries (Boktor, et al., 2014) (Hanna, et al., 2014).
112
During the facility management phase, BIM can be used to effectively manage assets and greatly
113
lower operational costs (Mohandes, et al., 2014). Post-occupancy evaluation (Pati & Pati, 2013) (Göçer,
114
et al., 2015), energy management (Motawa & Carter, 2013) (Tuohy & Murphy, 2015), maintenance
115
mapping and root cause analysis (Motamedi, et al., 2014), (Akcamete, et al., 2010). Operational
116
applications of BIM include disaster management and operational safety (Shiau & Chang, 2012) 6
117
(Amirebrahimi, et al., 2016) are also emerging fields related to facility operation. A recent paper provides
118
insight into Canadian BIM applications in operations though case studies (Cavka, et al., 2015).
119
3.1
120
BIM Project Execution Planning To strategically and holistically implement BIM, a BIM execution plan (BxP) collaboratively
121
developed at the early design stage is advantageous and provides a workflow to guide the project team to
122
optimize the use of BIM during the project lifecycle (Wu & Issa, 2015).
123
Thirteen existing BxPs published or updated since 2010 (of the multitude in use worldwide) were
124
selected for detailed review based on their completeness, influence on the development of other BxPs,
125
and geographical diversity. Five BxPs were chosen from North America (CIC, 2011; Indiana University
126
Architect’s Office, 2012; Department of Veterans Affairs, 2012; Canada BIM Council, 2012; Institute for
127
BIM in Canada (IBC), 2013); four from Europe: (AEC (UK), 2012; Construction Project Information
128
Committee, 2013; Statsbygg, 2013; COBIM, 2012); one from Australia: (NATSPEC, 2012); and three
129
from Asia: (Hong Kong Institute of Building Information Modeling, 2011; Construction Industry Council
130
of Hong Kong, 2015; Singapore Building and Construction Authority (SBCA), 2013).
131
There was remarkable consistency regarding content across these plans. Each indicated the need to
132
set project goals, define organizational roles, agree on model structure and BIM information exchanges,
133
document technological infrastructure needs, document and schedule project deliverables, and identify
134
specific use cases required to achieve these goals. This last category showed remarkable internal
135
consistency. Seven BIM use cases were common to all reviewed BxPs: 3D design coordination, space
136
management, 4D phase planning, engineering analysis, design authoring, energy analysis, and building
137
system analysis. Other commonly shared elements are summarizing project information and specifying
138
collaboration procedures (12 of 13), developing a delivery strategy or contract (11 of 13), and defining the
139
BIM process, model quality control procedures, and providing an overview of the BIM Execution Plan
140
(10 of 13). 7
141
3.2
142
BIM in P3 Projects Within the P3 context, researchers (Love, et al., 2015) have summarized a number of BIM activities
143
and tools and their corresponding benefits to facilitating P3 performance from initiation and planning,
144
procurement, and partnership (i.e. "concession" period in Canada). For example, space management, cost
145
estimation, clash detection, real-time/cost progress monitoring, maintenance tracking, and post-occupancy
146
evaluation are all listed as helpful BIM uses within this context. To facilitate performance improvement
147
within the P3 context, Liu et al. (Liu, et al., 2016) developed a framework to leverage BIM to support
148
informed decision-making throughout the project, as well as document the physical and functional
149
characteristics of the assets.
150
Several Canadian researchers have noted that BIM adoption rates lag that of other countries. Porwal
151
and Hewage (2013) developed a BIM partnering framework for public projects to address this issue,
152
while
153
3.3
Limitations of BIM in Current Practice
154
There are a number of risks that have been identified regarding BIM in project delivery. These are
155
summarized in one survey (Elmualim & Gilder, 2014) as training staff, effectively implementing new
156
processes/workflows, and understanding BIM well enough to implement it. Another study (Chien, et al.,
157
2014) summarizes key risks associated with BIM delivery and includes those listed previously along with
158
lack of software compatibility, model management difficulties, inefficient data interoperability, process
159
change and workflow transition difficulties, inadequate commitment from top management, inadequate
160
project experience, short-term workload and cost increases, additional expenditure, lack of BIM
161
standards, and unclear legal liability. Lack of BIM protocol, cost overrun and lack of competency are
162
identified as key BIM-related risks by a survey of the mechanical and electrical construction industry
163
(Hanna, et al., 2013). The survey considers these challenges, limitations, and risks to investigate how they
164
are perceived for P3 projects delivered using BIM. 8
165
4
166
Survey Design and Methodology To better understand how organizations plan and use BIM in Canadian P3 projects, an online survey
167
was used to collect a representative view of BIM practitioners working in this context. The survey was
168
deployed from March through June 2015 and consisted of an online consent form and 24 multiple choice
169
questions. This section describes the desired target population, survey design to identify and obtain
170
responses from this population, discussion of the survey precision and margin of error, and statistical
171
analysis approaches used.
172
4.1
173
Survey Target Population This research required the survey of a very specific population within the AEC industry, namely
174
organizations who had successfully completed multiple P3 projects using BIM in Canada. This
175
population was selected for three reasons: (1) the objective of this research is to identify best practices by
176
synthesizing feedbacks from individuals with adequate experience in both BIM and P3 projects; (2) P3 is
177
a relatively new project delivery method in Canada, so few organizations have participated in these
178
projects, with even fewer having done so using BIM; and (3) this research focused on Canadian projects,
179
rather than P3 projects overall, which differ significantly with geography (Siemiatycki, 2015).
180
In order to identify the organizations making up the target population, a review of the Canadian P3
181
projects was undertaken through the project databases maintained by the provincial entities administering
182
P3 projects in Canada such as Infrastructure Ontario, Partnerships BC, and Alberta Infrastructure. Each
183
project was reviewed and the designers (i.e. architecture and engineering firms) and contractors making
184
up the successful consortium for each project were listed. Once these lists were completed, evidence of
185
BIM in delivery was investigated through either project write-ups or reports, or evidence of BIM
186
capability in that organization (e.g. presence of a BIM manager on staff or organizational material
187
promoting BIM capacity). Only firms with experience applying BIM on P3 projects were considered
188
qualified to respond, and a single response per organization was permitted in order to reduce company9
189
specific bias and provided a more representative indication of the Canadian AEC industry. This
190
investigation indicated that the target population as defined for this study included 13 contractors, 8
191
engineering firms, and 12 architecture firms. It is noteworthy that while several facilities management
192
firms formed part of these teams, there was no evidence of adoption of BIM in Facilities Management at
193
this time and thus facilities managers did not form part of the target population.
194
In order to recruit the target population, LinkedIn was used by the primary author, who had contacts
195
at 29 of the 33 identified organizations (11 contractors, 11 engineers, and 7 architect/engineers) and these
196
individuals were sent direct invitations to participate in the online survey. The remainder were recruited
197
through Canada’s two primary BIM industry associations: buildingSMART Canada (a chapter of the
198
International BIM Council) and CanBIM. Because of this indirect method, it was necessary to design the
199
survey in such a manner as to screen out unqualified respondents; the survey design is described in the
200
following section.
201
4.2
Survey Design
202
The survey was designed to obtain BIM use case frequency and perceived benefit information,
203
planning approaches, and other pertinent data from the target population and correlate them with project
204
success. The handover effectiveness between consortium partners in two phases, design to construction
205
and construction to operations was selected as the performance metric for this study for two reasons. First,
206
because of the consortium structure, one of the key advantages of BIM is information sharing between
207
disciplines and parties, so an effective means of evaluating the success of BIM implementation is
208
obtaining feedback on how effectively information was handed over between parties at these key
209
milestones. Second, this metric did not require respondents to disclose confidential or sensitive data such
210
as actual profitability or loss, delays, unsatisfied clients, or legal action and therefore was considered to be
211
the most likely to obtain complete and accurate responses from all respondents.
10
212
To ensure that responses regarding factors affecting effective project handover was considered from
213
those qualified (based on 2+ years of BIM experience and one or more completed P3 projects using
214
BIM), the survey was tiered to screen out unqualified respondents as illustrated in Figure 2. Part 1: Demographic information, and experience in BIM and P3 projects (49 complete responses)
No (9) Adequate BIM and P3 project experience?
Disqualified to answer Part 2A questions
Yes (40) Part 2A: Detailed questions regarding BIM use on P3 Projects (31 of 40 responses complete; only 24 from target population; 2 other Canadians, 5 international)
Part 2B: Reasons preventing the use of BIM in P3 projects (6 of 9 responses complete)
Part 3: BIM execution plans developed and reference guides used
215 216
Figure 2 Survey design flowchart
First, respondents were asked to provide demographic information and indicate BIM and P3
217
experience in Part 1. Those with no P3 projects completed using BIM were diverted to Part 2B, while the
218
rest were proceeded to answer the questions in Part 2A. These questions addressed: frequency of using
219
BIM in pursuit, design, construction, and operations phase in P3 projects, the frequency of software use
220
for design development in P3 projects, handover effectiveness, means of BIM coordination among the
221
consortium members, perception of risk associated with the use of BIM in P3 projects, and frequency of
222
different consortium partners working together to develop BxP for P3 projects.
223 224
29 BIM use cases were included in this survey based on a previous study (Kreider, et al., 2010) that considered 25 use cases, and added four new ones: sub-trade fabrication, post-occupancy evaluation, 11
225
hazard identification, and risk assessment, based on their increasing adoption emergence in practice as
226
discussed in Section 2. For each, the frequency of its use on P3 projects and perceived benefits in each of
227
the pursuit and post-award phases were evaluated.
228
Finally, all survey respondents were asked whether their company had developed standard BIM
229
execution plans both for general projects and specific to P3, and what reference guidelines or templates
230
they used to develop their BxP (Part 3).
231
4.3
232
Sample Size and Margin of Error Calculations Because the total population is extremely small, a much larger proportion of the population must be
233
samples to achieve reasonable error rates in the results. The margin of error (E) was calculated by
234
applying the hyperbolic minimum sample size calculation (Eq. 1), rearranged in Eq. 2.
235
=
236
=
237 238 239
(
(
)
( (
(1)
)
)
(2)
)
Where N is the total target population, n is the sample size, p and q are the population proportions for the distribution (unknown so each set to 0.5), and z=1.96 to set a 95% confidence interval. Table 2 shows the total number of responses obtained through the online survey, compared to both
240
the qualified responses, and qualified population. Because of the very small population size, the margin of
241
error is 10.6% overall, rising to 12.1% for contractors, 14% for engineers, and 29.5% for architects. This
242
limits the ability to extrapolate the results of this survey to the broader population; however, some results
243
remain significant even when this margin of error is considered. This is discussed in Section 6 as these
244
results are discussed. Further, these results are still of value as an independent sample and provide insight
12
245
from a number of highly experienced members of Canada’s AEC community with specific expertise in
246
both BIM and P3 project delivery, and sheds light on current practices. Contractors
Engineers
Architect or Arch/
Total
Engineer Firms Est. qualified population
13
8
12
33
Directly invited population
11
8
10
29
Total responses
14
16
10
40
Qualified and Complete
11
7
6
24
12.1%
14%
29.5%
10.6%
Responses (target population) Margin of error* 247
*based on 95% confidence; hyperbolic distribution
248
Table 1 Survey responses showing response rate breakdown and invited vs referred participants in target population
249
Note that while 24 qualified responses were achieved from the target population, there were a total of 26
250
qualified respondents – two were from groups not considered within the target population: a facility
251
manager and a BIM consultant. While single responses are not considered representative of their
252
populations, these have been included in the consolidated analysis to more broadly reflect the experience
253
of P3 participants. Where the inclusion of this data has statistically affected the results, this is explicitly
254
discussed in the results presented in Section 6.
255
4.4
256
This survey used a variety of scales to obtain results, and thus the measurement precision varies between
257
questions. At one extreme, a five-point Likert Scale was used to evaluate project handover effectiveness
258
(“Very Effective” (+2), “Effective” (+1), “Neither effective nor ineffective” (0), “Ineffective” (-1), and
259
“Very ineffective” (-2)). This provided a resolution on responses within quintiles; in a worst-case
260
condition, a seven-point Likert Scale was used to obtain results, this aligns with the tool measurement
Comparison of Measurement Precision and Calculated Error
13
261
accuracy (which measures in 100/7 = 14.3% bands) and thus a difference of more than one response band
262
indicates a significant difference, even considering the overall margin of error for the responses. When
263
this data was analysed to identify differences between respondents from different sectors, no statistically
264
significant difference was found, and thus all data presented is for the full sample set, and thus has a
265
10.6% margin of error with 95% confidence.
266
4.5
267
The small target population and sample size necessitated the selection of statistical tools appropriate to
268
this context. Independent two-sample t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences
269
between pairs of groups (e.g. designers vs. contractors). In order to select the appropriate t-test, f-tests
270
were first used to evaluate whether the variance was equal in each of the samples and sample sizes were
271
compared.
272
Where the f-test indicated that variances were equal, a modified version of the independent two-sample t-
273
test was used, applicable to both equal and unequal sample sizes:
Evaluating Statistical Significance of Differences between Mean
274
=
275
where
278 279
)
(3)
∗
=
276
277
(
(
)∗
(
)∗
(4)
and =
+
−2
(5)
When the f-test indicated that the sample variances were unequal, Welch’s t-test was used instead:
14
(
280
=
281
where
(6)
∗
is the unbiased estimator of variance
=
282
283
)
+
(7)
and
=
284
(8) ∗(
)∗
∗(
)
285
5
Results
286
As noted previously, 40 responses were obtained from the survey; however, due to the qualification
287
screening and number of incomplete responses, only 24 responses were received from members of the
288
target population (Canadian AEC firms). Two others were Canadian consultants active on P3 projects, but
289
not in a design or construction role and five otherwise qualified responses were received from
290
organizations in several countries (USA, UK, Australia, and Philippines), however the heterogeneity in
291
respondent types rendered this data unusable for this study. The results discussed herein are therefore
292
limited to the Canadian qualified respondents.
293
5.1
Survey Respondent Profile
294
The 26 qualified respondents had significant experience in P3 project delivery, with 35% having
295
completed six or more such projects and a significant majority (77%) having completed 3-5 or more.
296
Similarly, all had worked with BIM for several years, with nearly three-quarters (73%) with more than
297
five years of experience using this tool, as illustrated in Figure 3. The qualified survey participants were
298
primarily from Ontario (77%) with the remainder from BC or Alberta. This is not surprising as Ontario is 15
299
where P3 projects are the major form of procurement for public infrastructure, while several P3 projects
300
have been realized in Alberta and BC. The lack of responses from Quebec could be due to two issues:
301
first, the first Quebec-based P3 projects were delivered by firms with offices in Ontario (as well as
302
Quebec), and second, the survey was only available in English, which may have posed a language barrier
303
to this demographic. min 2 years 4%
3 years 4%
10 years and more 23%
21 + 4% 11 to 20 12%
4 years 19%
6 to 10 19%
5 years - 9 years 50%
304
3 to 5 42%
Figure 3 Qualified respondent breakdown by BIM experience (left) and number of completed P3 projects (right) Subcontractor 4%
General Contractor 38%
Facilities management 4% BIM/CAD design/drafting 12%
Architect/Engineer firm 8% Architectur e firm 15%
FM 4%
Team/office management 12%
BIM/CAD management 38%
Design-Builder 4% Engineering consultant, multi-discipline 12%
305
1 or 2 23%
Project management 19%
Architectural/ Engineering design 15%
Engineering consultant, singlediscipline
Figure 4 Respondent company type (left) and Role in Organization
306
General contractors formed the largest group of respondents (38%) followed by engineers (15%
307
single discipline, 12% multi-discipline), as illustrated in Figure 4. 38% participants worked as BIM/CAD 16
308
managers while 19% were project managers, 15% were designers (architects/engineers), and 12% worked
309
in each of BIM/CAD design and team/office management. The remaining individual worked in facility
310
management.
311
5.2
312
BIM Template Adoption Each of the qualified respondents indicated that their company has developed a standard BIM
313
Execution Plan and of those, 73% of them had further developed a standard BxP specifically for P3
314
projects. Those who had not developed a P3-specific BxP indicated this was either because they often
315
pursued such projects in joint-venture and used their partners’ plans, or because they felt that a project-
316
specific plan was warranted for each P3 project. When asked which template(s) and guidelines were used
317
to develop the company template (Figure. 5), a majority of respondents used either corporate standard
318
templates (31%) or developed it on their own. Of the published template, the Penn State BIM Execution
319
Planning Guide (v2.0) was the most commonly used (27% of respondents). Note that several respondents
320
indicated using multiple templates, resulting in the sum exceeding 100%. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Company template from another office Developed on own Penn State BIM project execution planning guide v2.0 NATSPEC Penn State owner BIM execution planning resources v1.0 IBC Indiana University BIM execution plan template Veterans’ affairs (VA) BIM guide
321 322
Figure 5 Basis for P3 BIM Execution Plan development by respondent organizations
17
25%
30%
35%
323 324
5.3
BIM Use Case Perceived Benefit and Frequency Error! Reference source not found. exhibits the perceived beneficial level of the 29 BIM uses
325
during both pursuit and post-award phases in the descending order of their frequency of actual use. The
326
use cases included those used in a similar industry-wide study undertaken by Kreider et al. (2010), with
327
additional use cases added based on adoption in recent practice. On a whole, an increase in BIM use
328
adoption was noted from the latter survey to the present one, however due to the difference in both
329
respondent types (Canadian firms who have completed P3 projects, versus the general population) and
330
sample sizes, as well as the five-year period between surveys, it is difficult to determine which one or
331
more of these factors is responsible for these trends. For this reason, this paper does not directly compare
332
the results of these two studies. There are several trends and correlations between perceived benefits in
333
different stages and frequency of use presented in Figure 6. Note that these results presented are
334
representative of the Canadian AEC industry experience with BIM for delivering P3 projects, within a
335
10% margin of error as previously discussed.
336
One would expect BIM use cases to be perceived more beneficial post-award than during the pursuit
337
phase because the majority of teams will be unsuccessful during pursuit (three are short-listed, only one is
338
awarded the contract) and thus there is pressure to minimize investment during this phase, however there
339
is no statistically significant difference between the two phases. This is surprising because a higher post-
340
award benefit would have been expected. It is also surprising that the frequency and perceived benefit do
341
not always trend together; one would expect that those use cases determined to be most beneficial would
342
be the most frequently used, and yet this is not the case. In particular, use cases such as mechanical
343
analysis, energy analysis, and record modeling have much higher frequency of use than their perceived
344
benefit would indicate. Conversely, construction site coordination and existing conditions modeling is
345
rarely used, yet the perceived benefit is relatively high. These latter cases can be explained by a barrier to
346
adoption – hardware/equipment cost or lack of organizational capability – that precludes teams who see a
347
benefit for this application from implementing it on projects. In the former cases, potential explanations 18
for the relatively high use could be: client requirement (e.g. record model development), permitting or
349
certification requirements (e.g. energy analysis, LEED analysis, or code validation), or that such
350
applications are relatively low-effort (e.g. mechanical analysis) but are not perceived as being particularly
351
beneficial when compared with other use cases. It is noteworthy that all use cases with an average
352
negative perceived benefit had the lowest adoption rates, and their use frequency decreased with
353
decreasing perceived benefit.
354
3.00
100%
2.50
80%
2.00 1.50
40% 1.00 20% 0.50 0%
0.00 -0.50
-20%
-1.00
-40%
Perceived Benefit-Pursuit
Perceived Benefit - Post-Award
19
Frequency of Use
Frequency of Use
60%
3D coordination Design reviews Phase planning Mechanical analysis Construction Site Coordination Design authoring Cost estimation Structural analysis Energy analysis Record model development Site staging simulation Virtual Construction Scheduling Programming Construction scheduling Digital fabrication Building system analysis Site analysis LEED evaluation Code validation Sub-trade fabrication drawings Lighting analysis Existing conditions Risk assessment Space management Maintenance scheduling Post-occupancy evaluation Asset management Hazard identification Disaster planning
Perceived Benefit (-3 = Very determinetal; 0 = Neutral; 3=Very Beneficial)
348
355
Figure 6 Perceived benefits vs. frequency of use of BIM use cases (average values)
356
Further analysing the data, no clear trends were noted between BIM experience and perceived value
357
of BIM uses, nor between designers (architects and engineers) and contractors (including subcontractors)
358
on either the benefit or frequency of use of BIM use cases. This is unsurprising given the context of the
359
survey – P3 projects – where the designers and contractors work in close co-operation for the duration of
360
the project as part of a larger consortium.
361 362 363
5.4
Perception of BIM Risks Error! Reference source not found. shows the response frequency for the rating of perceived risks
364
associated with large projects delivered in BIM. The lack of BIM protocol, lack of organizational
365
commitment, and unclear contracts are the three highest risks on average.
366
Within the respondent group sampled, no statistically significant trends were noted based on industry
367
segment. While this may be a result of the consortium approach to P3 projects in Canada where the
368
designers and contractors work on a common team, this could also be a result of the small sample size and
369
pre-qualification, and may not be representative of the industry at large. Figure 8 illustrates the perceived
370
level of risk for each risk category by years of BIM experience and number of completed P3 projects. The
371
only significant difference in risk perception is that BIM mistakes were perceived as less of a risk by
372
respondents with the most vs the least BIM experience. Because of the high variance within the sample, it
373
is difficult to draw additional conclusions.
20
Software issues Mistakes by BIM staff Lack of Trained Personnel Lack of internal commitment Cost overrun Unclear Contracts Lack of Organizational Commitment Lack of BIM Protocol 0% Minimal
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Low
Moderate
High
Very High
374 375
Figure 7 Perceived risks with BIM Delivery Lack of personnel with BIM skills
Cost overrun
Inadequate software
Lack of personnel with BIM skills
Cost overrun
Inadequate software
376
Lack of BIM Protocol
Lack of team commitment
Lack of organizational commitment
Mistakes by BIM staff
Unclear contracts relating to BIM
Lack of BIM Protocol
Lack of team commitment
Lack of organizational commitment
Mistakes by BIM staff
Unclear contracts relating to BIM
Figure 8 Perceived risks vs. frequency of use of BIM use cases (average values) by BIM and P3 experience 21
377
5.5
378
Handover Effectiveness Handover effectiveness was selected as a key performance metric for this study for two reasons:
379
because it measures the effectiveness of BIM as a communication and coordination tool between team
380
members (a key known benefit of BIM), and does not require the disclosure of sensitive information –
381
and was thus more likely to obtain complete responses from the target population.
382
Slightly more than half of respondents (51.7%) indicated that their BIM model handover from design
383
to construction was “Effective” or “Very Effective”, whereas a much smaller fraction (17.2%) indicated
384
an “Ineffective” or “Very ineffective” handover, as illustrated in Error! Reference source not found..
385
From construction to operations, the responses were less positive, with nearly half (44.8%) of respondents
386
indicating that their handover to operations was “neutral”. In an additional 17% of cases, there was no
387
handover to operations, reflecting a design-build-finance P3 rather than a P3 project incorporating an
388
O&M period. Very ineffective
3% 17%
35%
10%
7%
Very ineffective
Ineffective
17%
Neutral 28%
Effective Very effective
3%
Ineffective
7%
Neutral
14%
Effective 45%
BIM Model was not shared
389
14%
Very effective N/A
390
Figure 9 BIM Model handover effectiveness from design to construction (left) and construction to operations (right)
391
5.6
392
The strategies used by respondents for coordinating the BIM model varied substantially (Figure 10). The
393
most common respondent response indicated a reliance on all teams working in BIM to achieve a
394
coordinated output (34%). Fewer organizations identified individuals responsible for coordination, and
395
least commonly, coordination meetings were planned.
BIM Coordination Roles
22
Each discipline coordinates own work and uploads to central model Dedicated individual is responsible for facilitating coordination Coordination is discussed during face-to-face/virtual team meetings Architect is primarily responsible for coordination BIM Manager is primarily responsible for coordination All team members work exclusively in BIM and coordinate as they work 0%
396
Figure 10 BIM coordination strategies
397
6
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Conclusions and Recommendations
398
The survey presented in this paper represented a high proportion (72.7%) of the Canadian AEC
399
industry participants with a record of accomplishment of delivering P3 projects using BIM, and found the
400
following:
401
1.
The reference BIM Execution Planning tool used by the majority of organizations was
402
PennState (CIC, 2011), which is unsurprising given that the corresponding Guide forms the basis for the
403
majority of published BIM Execution Plans globally. Corporate templates and office-specific templates
404
were the most widely used overall.
405
2.
The majority of the respondents indicated that a P3-specific BIM Execution Plan had been
406
developed for their organization; those indicating that such a plan had not been developed indicated that
407
they either typically used the one provided by another member of the consortium, or that they felt that a
408
project-specific plan was required in each instance.
409 410
3.
The most commonly used BIM applications are 3D coordination and Design Reviews (both
used over 60% of the time on average), followed by Phase Planning, Mechanical Analysis, Construction
23
411
Site Coordination, Design Authoring, Cost Estimation, Structural Analysis, Energy Analysis, and Record
412
Model Development, each used an average of approximately 50% of the time.
413
4.
The BIM use cases perceived to have the highest overall project benefits were Construction Site
414
Coordination and Design Reviews (rated “Beneficial” to “Very Beneficial”), followed by 3D
415
Coordination, Phase Planning, Site Staging, Virtual Construction Scheduling, Design Authoring, Cost
416
Estimation, and Structural Analysis (rated “Somewhat beneficial” to “Beneficial”). There was no
417
statistically significant difference between the perceived benefit in pursuit vs the post-award phase of the
418
project.
419
5.
Risk perception on projects roughly increased with P3 project experience and those risks
420
perceived to be most significant are: lack of organizational commitment, unclear contracts relating to
421
BIM, and lack of BIM protocol.
422
6.
Handover effectiveness within the project was perceived to be much more effective from the
423
design to the construction phase than from construction to operations. This suggests that additional
424
research to identify enablers of effective handover in the latter stage is warranted.
425
7.
A wide variety of coordination approaches are used by the various teams. Of these, the most
426
widely-used approach is for team members to work exclusively in BIM and coordinate with one another
427
on an ongoing basis (34%). This is followed by BIM being coordinated by a dedicated individual, namely
428
the BIM Manager (21%), Architect (17%) or other coordinator (8%).
429
Acknowledgements
430
The authors would like to acknowledge financial support received from Ove Arup and Partners
431
Ltd. for the financial support of Xi Sun as part of a larger P3 BIM Execution Plan development
432
project.
24
433
7
References
434
AEC (UK), 2012. AEC (UK) BIM Protocol. [Online]
435
Available at: https://aecuk.workpress.com/documents
436
Ahmad, M. A., Demian, P. & Price, A. D. F., 2012. BIM implementation plans: A comparative analysis..
437
Edinburgh, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp. 33-42.
438
Akcamete, A., Akinci, B. & Garrett, J. H., 2010. Potential utilization of building information models for
439
planning maintenance activities.. s.l., s.n., pp. 151-157.
440
Akcamete, A., Akinci, B. & Garrett, J. H., 2010. Potential utilization of building information models for
441
planning maintenance activities.. s.l., s.n.
442
American Institute of Architects, 2013. AIA Document G202–2013, Project Building Information
443
Modeling Protocol Form. Washington, DC: American Institute of Architects.
444
Amirebrahimi, S., Rajabifard, A., Mendis, P. & Ngo, T., 2016. A framework for a microscale flood
445
damage assessment and visualization for a building using BIM-GIS integration. International Journal of
446
Digital Earth, 9(4), pp. 363-386.
447
ArchSmarter, n.d. -- webpage title ---. [Online]
448
Available at: www.archsmarter.com/....
449
[Accessed 15 03 2016].
450
Autodesk Corporation, 2016. Revit Help. [Online]
451
Available at: http://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2016/ENU/?guid=GUID-4EF8E824-0DBE-40F2-9328-
452
5668CC81EACF
453
Azhar, S., 2011. Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the
454
AEC industry. Leadership and Management in Engineering. 25
455
Becerik-Gerber, B., Jazizadeh, F., Li, N. & Calis, G., 2012 (138). Application Areas and Data
456
Requirements for BIM-Enabled Facilities Management. Journal of COnstruction Engineering and
457
Management, pp. 431-442.
458
Becerik-Gerber, B. & Kensek, K., 2010. Building information in architecture, engineering, and
459
construction: Emerging research directions and trends.. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
460
Education and Practice, 136(3), pp. 139-147.
461
Beck, K. e. a., 2001. Manifesto for Agile Software Development. [Online]
462
Available at: http://www.agilemanifesto.org/
463
[Accessed 13 June 2016].
464
Boktor, J., Hanna, A. & Menassa, C., 2014. State of Practice of Building Information Modeling in the
465
Mechanical Construction Industry. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(1), pp. 78-85.
466
Breslau, B. & Fowles, R., 2007. Sustainability Perspectives and Trends in Corporate Real Estate, s.l.:
467
Jones Lang LaSalle and CoreNet Global.
468
Brooks, T. & Lucas, J., 2014. A Study to Support BIM Turnover to Facility Managers for Use after
469
Construction. Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, pp. 243-250.
470
Bryde, D., Broquetas, M. & Volm, J. M., 2013. The project benefits of building information modelling
471
(BIM). International Journal of Project Managmeent, 31(7), pp. 971-980.
472
BuildingSmart, 2015. BuildingSmart BIM Guides. [Online]
473
Available at: http://bimguides.vtreem.com/bin/view/BIMGuides/Guidelines
474
Canada BIM Council, 2012. AEC (CAN) BIM protocol. [Online]
475
Available at: http://s3.amazonaws.com/canbim-
476
production/vol/www/apps/canbim_production/releases/20121021065404/en/public/documents/documents 26
477
/original_63.pdf?1352735902
478
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
479
Cavka, H. B., Staub-French, S. & Pottinger, R., 2015. Evaluating the Alignment of Organizational and
480
Project Contexts for BIM Adoption: A Case Study of a Large Owner Organization. Buildings, 5(4), pp.
481
1265-1300.
482
Cerovsek, T., 2011. A review and outlook for a Building Information Model (BIM): a multi-standpoint
483
framework for technological development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, Volume 25, pp. 224-244.
484
Cheung, F. K. et al., 2012. Early stage multi-level cost estimation for schematic BIMMs. Automation in
485
Construction, Volume 27, pp. 67-77.
486
Chien, K.-F., Wu, Z.-H. & Huang, S.-C., 2014. Identifying and assessing critical risk factors for BIM
487
projects: Empirical study. Automation in Construction, Volume 45, pp. 1-15.
488
Chou, J., Tseng, H. P., Lin, C. & Yeh, C., 2012. Critical factors and risk allocation for PPP policy:
489
Comparison between HSR and general infrastructure projects.. Transport Policy, Volume 22, pp. 36-48.
490
CIC, 2011. BIM Project Execution Planning Guide –Version 2.1, University Park, PA, USA:
491
Pennsylvania State University.
492
Clevenger, C. & Khan, R., 2013. Impace of BIM-enabled design-to-fabrication on building delivery.
493
Practice Periodical of Structural Design and Construction, Volume 19, pp. 122-128.
494
Coates, P., Arayici, Y. & Ozturk, Z., 2012. New Concepts of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Utilizing
495
BIM Benchmarking Techniques and Sensing Devices. Marseilles, France, Springer-Verlag, pp. 319-329.
496
COBIM, 2012. [Online]
497
Available at: http://www.en.buildingsmart.kotisivukone.com/3
498
[Accessed 15 11 2015]. 27
499
Construction Industry Council of Hong Kong, 2015. CIC building information modeling standards draft
500
version 6.1.. [Online]
501
Available at: http://www.hkibim.org/?p=3610
502
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
503
Construction Project Information Committee, 2013. CPIx protocol. [Online]
504
Available at: http://www.cpic.org.uk/cpix/
505
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
506
Department of Veterans Affairs, 2012. The VA BIM guide. [Online]
507
Available at: http://www.cfm.va. gov/til/bim/BIMguide/downloads/VA-BIM-Guide.pdf
508
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
509
Department of Veterans Affairs, 2012. The VA BIM guide.. [Online]
510
Available at: http://www.cfm.va.gov/til/bim/BIMguide/downloads/VA-BIM-Guide.pdf
511
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
512
Eadie, R. et al., 2013. BIM implementation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: an analysis.
513
Automation in Construction, Volume 36, pp. 145-151.
514
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. & Liston, K., 2011. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building
515
Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. 2nd ed. s.l.:Wiley.
516
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N. & Yonder, E., 2012. Portfolio greenness and the financial performance of REITs.
517
Journal of International Money and Finance, 31(7), pp. 1911-1929.
518
Elmualim, A. & Gilder, J., 2014. BIM: innovation in design management, influence and challenges of
519
implementation. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 10(3-4), pp. 183-199.
520
Ezcan, V., Isikdag, U. & Goulding, J., 2013. BIM and off-site manufacturing: recent research and
521
opportunities. Brisbane, Australia, s.n. 28
522
Fan, W. & Yan, Z., 2010. Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010) Factors affecting response rates of the web survey:
523
A systematic review.. Computers in Human Behaviour, Volume 26, pp. 132-139.
524
Farnsworth, C. B., Beveridge, S., Miller, K. R. & Christofferson, J. P., 2015. Application, Advantages,
525
and Methods Associated with Using BIM in Commercial Construction. International Journal of
526
Construction Education and Research, 11(3), pp. 218-236.
527
Fuerst, F., 2009. Building momentum: An analysis of investment trends in LEED and Energy Star-
528
certified properties.. J Retail Leisure Property, 8(4), pp. 285-297.
529
Gallaher, M. P., O’Connor, A. C., Dettbarn Jr, J. L. & Gilday, L. T., 2004. Cost analysis of inadequate
530
interoperability in the US capital facilities industry, s.l.: NIST.
531
Gelowitz, M. & McArthur, J., 2016. Investigating the Effect of Environmental Product Declaration
532
Adoption in LEED® on the Construction Industry: A Case Study. Tempe, Elsevier.
533
Giminez, L., Robert, S., Suard, F. & Zreik, K., 2016. Automatic reconstruction of 3D building models
534
from scanned 2D floor plans.. Automation in Construction, Volume 63, pp. 48-56.
535
Göçer, O., Hua, Y. & Göçer, K., 2015. Completing the missing link in building design process:
536
Enhancing post-occupancy evaluation method for effective feedback for building performance. Building
537
and Environment, Volume 89, pp. 14-27.
538
Hanna, A., Boodai, F. & El Asmar, M., 2013. State of Practice of Building Information Modeling in
539
Mechanical and Electrical Construction Industries. Journal of Construction and Engineering
540
Management, 139(10), p. 04013009.
541
Hanna, A., Yuetter, M. & Aoun, D., 2014. State of Practice of Building Information Modeling in the
542
Electrical Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering Management, 140(12), p.
543
05014011. 29
544
Holland, R. et al., 2010. Integrated design courses using BIM as the technology platform.. Washington,
545
DC, Ecobuild America.
546
Hong Kong Institute of Building Information Modeling, 2011. HKIBIM BIM standard – BIM project
547
specification. [Online]
548
Available at: http://www.hkibim.org/?p=1937
549
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
550
Hwang, B., Zhao, X. & Gay, M., 2013. Public private partnership projects in Singapore: Factors critical
551
risks and preferred risk allocation from the perspective of contractors.. International Journal of Project
552
Management, 31(3), pp. 424-433.
553
Ilhan, B. & Yaman, H., 2016. Green building assessment tool (GBAT) for integrated BIM-based design
554
decisions. Automation in Construction, p. (in press).
555
Indiana University Architect’s Office, 2012. [Online]
556
Available at:
557
http://www.indiana.edu/~uao/docs/standards/IU%20BIM%20Guidelines%20and%20Standards.pdf
558
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
559
Institute for BIM in Canada (IBC), 2013. BIM PxP toolkit package.. [Online]
560
Available at: https://www.ibc-bim.ca/documents/
561
[Accessed 11 09 2015].
562
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
563
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland:
564
International Panel on Climate Change.
565
Jalaei, F. & Jrade, A., 2015. Integrating building information modeling (BIM) and LEED system at the
566
conceptual design stage of sustainable buildings.. Sustainable Cities and Society, Volume 18, pp. 95-107. 30
567
Jiao, Y. et al., 2013. A cloud approach to unified lifecycle data management in architecture, engineering,
568
construction and facilities management: Integrating BIMs and SNS. Advanced Engineering Informatics,
569
27(2), pp. 173-188.
570
Johnson, T. P. & Wislar, J. S., 2012. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys.. The Journal of
571
the American Medical Association, 301(17), pp. 1805-1806.
572
Kassem, M. et al., 2014. Building information modeling: protocols for collaborative design processes..
573
Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), Volume 19, pp. 126-149.
574
Kassem, M. et al., 2015. BIM in facilities management applications: a case study of a large university
575
complex. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(3).
576
Kensek, K., 2015. BIM Guidelines Inform Facilities Management Databases: A Case Study. Buildings,
577
5(3), pp. 899-916.
578
Khaja, M., Seo, J. D. & McArthur, J. J., 2016. Optimizing BIM Metadata Manipulation Using Parametric
579
Tools. Tempe, s.n., pp. 259-266.
580
Kiviniemi, A. & Codinhoto, R., 2014. Challenges in the Implementation of BIM for FM —Case
581
Manchester Town Hall Complex. Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, pp. 665-672.
582
Kivits, R. A. & Furneaux,, C., 2013. BIM: enabling sustainability and asset management through
583
knowledge management. The Scientific World Journal, Volume 13.
584
Kok, N., McGraw, M. & Quigley, J., 2011. The Diffusion of Energy Efficiency in Building. s.l., s.n., p. 7.
585
Kreider, R., Messner, J. & Dubler, C., 2010. Determining the Frequency and Impact of Applying BIM for
586
Different Purposes on Building Projects. Loughborough, UK, Loughborough University.
587
Kwak, Y. H., Chih, Y. & Ibbs, C. W., 2009. Towards a comprehensive understanding of public private
588
partnerships for infrastructure development.. California Management Review, pp. 51-78. 31
589
Laing, R., Leon, M., Isaacs, J. & Georgiev, D., 2015. Scan to BIM: the development of a clear workflow
590
for the incorporation of point clouds within a BIM environment.. Bristol, UK, WIT Press, pp. 297-307.
591
Leite, F. et al., 2011. Analysis of modeling effort and impact of different levels of detail in building
592
information models. ,. Automation in Construction, Volume 20, pp. 601-609.
593
Lin, Y., Su, Y. & Chen, Y., 2014. Developing Mobile BIM/2D Barcode-Based Automated Facility
594
Management System. The Scientific World Journal, p. Article ID 374735.
595
Liu, H., Al-Hussein, M. & Lu, M., 2015. BIM-based integrated approach for detailed construction
596
scheduling under resource constraints. Automation in Construction, Volume 53, pp. 29-43.
597
Liu, J. et al., 2016. Praxis of Performance Measurement in Public-Private Partnerships: Moving beyond
598
the Iron Triangle.. Journal of Management in Engineering, p. 04016004.
599
Love, P. E. D. E. D. J., Han, S. & Goh, Y. M., 2011. Design error reduction: towards the effective
600
utilization of building information modeling.. Research in Engineering Design, 22(3), pp. 173-187.
601
Love, P. et al., 2015. Future proofing PPPs: Life-cycle performance measurement and Building
602
Information Modelling. Automation in Construction, Volume 56, pp. 26-35.
603
Love, P. et al., 2014. A benefits realization management building information modeling framework for
604
asset owners. Automation in Construction, Volume 37, pp. 1-10.
605
Malekitabar, H., Ardeshir, A., Sebt, M. H. & Stouffs, R., 2016. Construction safety risk drivers: A BIM
606
approach. Safety Science, Volume 82, pp. 445-455.
607
Malsane, S. et al., 2015. Development of an object model for automated compliance checking.
608
Automation in Construction, Volume 49, p. 51–58.
609
Matthews, J. et al., 2015. Real time progress management: Re-engineering processes for cloud-based BIM
610
in construction. Automation in Construction, Volume 58, pp. 38-47. 32
611
McArthur, J. & Sun, X., 2015. Best practices for BIM Execution Plan development for a P3 (PFI) design-
612
build-finance-operate-maintain project. Bristol, UK, WIT Press, pp. 119-127.
613
McGraw-Hill Construction (MHC),, 2014. SmartMarket Report – The business value of BIM for
614
construction in major global markets., s.l.: McGraw-Hill Construction.
615
Mohandes, S., Preece, C. & Hedayati, A., 2014. Exploiting the effectiveness of building information
616
modeling during the stage of post construction.. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 4(10),
617
pp. 5-16.
618
Motamedi, A., Hammad, A. & Asen, Y., 2014. Knowledge-assisted BIM-based visual analytics for
619
failure root cause detection in facilities management. Autom. Constr., Volume 43, pp. 73-83.
620
Motamedi, A., Hammad, A. & Asen, Y., 2014. Knowledge-assisted BIM-based Visual Analytics for
621
Failure Root Cause Detection in Facilities Management. Automation in Construction, Volume 43, pp. 73-
622
83.
623
Motawa, I. & Carter, K., 2013. Sustainable BIM-based Evaluation of Buildings. Crete, Greece, Elsevier,
624
pp. 419-428.
625
NATSPEC, 2012. NATSPEC BIM management plan template (v1.0).. [Online]
626
Available at:
627
http://www.bim.natspec.org/images/NATSPEC_Documents/BIM_Management_Plan_Template_v1.0.pdf
628
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
629
NATSPEC, 2013. BIM Guides. [Online]
630
Available at: http://www.bim.natspec.org/index.php/resources/bim-guidelines
631
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
632
NATSPEC, 2014. NATSPEC BIM paper 002 – Getting Started with BIM.. [Online]
633
Available at: 33
634
http://bim.natspec.org/images/NATSPEC_Documents/NATSPEC_BIM_Paper__Getting_started_with_BI
635
M_140529.pdf
636
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
637
Park, C. S. & Kim, H. J., 2013. A framework for construction safety management and visualization
638
system.. Automation in Construction, Volume 33, pp. 95-103.
639
Pati, D. & Pati, S., 2013. Methodological Issues in Conducting Post-Occupancy Evaluations to Support
640
Design Decisions. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 6(3), pp. 157-163.
641
Porwal, A. & Hewage, K. N., 2013. Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering framework for
642
public construction projects, Automation in Construction. Autom. Constr., Volume 31, pp. 204-214.
643
Qiu, Y., Tiwari, A. & Wang, Y., 2015. The diffusion of voluntary green building certification: a spatial
644
approach.. Energy Efficiency, 8(3), pp. 449-471.
645
Rapoport, R. N., 1970. Three dilemmas in action research with special reference to the Tavistock
646
experience.. Human relations, 23(6), pp. 499-513.
647
REALPac, 2013. 2012 Energy Benchmarking Report Performance of the Canadian, Toronto: s.n.
648
Riaz, Z., Arslan, M., Kiani, A. K. & Azhar, S., 2014. CoSMoS: A BIM and wireless sensor based
649
integrated solution for worker safety in confined spaces.. Automation in construction, Volume 45, pp. 96-
650
106.
651
Shen, Z. & Issa, R., 2010. Quantitative evaluation of the BIM assisted construction detailed cost
652
estimation.. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), Volume 15, pp. 234-257.
653
Shiau, Y.-C. & Chang, C.-T., 2012. Establishment of Fire Control Management System in Building
654
Information Modeling Environment. [Online]
34
655
Available at: http://onlinepresent.org/proceedings/vol5_2012/11.pdf
656
[Accessed 13 07 2016].
657
Shou, W., Wang, J., Wang, X. & Chong, H. Y., 2015. A Comparative Review of Building Information
658
Modelling Implementation in Building and Infrastructure Industries. Arch Computat Methods Eng,
659
Volume 22, pp. 291-308.
660
Siemiatycki, M., 2015. Public‐Private Partnerships in Canada: Reflections on twenty years of practice..
661
Canadian Public Administration, 58(3), pp. 343-362.
662
Singapore Building and Construction Authority (SBCA), 2013. Singapore BIM guide (version 2).
663
[Online]
664
Available at:
665
http://www.corenet.gov.sg/integrated_submission/bim/BIM/Singapore%20BIM%20Guide_V2.pdf
666
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
667
Smith, P., 2014. BIM and the 5D Project Manager. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, Volume
668
119, pp. 475-484.
669
Statsbygg, 2013. [Online]
670
Available at: http://www.statsbygg.no/Files/publikasjoner/manualer/StatsbyggBIM-manual-ver1-2-1eng-
671
2013-12-17.pdf
672
[Accessed 15 11 2015].
673
Sun, C. et al., 2016. A literature review of the factors limiting the application of BIM in the construction
674
industry. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, p. (in press).
675
Toronto2030, n.d. http://www.2030districts.org/toronto. [Online]
676
[Accessed Feb 22, 2016].
35
677
Tuohy, P. G. & Murphy, G. B., 2015. Closing the gap in building performance: learning from BIM
678
benchmark industries. Architectural Science Review, 58(1), pp. 47-56.
679
UNEP-SBCI, 2009. Common Carbon Metric for Measuring Energy Use & Reporting Greenhouse Gas
680
Emissions from Building Operations, Geneva: United Nations Energy Program - Sustainable Building and
681
Climate Initiative.
682
US Green Building Council, 2014. LEED Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction.
683
s.l.:USGBC.
684
Volk, R., Stengel, J. & Scultmann, F., 2014. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for existing buildings
685
— Literature review and future needs. Automation in Construction, Volume 38, pp. 109-127.
686
Wang, Y. et al., 2013. Engagement of Facilities Management in Design Stage through BIM: Framework
687
and a Case Study. Advances in Civil Engineering, p. Article ID 189105.
688
Watson, A., 2011. Digital buildings — challenges and opportunities. Advanced Engineering Informatics,
689
Volume 25, pp. 573-581.
690
Wong, K. & Fan, Q., 2013. Building information modelling (BIM) for sustainable building design.
691
Facilities, 31(3/4), pp. 138-157.
692
Wu, H., Sun, C. & Li, T., 2014. Study on the Structure of a Risk Management Framework Based on BIM..
693
s.l., s.n., pp. 312-319.
694
Wu, W. & Issa, R. R. A., 2015. BIM execution planning in green building projects: LEED as a used case..
695
Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(1), p. A4014007.
696
Wu, W., Yang, X. & Fan, Q., 2014. GIS-BIM Based Virtual Facility Energy Assessment (VFEA)—
697
Framework Development and Use Case of California State University, Fresno. Computing in Civil and
698
Building Engineering, pp. 339-346. 36
699
Yoon, S., Jung, J. & Heo, J., 2015. "Practical implementation of semi-automated as-built BIM creation
700
for complex indoor environments.". The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and
701
Spatial Information Sciences, 40(4), pp. 143-146.
702
Zhang, S. et al., 2015. BIM-based fall hazard identification and prevention in construction safety
703
planning.. Safety science, Volume 72, pp. 31-45.
704
Zhang, S. et al., 2013. Building information modeling (BIM) and safety: Automatic safety checking of
705
construction models and schedules.. Automation in Construction, Volume 29, pp. 183-195.
706
Zou, Y., Kiviniemi, A. & Jones, S. W., 2016. A review of risk management through BIM and BIM-
707
related technologies. Safety Science, p. (in press).
708
List of Figure Captions
709
Figure 1 Canadian P3 project timeline
710
Figure 2 Survey design flowchart
711
Figure 3 Qualified respondent breakdown by BIM experience (left) and number of completed P3 projects (right)
712
Figure 4 Respondent company type (left) and Role in Organization
713
Figure 5 Basis for P3 BIM Execution Plan development by respondent organizations
714
Figure 6 Perceived benefits vs. frequency of use of BIM use cases (average values
715
Figure 7 Perceived risks with BIM Delivery
716
Figure 8 Perceived risks vs. frequency of use of BIM use cases (average values) by BIM and P3 experience
717
Figure 9 BIM Model handover effectiveness from design to construction (left) and construction to operations (right)
718
Figure 10 BIM coordination strategies
37
