| Date post: | 11-Aug-2015 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | anthony-valente |
| View: | 202 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
University of Bath
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering
Barriers of Adoption of Building Information Modeling (BIM) on Facilities Management
This dissertation is submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in the University of Bath 2012.
Anthony Valente
Supervisor: Dr. Alex Copping
November 2012
i
Copyright Notice
Attention is drawn to the fact that copyright of this dissertation rests with its
author. This copy of the dissertation has been supplied on condition that
anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests
with its author and that no quotation from the dissertation and no
information derived from it may be published without the prior written
consent of the author.
Restrictions on use
This dissertation may be made available for consultation within the
University Library and may be photocopied or lent to other libraries for the
purposes of consultation.
Signature:
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this work are entirely those of the author except
where indicated in the text.
ii
Abstract
Building Information Modeling (BIM) is being regarded as a revolutionary
change in technology in the design, construction and operation of built
assets. Utilizing more than just 3D physical modeling, BIM can be used in
scheduling, cost estimating, coordination of sub-trades and energy
modeling. Much of the focus in BIM has been on efficiency gains in
construction, including significant time-savings, cost reductions and reduced
waste. However, there is desire in industry to translate these efficiencies into
the operation and management of a facility after construction. Operations
and maintenance of a facility can be a significant cost especially over the life
cycle of the facility. With all that is at stake for a facility manager more
owners should be embracing the use of BIM technology as another tool in
the toolbox for management of the facility.
Previous research suggests that facility managers are slow to adopt this
technology, though they have the most to gain. This research attempts to
determine what the barriers of adoption for BIM are for facility management
(from a Canadian perspective). The use of BIM for facility management was
modeled using Soft Systems Methodology. The model and literature review
were used to develop a set of questions and potential barriers of BIM
adoption to be explored by industry. Additional to the questionnaire, a
iii
long form structured interview was conducted with a few individuals to delve
deeper into their views. The responses were evaluated against different
criteria at the organizational level and at the personal level. The research
outlines some of the barriers (ranked from highest to lowest) with
recommendations on how to overcome the top three barriers, and
suggestions for further research.
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my employer, Edmonton Airports, for the continued
support of this education and research for the past several years. Secondly I
would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Alex Copping, for his suggestions and
insights into this research. I would also like to thank the respondents from
industry for taking the time to contribute to this research and specifically to
CanBIM and Allan Partridge for his support and mentorship.
Finally, I would like to thank Hanna for her patience, support and
encouragement throughout the entire program; for whom I am totally
grateful.
v
Table of Contents
Copyright Notice ............................................................................................. i!Restrictions on use ........................................................................................... i!Disclaimer ........................................................................................................ i!Abstract ........................................................................................................... ii!Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... iv!Table of Contents ........................................................................................... v!Abbreviations Used ....................................................................................... viii!Table of Tables ............................................................................................... x!Table of Figures ............................................................................................. xi!Table of Equations ........................................................................................ xiv!Chapter 1 – Introduction ................................................................................. 1!
Rationale ..................................................................................................... 2!Aim and Objectives ..................................................................................... 3!Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 4!Methodology ............................................................................................... 6!
First Stage—Literature Review ................................................................. 6!Second Stage— Research ....................................................................... 6!Third Stage—Analysis .............................................................................. 7!Fourth Stage—Recommendations ........................................................... 8!Fifth Stage—Report ................................................................................. 8!
Summary ..................................................................................................... 8!Chapter 2 Literature Review ......................................................................... 11!
History of BIM ........................................................................................... 12!Parametric Modeling ............................................................................. 14!Interoperability ...................................................................................... 15!
Building Owners – Why should they use BIM? ......................................... 23!Costs of Interoperability ........................................................................ 23!True Costs of the Building Operation .................................................... 27!
Facility and Asset Management ................................................................ 28!BIM and Facilities Management ............................................................ 30!
vi
Why Owners Are Not Using BIM ............................................................... 32!Chapter 3 Research Methodology ................................................................ 35!
Research Methods ..................................................................................... 36!Soft System Methodology ......................................................................... 38!BIM – As An SSM Model ........................................................................... 43!Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 49!
Multiple-Choice Questionnaire .............................................................. 51!Long Answer Interview Questionnaire ................................................... 52!
Chapter 4 Data Analysis ................................................................................ 53!Introduction ............................................................................................... 54!Statistical Methods .................................................................................... 55!Organizational Questions .......................................................................... 56!
Organizational Role ............................................................................... 57!Value of Construction ............................................................................ 58!Country Located In ................................................................................ 59!
Individual (Responder) Questions ............................................................. 59!Role in organization ............................................................................... 60!Level of Responsibility ........................................................................... 61!Construction projects personally participated in ................................... 62!How many projects used BIM technology ............................................. 63!Level of experience with BIM technology ............................................. 64!Level of experience with BIM software .................................................. 65!
Testing the Root Definition ....................................................................... 66!BIM to improve facilities management .................................................. 67!BIM and Corporation’s Competitive Advantage ................................... 68!
Barriers to Adoption Themes .................................................................... 70!Software Limitations .............................................................................. 71!Standards and Work Processes .............................................................. 77!Management and Management Decisions ............................................ 83!BIM Implementation .............................................................................. 90!
Barriers of Adoption Ranking .................................................................... 97!Correlations ............................................................................................. 102!
vii
Organizational ..................................................................................... 102!BIM Organizational Usage and Organizational Type .......................... 102!Individual Experiences with BIM .......................................................... 105!Facilities Managers / Owners Evaluation ............................................. 108!Real Estate and Maintenance Professionals ......................................... 110!
Open Ended Responses .......................................................................... 111!Structured Interviews ............................................................................... 112!
Chapter 5 – Conclusions ............................................................................. 113!Undertaken Aims and Objectives ............................................................ 114!Hypothesis Investigated .......................................................................... 115!
BIM as an SSM Model .......................................................................... 116!Barrier to Adoption Themes .................................................................... 118!Barrier Ranking Results ............................................................................ 122!Limitations ............................................................................................... 126!Recommendations .................................................................................. 128!
Management Decision Recommendations .......................................... 128!Software Capability Recommendations ............................................... 129!Training Recommendations ................................................................. 130!Summary .............................................................................................. 130!
Further Research ..................................................................................... 131!References .................................................................................................. 133!Appendix A - Questionnaires ..................................................................... 138!
Multiple Choice Questionnaire ............................................................... 139!Multiple Choice Question - Data ............................................................ 152!Long Form Questionnaire ....................................................................... 162!Long Form Questionnaire – Responses Summarized .............................. 165!
Appendix B - Charts .................................................................................... 178!Appendix C – Mini-tab Output ................................................................... 217!
viii
Abbreviations Used
2D – Two Dimensional
3D – Three Dimensional
AEC – Architectural, Engineering and Construction
AEC(FM) – Architectural, Engineering, Construction and Facilities
Management
BIM – Building Information Modeling
BOMA – Building, Owners, and Managers Association
B-rep – Boundary Representation
CADD – Computer Aided Design and Drafting
CanBIM – Canadian BIM Council
CaGBC – Canadian Green Building Council
CMMS – Computerized Maintenance Management System
COBie – Construction Operations Building Information Exchange
CSG – Constructive Solid Geometry
FM – Facilities Management
Ha – Alternative Hypothesis (also known as Research Hypothesis)
HTML – Hypertext Markup Language
Ho – Null Hypothesis
IAI – International Alliance for Interoperability
ICF – Intelligent Client Function
ix
IFC – Industry Foundation Classes
ISO – International Standards Organization
NAICS – North American Industry Classification System
NBIMS – National BIM Standard
NIBS – National Institute of Building Sciences
NIST – National Institute of Standards Technology
SGML – Standardized General Markup Language
SSM – Soft Systems Methodology
XML – Extensible Mark-up Language
x
Table of Tables
Table 1–Research Paradigms and Action Research (Coghlan & Brannick (2002) ................................................................................................. 36!
Table 2 – City Located In .............................................................................. 59!Table 3 – BIM can be used to improve facilities management ..................... 68!Table 4 – BIM can be used to improve and organization’s competitive
advantage .......................................................................................... 70!Table 5 – Software Theme Results ................................................................ 77!Table 6 – Process Theme Results .................................................................. 83!Table 7 – Management Theme Results ........................................................ 89!Table 8 – Implementation Theme Results .................................................... 97!Table 9 – BIM Barriers, Ranking .................................................................. 101!Table 10 – Two Sample t-test, BIM Barriers full population v. Facility
Managers ......................................................................................... 109!Table 11 - Two Sample t-test, BIM barriers full population and Real Estate
and Maintenance Professionals ........................................................ 111!
xi
Table of Figures
Figure 1 – IFC Schema (buildingSMART, 2011b) .......................................... 19!Figure 2 – Indexes of labour productivity and related variables by North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) seasonally adjusted (Statistics Canada, 2011) .................................................................... 24!
Figure 3 – Cost Influence and Construction Costs (Eastman et al., 2008) .... 27!Figure 4 – COBie Process Overview (COBie, 2012) ..................................... 32!Figure 5 – Model of Purposeful Activity (Checkland & Scholes, 1990). ........ 39!Figure 6 – Basic Shape of SSM (Checkland & Scholes, 1990). ...................... 40!Figure 7 – The Transformation Process (Checkland & Scholes, 1990) .......... 41!Figure 8 – Example of a root definition model - fence painting (Checkland &
Scholes, 1990). ................................................................................... 43!Figure 9 – Building Information Model Root Definition, First Iteration ........ 47!Figure 10 – Breadth v. depth in question-based studies (Fellows & Lu, 2008)
........................................................................................................... 48!Figure 11– What best describes your organization’s role ............................. 57!Figure 12 – Chart, In the past 12 months what is the approximate value of
the construction projects your organization has participated in? ...... 58!Figure 13 – Which of the following best describes your role in the
organization? ...................................................................................... 60!Figure 14 – What level of responsibility do you have in your organization? 61!Figure 15 – In the past 12 months, how many construction projects have you
personally participated in? ................................................................. 62!Figure 16 – How many of your projects utilized BIM technology? ............... 63!Figure 17 – What is your level of experience with BIM technology? ............ 64!Figure 18 –What is your personal experience using BIM software? ............. 65!Figure 19 – Chart, BIM can be used to improve facilities management ....... 67!Figure 20 – BIM can be used to increase an organization’s competitive
advantage .......................................................................................... 69!Figure 21 – Software limitations prevent BIM from effectively being used in
facilities management ........................................................................ 72!Figure 22 – Facility managers do not typically know how to use BIM software
........................................................................................................... 73!
xii
Figure 23 – My organization prefers more traditional methods of project delivery over BIM because of simplicity or ease of use of software .. 74!
Figure 24 – Software limitations do not allow BIM software to interoperate with existing facility management tools ............................................. 75!
Figure 25 – Software limitations are a barrier to BIM adoption .................... 76!Figure 26 – Current BIM industry standards are sufficient to develop a usable
BIM model .......................................................................................... 78!Figure 27 – A process / implementation roadmap is required for my
organization to use BIM in a project .................................................. 79!Figure 28 – Current BIM standards and processes are too complicated to
implement in my organization ........................................................... 80!Figure 29 – My organization is aware of current industry standards, best
practices and implementation methodologies for BIM ..................... 81!Figure 30 – Standards and work processes are a barrier to BIM
implementation .................................................................................. 82!Figure 31 – Decision makers in my company understand the benefits of BIM
........................................................................................................... 84!Figure 32 – Decision makers in my company believe BIM costs more to use
compared to more traditional methods of delivery ........................... 85!Figure 33 – Decision makers in my company believe that BIM can be
leveraged for use in facilities management ....................................... 86!Figure 34 – BIM can be (or is) used for strategic planning in my organization
........................................................................................................... 87!Figure 35 – Decision makers in my company are a barrier to BIM adoption 88!Figure 36 – Design firms are trained to effectively utilize BIM technology .. 91!Figure 37 – The lack of facilities management consideration in design limits
what a BIM can be used for in facilities management ....................... 92!Figure 38 - Data integrity issues result in an unusable BIM at turnover ....... 93!Figure 39 – Lack of collaboration between parties results in an unusable BIM
at project turnover ............................................................................. 94!Figure 40 – Facility managers have sufficient knowledge or expertise to
implement a BIM at project turnover ................................................. 95!Figure 41 – BIM implementation issues are a barrier to adoption ............... 96!Figure 42 – Management decision to implement BIM ................................. 99!Figure 43 – Management decision to implement BIM, Probability Plot ..... 100!Figure 44 – Organizational BIM Use and Organizational Role ................... 103!
xiii
Figure 45 – Organizational BIM use & Value of Construction .................... 104!Figure 46 – Organizational BIM use & Organizational BIM experience ..... 105!Figure 47 –How many of your projects utilized BIM technology & which of
the following best describes your role ............................................. 106!Figure 48 – How many of your projects utilized BIM technology & what level
of responsibility do you have in your organization .......................... 107!Figure 49 – How many of your projects utilized BIM technology & what is
your level of experience with BIM software ..................................... 108!Figure 50 – BIM SSM Model Overlaid with Questionnaire Themes ........... 117!Figure 51 – Organizational Role and BIM Project Use ................................ 119!Figure 52 – Management Decision to Implement BIM by Organization Type
and Responsibility Level ................................................................... 124!Figure 53 – Management Decision to Implement BIM and Organizational
BIM Experience ................................................................................ 125!Figure 54 – Shape of SSM for BIM Adoption (Modified from Checkland &
Scholes, 1990). ................................................................................. 131!
xiv
Table of Equations
Equation 1 - t-test equation (Ott & Longnecker, 2010) ................................ 55!Equation 2 – Two Sample t-test (Ott & Longnecker, 2010) ........................ 108!
1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
2
Rationale
The National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST) prepared an in-depth
study on the cost of inadequate interoperability in the US capital facilities
(NIST, 2004). NIST estimated that approximately $16 billion is wasted
annually as a result of interoperability issues in the design, construction,
operations, and maintenance of built assets. Some participants of the study
expressed opinions that as much as thirty percent cost savings and up to
fifty percent schedule savings could be achieved with improved
interoperability and data exchange.
The use of building information modeling (BIM) technology is advancing in
architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) fields and has been
regarded as a significant technological advancement; it allows designers to
move from a two-dimensional tool (CADD), to seven dimensions—three
dimensions of space, scheduling (4D), cost-estimating (5D), sustainable
design (6D), and facilities management (7D) (Hasan & Yolles, 2009). BIM is
also gaining a reputation of having significant productivity gains (Sacks et
al., 2010); however, building owners or operators are reluctant to adopt the
technology. Construction of buildings and infrastructure are capital
intensive and require significant investment in both time and effort
throughout the building lifecycle (design, build, operate). The creators of
3
BIM software are attempting to improve interoperability and data exchange
to increase productivity gains for design, construction, and operations,
though building owners seldom use the models after turnover of the asset.
BIM technology should provide excellent information to a company to make
strategic decisions on re-investment, deferral, or acceleration of sustaining
capital, divestment of an underperforming asset, or investment in new
assets. BIM modeling allows for sophisticated scenario analysis, which
would give a firm a competitive edge in decision-making. With all the
prescribed benefits, many building owners and/or operators should
embrace the BIM technology to increase their performance, but research
indicates there are several barriers to adoption for building owner/operators
to use BIM technology (Fox & Hietanen, 2007).
Aim and Objectives
The aim of this study is to discover what the barriers of adoption are for
organizations to use BIM technology in facilities management.
Specific objectives to this research include:
• To assess a number of organizations that have and have not adopted
BIM technology;
4
• To determine what the specific barriers of adoption of BIM are to
these organizations;
• To correlate the barriers to find trends between organizations (for
example, small v. medium, architectural v. construction v. owner /
operators);
• To determine from organizations that have adopted BIM technology
what helped them overcome their barriers of adoption;
• To postulate what improvements or changes to the technology,
culture of organizations, or business processes would allow more
organizations to adopt BIM technology.
Hypotheses
The original hypotheses that were developed in the research proposal to be
tested were:
1. Facility managers perceive BIM technology as too costly and complex
or difficult to use for their management and decision-making
processes.
2. Facility managers do not understand the value of BIM technology in
producing multiple scenarios to evaluate options for strategic
planning or efficiency gains realized though data interchange.
5
However, during the course of the research, the hypotheses were revised to
better reflect the direction the research was progressing towards. Fellows &
Lu (2008) point out that:
As the early stages of research progress, from the preliminary
investigations undertaken to help to produce the proposal, with the
review of theory and literature, the main hypothesis and sub-
hypothesis may be modified as greater knowledge of the topic and
main issues involves is gained. (p. 129)
It is with this recommendation that the hypotheses be revised into a singular
hypothesis:
Barriers of adopting Building Information Modeling (BIM) technology
prevent facility managers from improving the management of their
facility – from initial concept to final lifecycle.
Sub-hypotheses are developed to greater outline what the potential barriers
of BIM adoption are, which include:
1. Limitations with BIM software
2. Industry or organization specific standards and work processes are
not developed enough to properly implement BIM in a project
3. Management decisions to not implement BIM in a project, as BIM is
not a perceived value to the owner
6
4. BIM implementation issues in the project prevent the BIM model from
being useable to the owner.
Methodology
First Stage—Literature Review
The first stage of the dissertation will be a comprehensive literature review
on BIM and BIM with respect to facility management. Also, a literature
review will be conducted on why organizations do not adopt BIM in their
projects and later in facilities management.
Second Stage— Research
The second stage of the dissertation will be conducting the research. A soft
systems methodology (SSM) as developed by Checkland & Scholes (1990)
will be used for the research model. Checkland & Scholes (1990) describe
SSM as a qualitative approach rooted in action research. The methodology
takes a real-world problem, breaks the problem down to relevant systems,
creates models, and compares the models to the real-world problem.
Utilizing an iterative approach, actions are taken to improve the real-world
problem by modifying the system models created though the methodology.
SSM will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
7
The research will be conducted by using questionnaires addressed to
various stakeholders including Building Owners and Managers Association
(BOMA) members, architectural/engineering firms, and facility managers.
The questionnaire will target executive/senior management, middle
management and, where appropriate, front-line staff.
The questions will focus on the key areas of perceptions of BIM technology,
use of BIM technology on facilities management, what barriers to adoption
exist for the surveyed organizations, and how these organization would
overcome these barriers.
Third Stage—Analysis
The third stage of the dissertation will take the results of the research and
analyze the results to better understand why organizations do or do not
adopt BIM. The results will be examined to determine if there are
correlations on why organizations do not adopt BIM technology.
Correlations could exist between large or small organizations, types of
operations, or sizes of facilities.
8
Fourth Stage—Recommendations
The fourth stage postulates potential recommendations to organizations
based on the study data on how to overcome the barriers of adopting BIM
technology. Conclusions of the research are discussed in Chapter 5.
Fifth Stage—Report
The fifth stage compiles the research and findings into a final report to be
submitted as the dissertation. The chapters will include:
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literature Review
• Chapter 3: Research Methodology
• Chapter 4: Research Analysis and Results
• Chapter 5: Recommendations
• References
• Appendix
Summary
The research in this dissertation attempted to determine what the barriers of
adoption are for BIM in facilities management. It was hypotheses that initial
barriers at the beginning of the project prevented BIM from being adopted
into the facility manager’s processes.
9
A soft systems methodology model was developed for implementing BIM in
facilities management, then utilizing the model and the literature review
several statements and questions were developed around potential barrier
of adoption themes for respondents to give their opinions on. Utilizing a
five point Likert scale allowed for some detailed statistical analysis to be
performed on the results. Finally, respondents were asked to rank potential
barriers from most significant to least significant.
The surveys were sent out to BOMA and CanBIM as well as the author’s
personal industry contacts. A total of 62 responses were received, and only
one was excluded from the results. Respondents generally agreed to the
root definition of the SSM model, which was ‘Building Information Modeling
can be used to manage a facility, from initial concept to final lifecycle, to
improve the organization’s (or owner’s) competitive advantage’. There was
not agreement with the respondents on the barrier themes as being
significant barriers to adoption, the themes were:
• Software (limitations or use).
• Standards and Work Processes.
• Management (decision making).
• BIM Implementation issues
10
For the ranking of potential barriers to BIM adoption, the top three were:
1. Management decision to implement BIM
2. Software capability
3. Industry’s expertise
The research recommended an implementation roadmap (with business
case) be prepared for a pilot project for BIM. The road map and pilot
project has the potential to address the top three barriers for BIM adoption.
Firstly, management decision to implement BIM can be encouraged through
a small test project with positive business case and secondly, the software
and staff that work on the project can be tested and improved on a smaller
scale. This could be considered, just in time training for the staff and the
software can be trialed against specific requirements before a wholesale
change to the organization.
11
Chapter 2 Literature Review
12
History of BIM
The concepts and approaches of BIM have been around for over 30 years,
starting with Charles Eastman’s discussion in 1975, “The Use of Computers
Instead of Drawings” where Eastman envisioned using computers to have:
[a]ll drawings derived from the same arrangement of
elements…qualitative analysis could be coupled directly to the
descriptions…cost estimating or material quantities could be easily
generated…providing a single integrated database.
The difficult description of BIM’s history starts with the difficulties of defining
what BIM is. BIM has been described simply as a 3D graphical model of a
building, a commercial software product (Bentley, 2011; Autodesk, 2011), a
digital process (Hasan & Yolles, 2009) a paradigm shift (Shelden, 2009), and
even a framework (Succar, 2008). Authors have heralded it as a revolution,
moving from the 2 dimensions of computer-aided design to 7 dimensions of
interoperability (Hassan & Yolles, 2009).
For this work, a more traditional definition will be used: BIM is “a modeling
technology and associated set of processes to produce, communicate, and
analyze building models” (Eastman et al., 2008). Eastman et al. (2008)
furthers the definition by describing building components represented by
objects that know what they are, components that include data on how they
13
behave, data consistent and non-redundant, and data that is coordinated. It
is argued that there is no software today that fully meets the technology
criteria.
Moving from 2D geometry to 3D modeling was the start of differentiating
BIM technology from standard CAD drafting and has its roots in polyhedral
modeling (shapes defined by volume enclosing sets of surfaces) in the
1960s, which lead to virtual representations used in the film and gaming
industries; an example is the motion picture TRON, which used parametric
modeling for the 3D special effects (Eastman et al., 2008). Solid modeling
then progressed down two distinct routes—the Boundary Representation
Approach, (B-rep) where shapes were defined by using operations of union,
intersection, and sub rations (Boolean Operators) on multiple polyhedral
shapes and the Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) where shapes were
represented by a tree of operations that used diverse method for
assembling a shape. Eventually, both these methods merged, allowing for
editing within the CSG tree and changing the shape with boundary
representation (Eastman et al., 2008).
Building modeling based on 3D solid modeling was first developed in the
late 1970s and early 1980s. From the 1980s, the foundation of some of the
14
major CAD vendors emerged with AutoCAD and Bentley forming (iMB,
2011). Initially, the software was expensive and exceeded the capabilities of
the computers at the time. The early adaptors of solid modeling for
construction were manufacturing and aerospace industries, which saw it as a
way to increase efficiencies, reduce errors, and move towards factory
automation.
Parametric Modeling
The current generation of BIM software grew out of object-based parametric
modeling used for early mechanical design (aerospace / manufacturing)
(Eastman et al., 2008). Object-based parametric modeling defines shape
instances with a hierarchy of parameters at the assembly and subassembly
level. Using these rules, based on the hierarchies building elements can be
changed by the designer and the software can check the rules as the design
is being changed. This allows the software to auto-update the model as it is
being changed. For example, a wall can be defined with relationships
between other walls, the ceiling, and the floor. If the designer raises the
ceiling, all the walls’ heights are automatically updated.
15
Interoperabil ity
A significant advantage of using BIM software is to have one data set of all
the properties of the built environment, sometimes known as the “one
truth.” As projects develop in both scale and complexity the need to
transfer this data from other software programs increases in scale. For
example, designing the structure in one software set, then fabrication
drawings of the steel are produced in another software set. The use of the
object-based parametric modeling allows for some interoperability;
however, most software vendors define the parametric model classes, and
attributes differently creating a need for data exchange. Eastman et al.
(2008) describes the four typical methods that software vendors use:
1. Direct, proprietary links between specific BIM tools
2. Proprietary file exchange formats, primarily dealing with geometry
3. Public product data model exchange formats
4. XML-based exchange formats
Direct
Integrated connections between programs are achieved when software
developers provide direct links. These are programming-level interfaces
typically written in C-based languages. Interfaces make the building model
accessible for creation, export, modification or deletion. The connections
16
are only possible while the software developers support the connection, and
can be subject to engineered obsolescence. The preference is for software
companies to provide direct links for better support; this is, however,
contingent on competing software vendors cooperating (Eastman et al.,
2008).
Proprietary File Exchange Formats
Proprietary exchange formats are implemented in a human readable text
format. A well-known example is DXF (Data exchange Format) by Autodesk.
As discussed in the previous paragraph, software vendors prefer the direct
link as there is more control at the interface level, rather than developing an
export file which relies on the import software correctly reading the file.
Public Product Data Model Exchange Formats
There is considerable desire for users of BIM technology to want to mix and
match different software applications for specific purposes, for example:
REVIT for layout; EE4 for LEED energy modeling (CaGBC 2011), a company-
specific proprietary cost estimating model, Primavera P6 for scheduling and
cost control. The combinations of different software uses are dizzying, and if
industry relied on the software vendors (which often have competing
products) to standardize the exchange or interchange formats, there would
17
be no interoperability today. As the complexity increases and projects
become larger with sizable multi-discipline teams working on various
aspects, it is easier for the teams to use the software they are familiar with,
rather than all migrating to one “integrated” platform. Additionally, industry
is very cognisant of avoiding one software vendor having a monopoly in the
market place. Finally, having internationally recognized standards helps
mitigate the rather aggressive practise of software vendors practising
systemic obsolescence. Rather, significant focus has been spent on
developing standardized data exchange formats that can be utilized across
several different software applications. There are several prominent public
standards two of which of note: the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) and
XML-Based.
Significant research has been put into development of the Industry
Foundation Classes (IFC). The IFCs have had a unique history stemming
from Autodesk creating an industry consortium to develop a set of C++
classes that could support integrated application development in 1994
(Eastman et al., 2008). Eastman et al. continues to describe the consortium
eventually becoming the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI),
whose goal was to publish the Industry Foundation class, a neutral AEC
product data model responding to the AEC building lifecycle. The IAI is no
18
more, they have evolved into the buildingSMART alliance, a council of
National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) which has taken the lead on
maintaining the definition of IFC’s and is responsible for having it created
into ISO standards (ISO-16739). The IFC is a key component to the
National BIM Standard (NBIMS).
IFC has been designed to address all building lifecycle information from
feasibility through design and into operation (Khemalani, 2004). The latest
version (2x3) of the IFC is available online though the buildingSMART
alliance (buildingSMART, 2011a) and a preview of 2x4 (buildingSMART,
2011b)
19
The IFC schema is illustrated below:
Figure 1 – IFC Schema (buildingSMART, 2011b)
The overall schema is defined by 4 key schema categories as described
below:
! Core Schemas: The core data schemas establish the most general
layer in the IFC schema architecture. Entities defined in this layer can
20
be referenced and specialized by all entities in the shared element
layer and the domain-specific layer. The core layer provides the basic
structure, the fundamental relationships, and the common concepts
for all further specializations in aspect-specific models.
! Shared Schemas: The shared element data schemas contain
intermediate specializations of entities. Entities defined in this layer
can be referenced and specialized by all entities in the domain-
specific layer. The shared element layer provides more specialized
objects and relationships shared by multiple domains.
! Domain Schemas: The domain-specific data schemas contain final
specializations of entities. Entities defined in this layer are self-
contained and cannot be referenced by any other layer. The domain
specific layer organizes definitions according to industry discipline.
! Resource Schemas: The resource definition data schemas consist of
supporting data structures. Entities and types defined in this layer
can be referenced by all entities in the core layer, shared element
layer, and the domain-specific layer. Unlike entities in other layers,
resource definition data structures cannot exist independently, but
21
can only exist if referenced (directly or indirectly) by one or more
entities deriving from IfcRoot.
XML- Based
XML or Extensible Mark Up Language is a set of rules to encode a document
in a machine-readable form. It is defined in the XML standard 1.0 and is a
gratis open standard. The language is intended to be in a simple, flexible
format derived from Standardized General Markup Language (SGML, ISO
8879) and originally designed to meet the challenges of large-scale
electronic publishing (W3C, 2011).
The technology became popular because it allowed for data interchange
between various incompatible platforms possible. As the language is
extensible, it is easy to customize it to fit specific purposes while keeping an
identifiable structure (Agdas & Ellis, 2010). Agdas and Ellis continue to
explain that the construction industry has shown interest in XML technology
applications such as aecXML, TransXML, and DIGGS. aecXML utilizes
Industry Foundation Classes in its schema, though the data transmission is in
the XML language. Bentley systems initially pioneered the work in aecXML
(CADinfo.net, 2011), not unlike Autodesk creating the International Alliance
22
for Interoperability. TransXML is an initiative by the Transportation Research
Board (or National Research Council) and is more focused on civil
transportation infrastructure projects, such as roads, highways, and bridges.
(transxml.com, 2011). DIGGS is very similar to TransXML in that it is a
coalition of universities, government, and industry stakeholders coming
together for improved data exchange on transportation projects (DIGGSML,
2011).
The coalition came into existence through coordination from the US
Federal Highway Administration sponsoring meetings and eventually
forming the pooled fund study project. The initial base schema
consists of geotechnical data including Borehole, soil testing, site
information and more. The first SIG is extending the schema to
include Geo-Environmental testing. More SIGs and expanded
membership are in the works. (DIGGSML, 2011).
There are also several other XML schemas in the AEC industry, like OGC
(Open Geospatial Consortium), gbXML (Green Building XML), BLIS-XML,
and now recently in 2009, the Association of General Contractors
announced agcXML as a schema for construction business processes
(Association of General Contractors, 2011).
Some of the disadvantages of using XML format are that XML is a language
definition (very similar to HTML) and that it allows significant flexibility in
defining the schemas (as seen by the bewildering amount of different
23
industry associations developing their own schemas). Eastman et al. (2008)
state that XML formatting takes more space than IFC clear text files
(between 2-6 times more space) and also comment on the difficulty in
harmonizing the format to other model representations.
Building Owners – Why should they use BIM?
Costs of Interoperabil ity
The construction industry is infamous for being adversarial, prone to delays,
inefficient, crippled by out-of-date technologies, afflicted by cost overruns,
and having the majority of information being transferred though paper
means.
Statistics Canada has been measuring labour productivity in the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) since 1997. A chart
comparing the labour productivity is included below. At first glance, it
appears that the Construction Industry, while enjoying similar levels of
productivity as manufacturing, but it does not give a complete picture.
24
Figure 2 – Indexes of labour productivity and related variables by North American Industry Classif ication System (NAICS) seasonally adjusted (Statist ics Canada, 2011)
Rao et al. (2004) analysed the productivity of Canadian labour vs. US labour
and provided a more complete picture. Rao et al. continue on that at the
beginning of the study period in 1997, Canada enjoyed a high productivity
rate in construction compared to the US, but had a significant gap in
manufacturing. From 1997 – 2004, though there were some gains in some
industries, the gap between Canada’s and the US’s productivity widened.
There is significantly more research material for productivity and efficiency in
the construction market in the US, rather than Canada, and though Canada
enjoys a more productive construction industry, it is reasonable to assume
that US research is applicable to Canada.
Research suggests that the US construction market’s productivity has been
declining over the years. From 1968-1980, real output per hour worked fell
0!20!40!60!80!100!120!
Construction![23]!!
Manufacturing![31833]!!
25
by 2.4-2.8% (Stokes, 1980; Allen, 1985 cited in Goodrum et. al, 2001) and
Teicholtz (2001) cited in Goodrum et al. (2001) has suggested that the trend
is continuing. There are arguments that the economic factors that have
been used to determine the labour productivity are not accurate, and really
construction productivity has increased in the US (Allmon et al. 2000), but
one cannot argue that construction has reached the same productivity rates
as in manufacturing. The manufacturing industry has for many years used
computer models and key performance data to increase productivity.
Eastman et al. (2008) points out that the car manufacturing and aerospace
industries have been utilizing technology similar to BIM for many years, and
that the construction industry could leverage BIM technology to gain the
efficiencies manufacturing industry has been enjoying these past decades.
National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST) prepared an in-depth
study on the cost of inadequate interoperability in the US capital facilities
Industry (NIST, 2004). NIST estimates that approximately $16 billion is
wasted annually as a result of interoperability issues in the design,
construction, operations, and maintenance of built assets. Some participants
of the study expressed opinions that as much as thirty per cent cost savings
and up to fifty per cent schedule savings could be achieved with improved
interoperability and data exchange.
26
The use of Building Information Modelling technology is advancing in
Architectural, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) fields and has been
regarded as a significant technological advancement, with designers moving
from a two-dimensional tool (CADD), to seven dimensions: 3 dimensions of
space, scheduling (4D), cost-estimating (5D) sustainable design (6D), and
facilities management (7D) (Hasan & Yolles, 2009). BIM is also gaining a
reputation of having significant productivity gains (Sacks et al., 2010). This is
the single most critical factor for a building owner to embrace the use of
BIM technology in their product. When looking at the results of the NIST
study, there are billions of dollars in savings at stake, and considerable
improvements in scheduling that could result in positive business returns.
Creators of BIM software are attempting to improve interoperability and
data exchange to increase productivity gains for design, construction, and
operations, though building owners after turnover of the asset seldom use
the models. BIM technology should provide excellent information to a
company to make strategic decisions on re-investment, deferral, or
acceleration of sustaining capital, divest of an underperforming asset, or
invest in new assets. BIM modelling allows for sophisticated scenario
27
analysis, which would also give a firm a competitive edge in decision-
making.
True Costs of the Building Operation
When an owner decides to build a new building, it is to meet a business
need. It could be that the existing space is out of date, the business needs
room for expansion, or the market is more conducive to owning rather than
renting. In any case, a sophisticated owner will have a clear indication of
what need is being fulfilled.
Figure 3 – Cost Influence and Construction Costs (Eastman et al. , 2008)
Utilizing the Figure 3 above, the only phase where the owner typically has
influence on the design in any practical fashion is phase 1, Conceptual
28
Planning and Feasibility Studies. Once the project proceeds into Design
and Engineering, the owner’s ability to change the project in a cost-effective
manner diminishes exponentially. BIM can be used to virtually construct the
building and evaluate the project against the owner’s requirements.
Changes in the model at this phase have insignificant cost implications
compared to concrete and mortar. The most significant benefit, however, is
to challenge the design against operational impacts. The US Green Building
Council, which licences LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) certification system, has researched the total lifecycle costs of a
building. Construction costs are estimated at only 2% of the lifecycle cost of
the building; and yet it holds 100% of the focus during the design (NIBS,
2012). Utilizing BIM software with lifecycle costing data can give owners a
much better picture of how design decisions can affect the total cost of
ownership based on that design decision, rather than the standard impact to
construction cost and schedule impacts.
Facil ity and Asset Management
Facilities management is an integrated approach to operating, maintaining,
improving, and adapting the buildings and infrastructure of an organization
in order to create an environment that strongly supports the primary
objectives of that organization (Bradely, 2003 cited in Atkin & Brooks, 2005).
29
When discussing facilities management, an integrated and holistic approach
is required as it is more than the typical maintenance and custodial work that
is typically involved in facilities management. Traditionally viewed as care
taking, cleaning, repairs, and maintenance, facilities management now
covers real estate management, financial management, change
management, health, safety, contract management, human resources
management, building and engineering services, maintenance, domestic
services, utilities and supplies. Clearly, facilities management now
encompasses more professional roles in the total management of the
facility. Bradely (2003, cited in Atkin & Brooks, 2005) expands that facilities
management is necessary to stress the importance of integrative,
interdependent disciplines whose overall purpose is to support an
organizations in the pursuit of its (business) objectives. Atkin & Brooks
(2005) expand on this definition of facilities management where the prime
purpose is to find value for money and the facilities manager is required to
be informed or intelligent (as defined as the Intelligent Client Function, ICF).
Atkin & Brooks (2005) describe the ICF to include:
• Understanding the organisation and culture
• Understanding and specifying service requirements and targets
• Managing implantation of outsourcing
• Minimizing risk
30
• Undertaking strategic planning)
BIM and Facil it ies Management
In addition to the cost and schedule benefits that can be realized using the
BIM software during design and construction phases of the project, there
are benefits to the owner after turnover of the built asset for use in facilities
management. Owners are becoming more and more sophisticated in the
operation and maintenance (becoming the ICF) of their building, and are
utilizing more tools to achieve a better lifecycle, more time between failures,
and more predicable maintenance budgets. Much of this sophistication
comes from studies in manufacturing focusing on key performance
indicators to drive intelligent business decisions. Other than the reactive
approach to maintenance (do not fix it unless it is broken), facility managers
require significant information on the asset to predict the failure mode, time
of failure, and cost of maintenance. A significant amount of this information
is known at the design stage, but is often not turned over to the owner in an
appropriate format and the owner either loses this information, or has to
manually re-create it in their maintenance platform. BIM software can
translate this information automatically and populate the maintenance
database with significant savings of time (Eastman et al., 2008). Eastman
gives a case study where the US Coastguard captured a time-savings of 98%
31
by using BIM models to populate their facility management database.
Additionally, “owners can realize significant benefits on projects by using
BIM processes and tools to streamline the delivery of higher quality and
better performing buildings” (Eastman et al., 2008). This leads to improved
building performance, reduced financial risk, and lower total cost of
ownership—all areas that a proper and informed facilities management
program can address.
In addition to the typical project delivery benefits of BIM, there are several
areas that have specific benefits to facility managers because of the
information stored in the BIM model. For example, the Construction
Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie) is a data exchange
schema for information that facility mangers need for maintenance systems
(also known and Computerized Maintenance Management Systems, CMMS).
COBie describes this process elegantly in the figure below, which has data
transferred from design to commissioning, and finally to as-built. These
benefits are great to a facilities manager as in a typical project (paper based)
data fidelity issues create holes in the data turned over to the owner.
32
Figure 4 – COBie Process Overview (COBie, 2012)
Buildings represent significant investments for organisations, and as
discussed earlier, the CaGBC points out that the construction costs are just a
small portion of the total costs of the facility.
Why Owners Are Not Using BIM
With all the prescribed benefits, many building owners and/or operations
should be embracing the BIM technology to increase their performance, but
research indicates there are several barriers to adoption for building
owner/operators to use BIM technology (Fox & Hietanen, 2007). Fox and
Hietanen’s literature review indicates that there are significant management
challenges to the adoption of BIM use and that management effort is
33
required to implement BIM work processes into the project (Anteroinen,
2005a cited in Fox & Hietanen, 2007; Gao et al., 2005 cited in Fox &
Hietanen, 2007). Another barrier for the adoption of BIM has also been
technological, in that the project architects believed that the available
software lacked the capability to implement BIM in the appropriate way.
Several of their findings were limitations on the technology at the time.
Gu & London (2010) prepared a similar study to Fox & Hietanen (2007) in
Australia's AEC industry, and had similar findings, using a different research
method. Gu & London (2010) utilized focus group interviews for their
research method, allowing a more free-flowing dialog and recoding
responses, then later categorizing the responses. The cross section from the
interviews included architects, engineers, contractors, IT professionals,
project managers, facility managers, government representatives, software
application vendors, and academics. There was limited participation (21
participants) and limited input from facility managers; however, their results
corroborate the research of Fox & Hietanen (2007). The barriers were
categorized under the following criteria:
• Work Practice and Process Related Issues
o Digital storage management issues
34
o Version Management Issues, software versions, and
engineered obsolescence, model version Issues, industry
foundation classes versions (or changing standards)
o As-built accuracy, models not being turned over as-built and
therefore not adopted by the facility manager
• Technical Issues
o Standards, lack of consistent product libraries across multiple
software vendors
o Registry of communication and information exchange, issues
around how communication, model updates are handled in a
BIM project
o Security and intellectual property concerns with the model
• Other
o Roles and responsibilities: issues around changing of roles and
responsibilities, management of roles and responsibilities
o Training Support: issues around lack of training or lack of
availability of trained staff.
The results of the study suggest that the software industry has made
significant improvements since Fox & Hietanen’s (2007) literature review in
that technological challenges were not at the top of the list of issues, but
rather organizational.
35
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
36
Research Methods
Fellows & Lu (2008) state that a theoretical framework is required for
research, or more specifically, a research paradigm. This paradigm gives the
“structural framework to identify and explain the facts and relationships
between them” (Fellows & Lu, 2008).
There are several research paradigms to choose from with benefits and
drawbacks for each. Coghlan & Brannick (2002) outline several paradigms
and outline the Ontological, Epistemological characteristics of each:
Philosophical foundations
Posit ivism
Hermeneutic and postmodernism
Crit ical realism and action research
Ontology Objectivist Subjectivist Objectivist Epistemology Objectivist Subjectivist Subjectivist Theory Generalizable Particular Particular Reflexivity Methodological Hyper Epistemic Role of researcher
Distanced from data
Close to data Close to data
Table 1–Research Paradigms and Action Research (Coghlan & Brannick (2002)
Fellows & Lu (2008) explain that in determining the most appropriate
approach (methodology and methods), it is critical to consider the logic that
links the data collection and analysis to yield the results to bring the most
conclusions to the research question being investigated.
This research focuses on human decisions—it is not that the technology
does not exist, but that human decision makers are choosing not to use it.
37
This therefore puts the research into the qualitative branch. The desire for
the research to produce actual change in industry (increase adoption of BIM)
places the research into the Action Research branch of qualitative research.
This research seeks to answer why organizations do not utilize BIM
technology and what can be done to increase its use. As such, it is fitting
that an action research model be used for the research. Coghlan & Brannick
(2002) expand that “(a)ction research is about research and action… Action
research is based on a collaborative problem-solving relationship between
researcher and client which aims at both solving a problem and generating
new knowledge”. It is these focuses that make action research an
applicable basis for the research project rather than utilizing more traditional
methods, like positivism or postmodernism techniques, which in the past
have been criticized for being too theoretical or irrelevant to real world
problems (Checkland & Scholes, 1990).
A branch of action research is Peter Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology.
SSM has developed from hard systems methodology to “tackle the messy
problems of ‘management’, broadly defined” (Checkland, 2000). SSM uses
ideas similar to hard systems in that the problem is divided into systems,
sub-systems, and components, very similar to a process plant or machinery;
38
where it differentiates itself is in the use of repetitive learning loop, which
will be discussed in more detail.
The difficulty in applying hard systems methodology to managerial or
bureaucratic problems is that people and organizations do not operate in
linear logical sense. In addition to the problems being complex, having
many inputs, outputs, and feedback there are social considerations as well:
social norms, expected behavior, corporate culture expectations and
motivators, all of which can be unique to each actor in the problem.
Checkland & Scholes (1990) describes SSM as a process of tackling real-
world problems.
Soft System Methodology
SSM’s key component is to lead to purposeful activity (Checkland & Scholes,
1990). Checkland and Scholes expand this in the figure below such that:
A. Each purposeful activity
B. Owners of the purposeful activity
C. Undertakers of the purposeful activity
D. People who are impacted by the purposeful activity
E. Constraints of the purposeful activity
39
F. Group or individual who can stop the purposeful activity
Figure 5 – Model of Purposeful Activity (Checkland & Scholes, 1990).
SSM takes the purposeful activity and improves on it. It is illustrated by
Checkland & Scholes (1990) below:
F
C
B Econtraints
DAPurposeful activity
No!
40
Figure 6 – Basic Shape of SSM (Checkland & Scholes, 1990).
The first step in implementing SSM is to select the relevant systems for the
purposeful activity. Checkland & Scholes (1990) humorously challenge the
reader that this can be one of the most difficult steps (especially for
technically minded people like scientists or engineers) in that much effort
can be wasted in picking the ‘right’ or ‘best’ system. However, as SSM is
cyclic in the learning process, it does not require an ideal description of the
system (or Halon as Checkland and Scholes likes to interject). “The names
themselves became known as the ‘root definitions’ since they express the
core or essence of the perception to be modelled” (Checkland & Scholes,
1990).
A real-world situation of concern
Action neededto improve the
situation
Comparisonof models
with perceivedreal situation
Relevantsystems
of purposefulactivity
yieldschoices
of
41
The root definition expresses the core purpose of the purposeful activity
system. The core purpose of the ‘Root definition’ is the Transformation
Process, where an input changes or is ‘transformed’ into a new output
(Checkland & Scholes, 1990).
Figure 7 – The Transformation Process (Checkland & Scholes, 1990)
Though seemingly simple enough, Checkland and Scholes warns that the
transformation process is one of the most misunderstood parts of SSM and
users can often use incorrect premises for describing their transformation
process.
Checkland & Scholes (1990) expand on modeling the root definitions with
the CATWOE mnemonic, where:
C – Customers: the victims or beneficiaries of the purposeful action.
A – Actors: those who would do the purposeful action.
T – Transformation Process: the conversion of input to output.
Transformation ProcessInput Output
42
W – Weltanschauung: the worldview, which makes this purposeful action
meaningful in context.
O – Owner(s): those who could stop the purposeful action.
E – Environmental Constraints: elements outside the systems which it takes
as a given.
Once the root definition and the CATWOE are defined, the minimum
necessary activities are to be assembled to meet the requirements of the
root definition of which Checkland and Scholes advise aiming for seven to
nine activities for this step.
43
Figure 8 – Example of a root definit ion model - fence painting (Checkland & Scholes, 1990).
BIM – As An SSM Model
As SSM is an iterative learning process, an initial system will be formulated
based on the literature review. The systems will be used in the
transformation process, which will result in a root definition that can be
planned.
The following are system descriptions of BIM from the literature reviews:
1Appreciate colour
scheme of the property
2Decide the scope of the
fence-painting task to be undertaken
3Decide colour to paint the fence
4Obtain materials:
-paint-brushes, ect
5Paint the
fence
7Monitor
1-5
8Take control
action
6Define measures of
performance
44
BIM is:
• 3D object-orientated, AEC-specific CAD (RAIC, 2007).
• Digital representation of buildings (Ning & London, 2010).
• A set of interacting policies, processes, and technologies generating
a methodology to manage the essential building design and project
data in digital format throughout the building’s life-cycle (Succar,
2008).
• The ‘New CAD paradigm’ (Succar, 2008).
• Asset Lifecycle Information System (FIATECH, 2007 cited in Succar,
2008).
• A model-based technology linked with a database of project
information (Hasan & Yolles, 2009).
• Digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a
facility (buildingSMART, 2012).
• A shared-knowledge resource for information about a facility forming
a reliable basis for decisions during its lifecycle (CanBIM, 2012).
Using the more thorough definition of BIM (as described in the BIM
Handbook by Eastman et al., 2008), the root definition is established below:
45
Building Information Modeling can be used to manage a facility, from
initial concept to final lifecycle, to improve the organization’s (or
owner’s) competitive advantage.
Where the:
• Customers are the facility owner or manager.
• Actors are the BIM implementation group, consultant, or facility
manager.
• The transformation process is Building Information Model ->
Improved Facilities Management.
• Weltanshauung is BIM can be used to increase an organization’s
competitive advantage.
• Owners are the organization’s executive management (or decision
makers).
• Environmental constraints are technological capability, funds, time,
and the organization’s expertise (human resources, skill sets).
Utilizing the root definition above, an SSM model is developed based on the
initial tasks/steps. There are 6 steps in the initial system:
46
1. Make the management commitment to use BIM; a key decision is for
management of the organization to choose to use the BIM model in a
function.
2. Develop the BIM Model; this step is the actual programming, drafting
stage.
3. Determine what FM tasks the organization is to undertake; the
organization then needs to determine what FM tasks specifically it is
undertaking.
4. Evaluate the BIM model against the FM Tasks; this step requires the
owner to evaluate what the BIM model is capable of delivering or
supporting in the FM tasks. Some tasks may not be easily supported
by the BIM model because of organizational, software, or
interoperability issues.
5. Use process or other to fill FM gap (if it exists), the organization will
need to utilize either a process, procedure, or something to address
any shortfalls from the BIM model.
6. Use BIM model in FM; this step actually uses the BIM model in the
organizations facilities’ management process.
7. Define measurements; in this step, the organization is to define what
measurement of success is.
47
8. Monitor (1-6); this step is to monitor the root definition model against
the measures of success to determine what action is required to make
the process better.
9. Take Action; this is the step to take action to improve the root
definition model.
Figure 9 – Building Information Model Root Definit ion, First Iteration
(1) Make Management
Commitment to Use BIM
(2) Develop BIM Model
(3) Determine what FM tasks organization to
undertake
(4) Evaluate BIM Model Against (3)
(5) Use Process / Other to Fill GAP
in (4) [If Any]
(6) Use BIM Model in FM
(7) Define Measurements
(8) Monitor (1) - (6)
(9) Take Action
48
As SSM is an iterative process; the root definition model may change
throughout the research.
Fellows & Lu (2008) discuss the depth versus breadth of question-based
studies. The diagram below outlines how a questionnaire has a strong
breadth, but low depth, and vice versa as compared to an interview. As
resources and time are limited in this research, a balance was made for most
of the research to be carried out using a multiple choice questionnaire, with
a limited number (approximately 10%) of interviews for a triangulation of
methods.
Figure 10 – Breadth v. depth in question-based studies (Fellows & Lu, 2008)
(a) questionnaire(b) case study(c) interviewsNB, area of each figureis the same
Breadth of study
Dep
th o
f Stu
dy
(a)
(b)
(c)
49
The research will be carried out firstly using questionnaires to determine the
accuracy/validity of the proposed root definition. Next, the questionnaire
will dive into reasons for barriers in implementation of BIM in facility
management processes based on themes discovered during the literature
review, and these themes will be discussed in further detail. The barriers
could exist in any of the steps, or solely in 1 step. There will be open-ended
questions for respondents to further their answers, however most will utilize
a multiple-choice response, as this will provide a better data set to analyze.
Structured interviews will be utilized for triangulation to determine if there
are differences in results based on the alternative data collection method.
The questionnaire will be sent out to a broad cross section of individuals
that work in the AEC(FM) industries. Utilizing the support from the CanBIM
community, industry contacts, and BOMA, a well-rounded and balanced
response was expected.
Questionnaire
There were two questionnaires developed. The first was a multiple-choice
version hosted on Surveymonkey.com, the second a long form which was
administered in structured interviews.
50
A five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor
disagree, agree, strongly agree) was utilized for most of the questions as
Fellows & Lu (2008) point out that the 5 or 7 point Likert scale is the most
commonly used scaling method; and fits well for the questionnaire research.
From the literature review (Fox & Hietanen, 2007) and (Gu & London, 2010),
several areas were previously identified as barriers of adoption:
• Management Challenges (Fox & Hietanen, 2007).
• Implementation of work processes (Fox & Hietanen, 2007).
• Technological (or software) (Fox & Hietanen, 2007).
• Work Practices (Gu & London, 2010).
• Technical Issues (Gu & London, 2010).
• Other (roles and responsibilities, training) (Gu & London, 2010).
These previous barriers that were identified were used to build the research
questionnaire to focus in specific themes of:
1. Software (limitations or use).
2. Standards and Work Processes.
3. Management (decision making).
4. BIM Implementation.
51
Multiple-Choice Questionnaire
The multiple-choice questionnaire was developed into four distinct sections.
The first was general demographic questions that aim to understand how
large an organization the respondent belonged to, the amount of
construction activity, and experience in BIM.
The next section of the questionnaire tested the root definition model. The
root definition is stated and respondents were asked to what level of
agreement they had to the statement (from strongly disagree to strongly
agree).
Next, each barrier to BIM adoption theme delved into more detail and
asked respondents their opinions on possible barriers. A five point Likert
scale was used from -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree), and asked
respondents to rank statements based on the scale to determine how
strongly they believed the barrier theme was significant barrier to BIM
adoption.
The final phase of the questionnaire had the respondents rank from most
significant to lease significant, the barriers of adoption that have been
identified in the literature review.
52
The full survey and responses are available in the Appendix.
Long Answer Interview Questionnaire
An approximately 15-minute structured interview was administered to
several respondents. The questions were open-ended and it was
encouraged that the respondents discuss the questions in further detail.
The long form interview questionnaire and summarized responses are
available in the Appendix.
53
Chapter 4 Data Analysis
54
Introduction
This chapter outlines the data collection and analaysis for the reasearch.
The data collection utilized two techniques: online survey and structured
interviews to achieve triagulation. Triagulation occurs when more than one
methodology is employed on the research (Fellows & Liu, 2008).
The poplulation of this reasearch is fairly broad; it inlcudes not only
construction professionals such as skill trades, engineers, and architects, but
facility managers (owner/operators) as well.
The survey was sent out by three different distribution channels:
1. CanBIM mailing list
2. BOMA email membership
3. Direct mail out to industry contacts
For the CanBIM distribution, there were 61 possible respondents; 24
responded, equaling a 39% response rate.
The BOMA email request was sent to 249 possible respondents and 2
responded, equaling a 0.80% response rate.
55
The direct email out to industry contacts provided the best response rate.
Of 42 contacts, 36 responded, equaling an 86% response rate.
The cumulative response rate was 18%
Statistical Methods
The responses to the questions will utilize some statistical methods for the
data analysis. The Likert scale can be transformed from textual responses to
numerical responses (example, ‘strongly disagree’ = -2) to be able to use
statistical methods (Fellows & Lu, 2008) on the textual data. Ott &
Longnecker (2010) suggest utilizing the student’s t-test (or simply t-test) to
analyze sample median (!) where the sample or population variance (σ) is
not known. Fellows & Lu (2008) also discuss that the student t-test is the
most commonly used statistical testing method, because of its ease of use.
As the median and the variance of the population is not known (there are no
previous Canadian studies of these questions to compare against), the t-test
was utilized for the analysis of the Surveymonkey responses, where:
! = !! − !!!!/ !
Equation 1 - t-test equation (Ott & Longnecker, 2010)
56
Next, the Research Hypothesis (Ha) and the Null Hypothesis (Ho) are
determined and the t-test is used to evaluate both Ha and Ho.
There is a great deal of debate on the appropriateness of using a t-test on a
Likert scale for evaluation as a t-test is not intended for non-parametric
results and a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (MWW-test) is to be used (Winter &
Dodu, 2010). Winter & Dodu (2010) evaluate the statistical significance of
using the t-test versus the MWW-test and found that generally the test
provides similar results.
Organizational Questions
As outlined in the previous chapter, the first part of the survey asked
respondents several questions about their organization:
• What best describes your organization’s role?
• In the past 12 months, how many construction projects has your
organization participated in?
• In the past 12 months, what is the value of the construction projects
your organization has participated in?
• What is your organization’s level of experience with BIM technology?
• How many of your organization’s projects utilized BIM technology?
• Where are you located?
57
The details of the responses are included in the Appendix, and some
highlights are included in the following paragraphs of the report.
Organizational Role
Figure 11 below shows that there was a good cross section of organizations
represented. Engineering firms were the largest at 27% and
Owner/Facilities Manager was second at 24.2%.
Figure 11– What best describes your organization’s role
58
Value of Construction
Of the questions asked, the responses were varied across the possible
choices, with the exception of ‘In the past 12 months, what is the
approximate value of the construction projects your organization has
participated in?’ which had approximately 60% being from the $50 million
plus category. This represents a significant proportion of firms that are
involved in a large amount of construction activity. This has the potential to
skew the results.
Figure 12 – Chart, In the past 12 months what is the approximate value of the construction projects your organization has participated in?
59
Country Located In
The question, ‘Where are you located?’ had all but one response from
Canada. The non-Canadian responder was removed from the rest of the
analysis to make the study completely Canadian. Of the respondents whose
IP address (location) was recorded, the cities they belonged to included:
Abbotsford Calgary Edmonton Hamilton London Mississauga Montreal Quebec Toronto Vancouver
1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 2
Table 2 – City Located In
Individual (Responder) Questions
As discussed in Chapter 3, the survey then collected some specific details of
the responder. The questions asked were:
• Which of the following best describes your role in the organization?
• What level of responsibility do you have in your organization?
• In the past 12 months, how many construction projects have you
personally participated in?
• How many of your projects utilized BIM technology?
• What is your level of experience with BIM technology?
• What is your personal experience using BIM software?
60
Unlike the organizational questions, the individual questions had more
unusual groupings and so it is expanded in more detail below. Results are
also included in the Appendix.
Role in organization
Figure 13 – Which of the following best describes your role in the organization?
The role the respondent played in the organization had some broad
responses from different professions with Project Mangers (or Project
Engineer) being the largest at about 40% and ‘Other’ as the second largest.
Professions in the ‘Other’ category included: Instructors, BIM Managers, and
Executives, among others. The details are included in the Appendix.
61
Level of Responsibil ity
Figure 14 – What level of responsibil ity do you have in your organization?
Respondents were then asked what level of responsibility they had in their
organization. There was significant response from Senior or Managerial at
50%, and the next largest category of Executive Management at 25%.
62
Construction projects personally participated in
Figure 15 – In the past 12 months, how many construction projects have you personally participated in?
Respondents were asked to identity on a yearly basis how many construction
projects they personally participated in. Almost 70% of the respondents
participated in between 0 and 10 projects per year, and only 1.7%
participated in 100 or over.
63
How many projects used BIM technology
Figure 16 – How many of your projects uti l ized BIM technology?
There was a significant amount of respondents who did not use BIM in any
of their projects— about 40%—and about 18% of respondents use BIM
technology on most of their projects (75-100%).
64
Level of experience with BIM technology
Figure 17 – What is your level of experience with BIM technology?
There was a good cross section of individuals with no experience using BIM
technology, at about 34% and a high level of experience using BIM
technology, at about 24%.
65
Level of experience with BIM software
Figure 18 –What is your personal experience using BIM software?
A significant amount of responders have no level of direct experience using
BIM software — approximately 54%. Few Intermediate users responded,
but there was a good section of both Novice and Experienced users.
There are several demographic deficiencies with the individual specific
responses that were not questioned. These include: Age, Gender, Level of
Education, and Geographic Location (though there is some data on this
66
from IP capture during response). These demographics should be evaluated
in further research.
Testing the Root Definit ion
Respondents were asked to rank two statements that tested the root
definition of BIM as an SSM model. The root definition was defined in
Chapter 3 as:
Building Information Modeling can be used to manage a facility, from
initial concept to final lifecycle, to improve the organization’s (or
owner’s) competitive advantage.
These statements were:
• BIM can be used to improve facilities management
• BIM can be used to increase an organization’s competitive advantage
Though SSM requires iteration in its process, the limitations of this research
will not allow more than one questionnaire and will not allow much
purposeful action to affect any change the AEC(FM) industry. It is important
for the root definition to be been initially modeled well so that proper
analysis of the barriers of BIM adoption can be done.
67
BIM to improve facil it ies management
Figure 19 – Chart, BIM can be used to improve facil it ies management
For the statement ‘BIM can be used for facilities management,’ most
respondents agreed or strongly agreed. A t-test was performed on the
results with a null hypothesis of Ho > 1.0 (or agree), and the Research
Hypothesis (or alternative hypothesis) Ha > 1. At a 95% confidence interval,
the null hypothesis was rejected. Though we cannot say the Research
Hypothesis is accepted, we can agree that the respondents for the sake of
this research agreed that BIM could be used to improve facilities
68
management within a 95% confidence interval; this is summarized in the
table below.
Ha = μ > 1.0 (agree)
Ho = μ < 1.0 (agree)
Question n x s t p
BIM can be used to improve facilities
management
58 1.897 0.7364 1.96 0.027
Table 3 – BIM can be used to improve faci l it ies management
With these results, it can be expected that this part of the root definition is
an appropriate model.
BIM and Corporation’s Competitive Advantage
The second part of the root definition model was that BIM could be used to
increase a corporation’s competitive advantage.
69
Figure 20 – BIM can be used to increase an organization’s competit ive advantage
A standard t-test was used to evaluate the results. The test choose a Null
Hypothesis, Ho < 1.0 (agree), and a Research Hypothesis, Ha > 1.0. The
results of the analysis found that, at a 95% confidence interval, the null
hypothesis was not rejected; however, if we take Ho < 0.0 (or neither agree
nor disagree) we can determine that most (95%) are either ‘neither agree nor
disagree,’ ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ with this part of the root definition of
the model.
70
This means that the second part of the root definition is not conclusively
accepted; however, the root definition is not rejected. The results are
summarized in the table below:
Question n x s t p
BIM can be used to increase an organization’s
competitive advantage
Ha = μ > 1.0 (agree)
Ho = μ < 1.0 (agree)
58 0.983 0.868 -0.15 0.560
BIM can be used to increase an organization’s
competitive advantage
Ha = μ > 0.0 (n/agree nor disagree)
Ho = μ < 0.0 (n/agree nor disagree)
58 0.983 0.868 8.62 0.000
Table 4 – BIM can be used to improve and organization’s competit ive advantage
Barriers to Adoption Themes
The barrier themes were examined utilizing the statistical methods. The
themes as outlined in chapter 3 were:
• Software (limitations or use)
• Standards and Work Processes
• Management (decision making)
• BIM Implementation
71
Software Limitations
Respondents were asked whether they agreed with statements regarding
Software Limitations, or Technology being the barrier to adoption of BIM.
These statements were:
i. Software limitations prevent BIM from effectively being used in
facilities management
ii. Facility managers do not typically know how to use BIM software
iii. My organization prefers more traditional methods of project deliver
over BIM because of simplicity or ease of use of software
iv. Software limitations do not allow BIM software to interoperate with
existing facility management tools
v. Software limitations are a barrier to BIM adoption
72
Figure 21 – Software l imitations prevent BIM from effectively being used in faci l it ies management
Respondents’ results on the statement ‘Software Limitations prevent BIM
from effectively being used in Facilities Management’ do not support an
agreement. The lower bound on the 95% confidence interval is -0.106 (or
slightly towards disagree). The null hypothesis was not rejected, and thus,
not a strong barrier for BIM adoption.
73
Figure 22 – Facil ity managers do not typically know how to use BIM software
The second statement, ‘Facility Manager do not typically know how to use
BIM software’ was evaluated. Though there was more agreement than
disagreement, the 95% lower bound 0.634 (slightly above neither agree nor
disagree). Out of all the software-related questions, this one has the
strongest agreement, but not such that the null hypothesis could be
rejected.
74
Figure 23 – My organization prefers more tradit ional methods of project delivery over BIM because of simplicity or ease of use of software
The third statement, ‘My organization prefers more traditional methods for
project delivery over BIM because of simplicity or ease of use of software,’
was evaluated. The results of this evaluation show that generally there is
neither agreement nor disagreement with this statement.
75
Figure 24 – Software l imitations do not al low BIM software to interoperate with existing facil ity management tools
The fourth statement, “Software limitations do not allow BIM software to
interoperate with existing facility management tools,” was evaluated. The
results show that generally respondents neither agree nor disagree with this
statement.
76
Figure 25 – Software l imitations are a barrier to BIM adoption
The final statement, ‘Software limitations are a barrier to BIM adoption,’ was
evaluated. Similar to the other questions, there was neither agreement nor
disagreement with this statement.
For the software theme, there was not agreement from the respondents that
it is significant barrier to BIM adoption as none of the null hypotheses were
rejected.
The results are summarized in Table 6 below:
77
Ha = μ > 1.0 (agree)
Ho = μ < 1.0 (agree)
Question n ! s t p
Software Limitations prevent BIM from
effectively being used in Facilities Management
55 0.55 0.951 -7.37 1.000
Facility Managers do not typically know how to
use BIM software
55 0.836 0.898 -1.35 0.909
My organization prefers more traditional
methods for project delivery over BIM because
of simplicity or ease of use of software
55 0.036 1.053 -6.78 1.000
Software limitations do not allow BIM software
to interoperate with existing Facility
Management tools
55 0.127 0.904 -7.16 1.000
Software limitations are a barrier to BIM
adoption
55 0.091 1.041 -6.47 1.000
Table 5 – Software Theme Results
Standards and Work Processes
Next, respondents were asked to evaluate statements regarding Standards
and Work Processes as being a barrier to adoption of BIM. These
statements were:
i. Current BIM industry standards are sufficient to develop a usable BIM
model;
78
ii. A process/implementation road map is required for my organization
to use BIM in a project;
iii. Current BIM standards and processes are too complicated to
implement in my organization;
iv. My organization is aware of current industry standards, best practices
and implementation methodologies for BIM;
v. Standards and work processes are a barrier to BIM implementation.
Figure 26 – Current BIM industry standards are suff icient to develop a usable BIM model
79
The first statement, ‘Current BIM industry standards are sufficient to develop
a usable BIM model,’ was evaluated. The respondents generally did not
agree nor disagree with this statement.
Figure 27 – A process / implementation roadmap is required for my organization to use BIM in a project
On the second statement, ‘A process/implementation road map is required
for my organization to use BIM in a project,’ there was generally agreement
to this statement. Though the null hypothesis, Ho < 1.0 cannot be rejected,
this is a potential barrier, as it has the strongest agreement from the process
/ implementation responses, or a company needs a process /
80
implementation roadmap to adopt BIM and, without it, it is a barrier of
adoption.
Figure 28 – Current BIM standards and processes are too complicated to implement in my organization
For the third statement, ‘Current BIM standards and processes are too
complicated to implement in my organization,’ the respondents found
general disagreement to this statement.
81
Figure 29 – My organization is aware of current industry standards, best practices and implementation methodologies for BIM
Next, respondents’ answers for, ‘My organization is aware of current industry
standards, best practices and implementation methodologies for BIM,’ were
evaluated. There was general agreement to this statement from the
respondents.
82
Figure 30 – Standards and work processes are a barrier to BIM implementation
The final question in the standards and work processes theme was the
simple ‘Standards and work processes are a barrier to BIM implementation’.
Respondents did not generally agree nor disagree with this statement
For the standards and work process themes the only question that
respondents tended to agree with is that a process or implementation
roadmap is required for their organization to implement BIM. Other than
that, there was generally no agreement, or disagreement with the questions.
The responses are summarized below:
83
Ha = μ > 1.0 (agree)*
Ho = μ < 1.0 (agree)*
Question n ! s t p
Current BIM industry standards are sufficient to
develop a usable BIM model*
55 -0.018 0.952 7.65 1.000
A process/implementation road map is required
for my organization to use BIM in a project
55 1.109 0.875 0.92 0.180
Current BIM standards and processes are too
complicated to implement in my organization
55 -0.382 0.933 -10.99 1.000
My organization is aware of current industry
standards, best practices and implementation
methodologies for BIM*
55 0.364 1.078 9.38 1.000
Standards and work processes are a barrier to
BIM implementation
55 0.073 1.034 -6.65 1.000
*some questions were written in the negative so disagreement would indicate a barrier (ie Ha = mu < -
1.0,disagree)
Table 6 – Process Theme Results
Management and Management Decisions
Respondents were asked to rank in terms of agreement or disagreement
statements regarding management decisions as being a barrier to the
adoption of BIM. These statements were:
i. Decision makers in my company understand the benefits of BIM;
84
ii. Decision makers in my company believe BIM costs more to use
compared to more traditional methods of delivery;
iii. Decision makers in my company believe that BIM can be leveraged
for use in Facilities Management;
iv. BIM can be (or is) used for strategic planning in my organization;
v. Decision makers in my company are a barrier to BIM adoption.
Figure 31 – Decision makers in my company understand the benefits of BIM
There is very little disagreement from the respondents as to management
understanding the benefits of BIM. This does not appear to be a barrier to
BIM adoption as the null hypothesis was not rejected.
85
Figure 32 – Decision makers in my company believe BIM costs more to use compared to more traditional methods of delivery
There is neither agreement nor disagreement with the statement of
‘decision makers in my company believe BIM costs more to use compared
to more traditional methods of delivery. This is likely not a barrier of BIM
implementation.
86
Figure 33 – Decision makers in my company believe that BIM can be leveraged for use in faci l it ies management
The results show a slight agreement that decision makers in the
respondents’ companies believe that BIM can be leveraged for use in
facilities management. Disagreement with this statement could indicate a
potential barrier to BIM adoption; however, this does not appear to be the
case.
87
Figure 34 – BIM can be (or is) used for strategic planning in my organization
The respondents slightly agreed that BIM can or is used for strategic
planning in their organizations. This is likely not a barrier to BIM
implementation, as they would have to disagree with this statement.
88
Figure 35 – Decision makers in my company are a barrier to BIM adoption
The respondents generally neither agreed nor disagreed that decision
makers in their organizations were barriers to BIM adoption.
For management decisions, respondents generally did not find that
management decisions are a barrier to BIM adoption. In some cases, the
respondents found that management was encouraging BIM adoption. This
is worth noting as the literature review found that management decisions
were a barrier to BIM adoption. None of the null hypotheses were rejected
indicating that the management decisions theme is not a strong barrier to
BIM adoption.
89
The results of the analysis are included in the table below.
Ha = μ > 1.0 (agree)*
Ho = μ < 1.0 (agree)*
Question n ! s t p
Decision Makers in my company understand the
benefits of BIM*
55 0.418 1.197 8.79 1.000
Decision makers in my company believe BIM
costs more to use compared to more traditional
methods of delivery
55 0.200 0.951 -6.24 1.000
Decision makers in my company believe that
BIM can be leveraged for use in Facilities
Management*
55 0.655 0.886 13.84 1.000
BIM can be (or is) used for strategic planning in
my organization*
55 0.509 1.069 10.47 1.000
Decision makers in my company are a barrier to
BIM adoption
55 -0.273 1.193 -7.91 1.000
*some questions were written in the negative so disagreement would indicate a barrier (ie Ha = mu < -
1.0,disagree)
Table 7 – Management Theme Results
90
BIM Implementation
The final sets of statements were around the actual implementation of BIM.
These can be classified as project management or project organization
issues. Specifically, these statements were:
i. Design firms are trained to effectively utilize BIM technology;
ii. The lack of facilities management consideration in design limits what
a BIM can be used for in Facilities Management;
iii. Data integrity issues result in an unusable BIM at turnover;
iv. Lack of collaboration between parties results in an unusable BIM at
project turnover;
v. Facility mangers have sufficient knowledge or expertise to implement
a BIM at project turnover;
vi. BIM implementation issues are a barrier to adoption.
91
Figure 36 – Design f irms are trained to effectively uti l ize BIM technology
The first statement on process / implementation was if the respondent
thought that design firms are trained to effectively utilize BIM technology.
The results showed that generally the respondents neither agreed nor
disagreed with this statement, to slightly disagreed with this, which might
indicate a barrier to BIM adoption. However, the null hypothesis was not
rejected so we cannot say that respondents disagreed with this statement.
92
Figure 37 – The lack of faci l it ies management consideration in design l imits what a BIM can be used for in faci l it ies management
Respondents slightly agree that the lack of facilities management
consideration in design can limit how a BIM is used in facilities management.
However, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, but this could be a
potential barrier to BIM adoption.
93
Figure 38 - Data integrity issues result in an unusable BIM at turnover
Generally, the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that data integrity
issues are a barrier to BIM adoption. The null hypothesis could not be
rejected which makes this an unlikely barrier to BIM adoption.
94
Figure 39 – Lack of collaboration between parties results in an unusable BIM at project turnover
Respondents generally agreed that lack of collaboration between parties
results in an unusable BIM at project turnover. Though the null hypothesis
was not rejected, this is a potential barrier to BIM adoption.
95
Figure 40 – Facil ity managers have suff icient knowledge or expertise to implement a BIM at project turnover
The respondents slightly disagreed that facility managers have sufficient
knowledge or expertise to implement a BIM at project turnover, though the
results were not sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. This could be a
potential barrier to BIM adoption.
96
Figure 41 – BIM implementation issues are a barrier to adoption
For the final question in the implementation theme, respondents slightly
agreed that BIM implementation issues are a barrier to BIM adoption;
however, once again the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
The results are outlined in the table below. There are no responses that
would reject the null hypothesis. Considering these results, this barrier
theme does not appear to be a strong barrier to BIM adoption.
97
Ha = x > 1.0 (agree)*
Ho = x < 1.0 (agree)*
Question n ! s t p
Design firms are trained to effectively utilize BIM
technology*
55 -0.309 1.034 4.95 1.000
The lack of facilities management consideration
in design limits what a BIM can be used for in
Facilities Management
55 0.582 0.875 -3.54 1.000
Data integrity issues result in an unusable BIM at
turnover
55 0.327 0.862 -5.79 1.000
Lack of collaboration between parties results in
an unusable BIM at project turnover
55 0.891 0.896 -0.90 0.815
Facility mangers have sufficient knowledge or
expertise to implement a BIM at project
turnover*
54 -0.556 0.816 4.00 1.000
BIM implementation issues are a barrier to
adoption
55 0.545 0.919 -3.67 1.000
*some questions were written in the negative so disagreement would indicate a barrier (ie Ha = mu < -
1.0,disagree)
Table 8 – Implementation Theme Results
Barriers of Adoption Ranking
The final part of the questionnaire had the respondents rank the barriers of
adoption from most significant (10) to least significant (1). The choices were:
98
i. Management decision to implement BIM;
ii. Adequate standards for BIM;
iii. Work / management processes;
iv. Version control of BIM model;
v. Data integrity of BIM model;
vi. Interoperability of BIM software;
vii. Collaboration between parties;
viii. Available BIM training;
ix. Industry’s expertise;
x. Software capability.
The results of the analysis of the barriers’ rankings are outlined in Table 9.
The only odd distribution encountered was the first barrier ‘Management
decision to implement BIM’. The other responses had close to a normal
distribution with either a right or left skew. The charts are included in the
Appendix.
99
Figure 42 – Management decision to implement BIM
The management decision to implement BIM was ranked as the most
significant barrier, and the least significant. It has a clear Bimodal
distribution, rather than a normal distribution. This is show in Figure 43
below in the probability plot.
100
Figure 43 – Management decision to implement BIM, Probabil ity Plot
As shown in the figure above, the deviation from the normal distribution line
(in blue) shows that there is a bimodal distribution for this response. This
might mean that for specific organizations, BIM management decisions
might be more significant than others, contributing to the polarization of the
responses. This would be an area for further research.
This question was investigated further following sections of the report
because of the non-normal distribution of responses. The distributions of
other rankings are included in the Appendix.
101
n ! s Md Mo NMo Rank
Management decision to implement
BIM
55 6.273 3.413 8 10 13 10
Adequate standards for BIM 55 4.164 2.440 4 2 13 1
Work / management processes 55 5.036 2.538 5 5 12 4
Version control of BIM model 55 4.018 2.966 3 3 13 2
Data integrity of BIM model 55 5.018 2.461 4 4 13 3
Interoperability of BIM software 55 6.091 2.398 6 6 11 5
Collaboration between parties 55 6.582 2.424 7 7 11 6
Available BIM training 55 5.527 2.974 6 8 9 7
Industry’s expertise 55 6.200 2.745 7 8 10 8
Software capability 55 6.091 3.099 6 10 10 9
Table 9 – BIM Barriers, Ranking
Utilizing only the mean for the responses for the barriers might give an
incorrect ranking, so the median and mode were also investigated. Ranking
was established using the mode and to break a tie, the number of mode.
Though there was no clear number one barrier, as we see several groupings
around the mean of 6, and two with a mode of 10, ‘Management decision to
implement BIM’ had the highest median, highest mode and highest number
for the mode.
102
Correlations
The data was analyzed between several groupings to determine if there
were any patterns or correlations.
Organizational
Organizational BIM use was plotted in a matrix format against several
organizational criteria to identify any correlations or patterns. This figure is
available in the Appendix.
This plot did not reveal any correlations; however, some patterns were
discovered.
BIM Organizational Usage and Organizational Type
The figure below outlines some interesting patterns; firstly, there is low BIM
adoption from owner/facility manager type organizations. Secondly,
architectural firms appear to be leading the way for BIM adoption, with
engineering firms being second. Construction firms have some moderate
adoption of BIM.
103
Figure 44 – Organizational BIM Use and Organizational Role
Next, BIM use and number of construction projects in the last 12 months
was evaluated. There was no discernable pattern. Companies that have a
low amount of projects or a high amount of projects may or may not use
BIM in their projects.
BIM organizational use and value of projects were looked at next.
104
Figure 45 – Organizational BIM use & Value of Construction
For cases with under $100,000 of construction work, BIM was not utilized at
all. However, only one response had no BIM use at under $100,000 for
construction work. As this is a very small sample (1), this is not statistically
significant, but could be an area for further research.
Finally, Organizational BIM use and Organizational BIM experience was
looked at. Unsurprisingly, no or low organizational BIM experience is
related to no or low BIM usage in projects. Also, the more experienced an
organization is with BIM, the more BIM is used in projects.
105
Figure 46 – Organizational BIM use & Organizational BIM experience
Individual Experiences with BIM
The respondents’ individual BIM experiences were examined next. A matrix
plot was made of the individual BIM use and the other individual’s roles and
experiences for any correlations or patterns. This plot is available in the
Appendix.
106
Figure 47 –How many of your projects uti l ized BIM technology & which of the following best describes your role
When an individual’s BIM projects are evaluated against what role they
provide in an organization, there are some patterns discovered. First, real
estate professionals and maintenance workers did not have any BIM
experience in this survey. Architects, engineers, and project managers all
participate in BIM projects. And finally, no one identified himself or herself
as a facility manager; this is likely a role that individuals do not associate
with.
Next, the individual’s experience and BIM projects were investigated. There
was a pattern discovered in the graph below that shows that low-level
107
responsibility in an organization generally do not get an opportunity to work
on BIM projects.
Figure 48 – How many of your projects uti l ized BIM technology & what level of responsibil ity do you have in your organization
The final individual experience with BIM usage that was investigated was
between BIM use and level of experience with BIM software. What was
discovered, unsurprisingly, was that individuals with no experience using
BIM software do not tend to work on BIM projects, and that experienced
BIM software users work on more BIM projects.
108
Figure 49 – How many of your projects uti l ized BIM technology & what is your level of experience with BIM software
Facil it ies Managers / Owners Evaluation
With the results of the previous evaluation, the research delved into why
facility managers / owners do not use BIM in their projects. The results were
investigated for only those respondents who indicated they belonged to a
facility management / owner organization, then evaluated against the whole
sample population using a two sample t test where:
! = ! !! − !! − ∆!! !!! + !! !
!!
∆!= 0!!"!!" = !! = !!!!"#!!" = !!! <> !!
Equation 2 – Two Sample t-test (Ott & Longnecker, 2010)
109
The evaluation shows that there are some marginal differences with how
facility managers responded to the barrier questions from the whole sample
population; however, the two-sample t-test shows that differences in the
responses are not significant and the null hypotheses (Ho) cannot be
rejected. These results are summarized in the table below.
N1 = 55; N2 = 15; DF = 14 x1 s1 x2 s2 t t0.05
Management decision to implement
BIM 6.273 3.413 5.733 3.615 0.518 1.761
Adequate standards for BIM 4.164 2.44 4.933 2.344 -1.116 1.761
Work / management processes 5.036 2.538 4.667 2.32 0.534 1.761
Version control of BIM model 4.018 2.966 3.933 3.348 0.089 1.761
Data integrity of BIM model 5.018 2.461 4.133 2.031 1.426 1.761
Interoperability of BIM software 6.091 2.398 6.333 2.289 -0.359 1.761
Collaboration between parties 6.582 2.424 6.2 2.336 0.556 1.761
Available BIM training 5.527 2.974 6.6 3.135 -1.187 1.761
Industry’s expertise 6.2 2.745 5.933 3.081 0.304 1.761
Software capability 6.091 3.099 6.533 3.067 -0.493 1.761
Table 10 – Two Sample t-test, BIM Barriers ful l population v. Facil ity Managers
110
Real Estate and Maintenance Professionals
Finally, as real estate and maintenance professionals have low or no BIM use
in their projects (as show in the Figure 44 above), their barriers were
evaluated against the whole sample population as well.
The results of the two-sample t-tests show that no null hypothesis (Ho) can
be rejected, and therefore the results are taken as the same as the entire
population.
This is summarized in the table below:
111
N1 = 55; N2 = 5; DF = 4 x1 s1 x2 s2 t t0.05
Management decision to implement
BIM 6.273 3.413 4 4.123 1.196 1.761
Adequate standards for BIM 4.164 2.44 4.2 2.28 -0.034 1.761
Work / management processes 5.036 2.538 3.8 1.789 1.420 1.761
Version control of BIM model 4.018 2.966 4.8 3.701 -0.459 1.761
Data integrity of BIM model 5.018 2.461 3.8 2.168 1.189 1.761
Interoperability of BIM software 6.091 2.398 7.4 1.949 -1.408 1.761
Collaboration between parties 6.582 2.424 6.4 0.8944 0.352 1.761
Available BIM training 5.527 2.974 6.6 2.408 -0.934 1.761
Industry’s expertise 6.2 2.745 7.4 3.435 -0.759 1.761
Software capability 6.091 3.099 6.6 3.362 -0.326 1.761
Table 11 - Two Sample t-test, BIM barriers ful l population and Real Estate and Maintenance Professionals
Open Ended Responses
Of all the open-ended responses, only one question had any results of note.
The question was ‘of your projects that utilized BIM, briefly describe the
reasons why BIM was chosen over a more traditional approach’? A theme
emerged from many of the responses, that either the client or architect
required BIM to be used on the project. Out of the responses, 14 indicated
that it was either a client or architect requirement. Also, one respondent
indicated it was a requirement of the general contractor.
112
Structured Interviews
The structured interviews corroborated some of the barriers identified in
questionnaire. Specifically a trend was that industry has to adapt to a new
method of doing things, as the traditional method is not sustainable.
Almost all respondents agreed that BIM could be used to improve facilities
management, as there are significant benefits to the information contained
in the BIM model.
113
Chapter 5 – Conclusions
114
Undertaken Aims and Objectives
Chapter 1 outlined the aim of the study, “to discover what the barriers of
adoption are for organizations in using BIM technology in facilities
management”, with the following specific objectives:
1. To assess a number of organizations that have and have not adopted
BIM technology
• Completed; with several organizations surveyed, from a good
cross-section of roles within the construction industry.
2. To determine what the specific barriers of adoption of BIM
technology are to these organizations
• Completed; respondents provided answers to several
questions regarding barriers to BIM adoption, ranked several
barriers to BIM adoption outlined in the literature review and
provided some open-ended responses to other barriers, and
why they used BIM on specific projects.
3. To correlate the barriers to find trends between organizations (for
example small v. medium, architectural v. construction v. owner /
operators)
• No correlations were found in the research; however, there
were several themes discovered.
4. To determine from organizations that have adopted BIM technology
what helped them overcome their barriers to adoption
• Some respondents provided explanations as to what helped
them overcome the barriers, to utilizing BIM technology on
their projects.
115
5. To postulate what improvements or changes to the technology,
culture of organizations, or business processes would allow more
organizations to adopt BIM technology
• Recommendations on how organizations may implement BIM
in their future projects will be made in this chapter, along with
suggestions for further research.
Hypothesis Investigated
Also in Chapter 1, the hypothesis was defined as:
Barriers of adopting Building Information Modeling (BIM) technology
prevent facility managers from improving the management of their
facility – from initial concept to final lifecycle.
With sub-hypotheses of the barriers as:
1. Limitations with BIM software
2. Industry or organization specific standards and work processes are
not developed enough to properly implement BIM in a project
3. Management decisions to not implement BIM in a project, as BIM is
not a perceived value to the owner
4. BIM implementation issues in the project prevent the BIM model from
useable model to the owner.
The main hypothesis prompted two specific queries; firstly, whether or not
BIM could be used to improve facility management (which leads to
improvements in the facility manger’s competitive advantage); and secondly,
116
what the initial barriers are that prevent facility managers from adopting the
technology themselves.
The main hypothesis was tested utilizing a SSM model, and within the
model, the sub-hypotheses were tested as a barrier to adoption themes.
These are outlined below:
BIM as an SSM Model
Chapter 3 established how BIM could be modeled in soft systems
methodology. The SSM model requires validation if it is to be used as the
research methodology to answer the research aims, objectives and
hypotheses. We took the root definition,
Building Information Modeling can be used to manage a facility, from
initial concept to final lifecycle, to improve the organization’s (or
owner’s) competitive advantage.
and created the SSM model as shown in Figure 9.
The SSM model is overlaid with the questionnaire themes highlighted in
Red, Blue, Orange and Purple:
117
Figure 50 – BIM SSM Model Overlaid with Questionnaire Themes
The questionnaire tested the root definition of the SSM model of BIM
implementation in facilities management. In Chapter 4 the respondents
agreed that BIM can be used for facilities management, and though the
respondents did not agree that BIM could be used to increase an
organization’s competitive advantage, they did not disagree. For the
(1) Make Management
Commitment to Use BIM
(2) Develop BIM Model
(3) Determine what FM tasks organization to
undertake
(4) Evaluate BIM Model Against (3)
(5) Use Process / Other to Fill GAP
in (4) [If Any]
(6) Use BIM Model in FM
(7) Define Measurements
(8) Monitor (1) - (6)
(9) Take Action
Management Decisions Theme
Software Capability Theme
Implimentation Theme
Standards / Processes Theme
118
purposes of this research model, we can use the root definition as written; it
is an appropriate root definition for this first cycle of the action research.
Barrier to Adoption Themes
The barriers to adoption themes (or sub-hypotheses) outlined in the
questionnaire were tested. The analysis did not present a very strong
agreement in the themes being significant barriers (no null hypotheses were
rejected); however, the following results are important to highlight:
Respondents had a skew to agreement that facility managers do not
typically know how to use BIM software. Investigating specifically
organizations that identified themselves as facility managers and comparing
their BIM project use further supported this.
119
Figure 51 – Organizational Role and BIM Project Use
Facility managers in the study had very low BIM use on projects in the past
12 months from 0% to maximum of 10% (or don’t know). This is an area for
further research for the next iteration of the SSM model. Research could
include a case study for several facility management companies to
determine if the required expertise is available in both BIM software use and
implementation of the technology in work processes (management ability).
This would likely be best tested through focus group interviews. This also
supports the strong ranking (8) of industry’s expertise as a barrier to BIM
adoption.
120
Second, respondents had a fairly strong agreement that a Process
Implementation Roadmap is required for implementing BIM. This is a step
that should be added to the SSM model and further researched to
determine the benefits and ability to overcome barriers to BIM
implementation.
Strangely enough, the management themed questions did not illicit strong
responses from the survey population as potential barriers; however, it was
ranked as the highest (10) barrier of BIM adoption. Secondly, the bimodal
distribution for the results of the ranking questions where “Management
decided to implement BIM” received both the highest rank: 10 (most
significant), and the lowest rank: 1 (least significant). When the responses
were examined further between facility managers as an organizational role,
or between senior / executive managers and junior / intermediate personnel
in the organization, there were no correlations. The groupings all had the bi-
modal distribution. This could be caused by organizational specific dynamics
where several organizations have issues with management decisions, and
others do not and it is not an industry specific issue. From the management
themed questions, there does not seem to be an agreement that costs of
BIM are a barrier; BIM provides value to the organization; hence, there is a
strategic reason, or strategic value to using BIM. All of these are significant
121
factors in management decisions to engage in a particular activity or
investment. Potentially the questions were not relevant and improvements
are needed for the SSM model and must be re-evaluated. A case study
focusing on management decisions for the project could shed some light on
this discrepancy.
Respondents tended to agree that the lack of facilities management
considerations in design limits BIM’s use in facilities management. Looking
back to Figure 3 Cost Influence and Construction Costs (Eastman et al.,
2008), we learn that owners (or facility managers) have little opportunity for
input in design and construction before it becomes cost prohibitive to make
changes. This issue is far broader and facilities management consideration
still lacks in design. BIM’s ability to digitally construct a facility allows for
more consideration, but if the traditional project delivery method is used,
but just with new technology, BIM will not overcome this issue as this is an
inherent flaw with traditional methods of construction delivery.
Finally, on the theme of barriers, respondents had a skew to disagreement
that facility managers have sufficient knowledge or expertise to implement a
BIM at turnover. Respondents seemed to agree that there are adequate
standards, and that available training is not a barrier; however, industry
122
expertise in BIM was ranked third highest (8). This could mean that the
industry believes that the training is available, but not being accessed. The
barrier might be lack of access to available training (perhaps through costs
or budgeting issues, and time made available to attend training).
Barrier Ranking Results
The results of ranking the barriers of adoption, from most significant to least
significant, are:
• Management Decision to Implement BIM
• Software Capability
• Industry Expertise
• Available BIM Training
• Collaboration between Parties
• Interoperability of BIM Software
• Work / Management Processes
• Data Integrity of BIM Model
• Version Control of BIM Model
• Adequate Standards for BIM
The ranking results did not show a very strong primary barrier, as many of
the potential barriers centered on a mean of 6 (out of 10) with standard
deviation of over 2 (some over 3) from the mean. This leads one to believe
that the barriers to BIM adoption are fairly varied across organizations,
grouped around similar themes, but with specific issues.
123
Additionally, there could be interpretations around what specific meanings
on the barriers are. For example, what does “Management decision to
implement BIM” mean to a specific responder? One respondent may think
perceived additional costs associated with BIM are a barrier (as highlighted
in one of the structured interviews) and associate this with “costs” as a
barrier to BIM adoption, compared to the author, that a barrier on cost is a
management decision barrier (as management ultimately is responsible for
decisions on costs).
Looking at some specific barriers identified in the ranking section of the
questionnaire and comparing them to the barrier themes also gives some
interesting results. Under “management decision to implement BIM,” the
results showed a bi-modal distribution, where a significant number of
respondents chose it as the lowest barrier, and some as the highest barrier.
It was filtered by organizational type grouping, with similar bi-modal results,
and by responsibility level.
124
Figure 52 – Management Decision to Implement BIM by Organization Type and Responsibil ity Level
There is similar bi-modal distribution for both of these groupings. These
groupings were picked first as they seemed the most logical correlation.
Perhaps managers see “management decision” differently than rank and
file, or the different organization types might perceive management
decisions differently. These alternate groupings provided similar results as
the main question, a bimodal distribution. The only other organizational
specific groupings to be analyzed were the level of experience with BIM
technology.
125
Figure 53 – Management Decision to Implement BIM and Organizational BIM Experience
There appears to be some stronger impression that management decision
to implement BIM is a barrier with more experienced BIM organizations
(Intermediate ! = 7.111 and Experienced ! = 7.929). As organizations that
implement more BIM in their projects, it is interesting that they rank
management decision to implement BIM a much higher barrier than
organizations that do not have any BIM experience. This could mean that
actual barriers of adoption are not the same as perceived barriers of
adoption. This would be an area for further research.
126
Software capability ranked as the second highest barrier to BIM adoption;
however, in the software themed questions, no strong responses were
made. Respondents generally did not agree or disagree with all but one of
the questions in this theme. Only “facility managers do not typically know
how to use BIM” had a slight skew to the agree range on the Likert scale.
Even when asked, “Is software capability a barrier to BIM?” most
respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. As software
“capability” was ranked as the number 2 barrier, more investigation is
required to determine what issues exist around the software capability, or is
this an issue on training on the software or process.
Industry expertise was ranked as number 3 in the barriers for BIM adoption;
however, under the barrier theme, a question was asked if “design firms are
trained to effectively utilize BIM technology,” to which most respondents
neither agreed nor disagreed. This would be an area for further research.
Limitations
Statistics Canada has placed the size of construction industry at 848,763
people (StatsCan, 2011). Yamane (1967) gives a sample size for a population
over 100,000, with a 95% confidence interval and a precision of + 5% is 400.
As only 62 people responded, the sample is not representative of the
127
population. It is also recognized that this sample may have bias in the
results as a significant number of respondents came from CanBIM and the
author’s professional contacts. These respondents may have alternate views
from the general population of BIM as they belong to an organization that
promotes the use of BIM in Canada. Though time and resources did not
permit a significant sampling of the construction industry in Canada, it is
hoped that the results will be meaningful for the Canadian construction
industry. The results should be applicable to a variety of organizations in
construction, or facilities management, and differing levels of BIM use as the
sample drew from.
Additionally, construction in Canada includes residential, commercial and
industrial sectors (all of which may receive considerable benefits from BIM
technology). It also includes public works, bridges, and roadways among
other types of construction. The applicability of the research to these types
of construction activities may be limited as BIM as a process is not
necessarily used in these types of projects.
Finally, as seen in some of the open-ended responses, there is some
disagreement between what respondents believe BIM to be. This could be
128
an area for further research as a common definition (or language) is required
for BIM as a process, or technology.
Recommendations
Using SSM as a research methodology requires purposeful action
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990). Without comparing the real world problem
with the model and creating action, the research is of limited benefit. With
this in mind, recommendations are to be based on actual activity.
Management Decision Recommendations
Organizations that are contemplating implementing BIM for facilities
management have to make the decision to use BIM considerably prior to the
start of the project. BIM requires a strategic decision to utilize the
technology, and this is the recommended first step. CIC (2012) recommends
a four-step process for executing BIM, starting with an Organizational
Strategic Plan, then an Organizational Execution Plan, a Project Procurement
Plan and Project Execution Planning Guide. Eastman et al. (2008)
recommends a focus on clear business goals for success in an owner
implementing BIM. This could be interpreted as a business plan; which is
the basis of most management decisions in an organization. Whatever the
user decides to call this document (BIM strategic plan, business case, etc.) it
129
is the first step in overcoming any management decision to not implement
BIM.
Software Capabil ity Recommendations
Software capability is rapidly changing. Just this year IBM and Autodesk
have made available a Maximo (CMMS) Revit (BIM Software) tool (Autodesk,
2012). This plug-in tool allows information from the Revit model to be
transferred directly into Maximo through the COBie standard. This is a
significant advancement that has just been implemented in the last few
months in 2012.
It is recommended that BIM be used on a small project or pilot project prior
to a full integration into the facility manager’s work processes. This step can
mitigate some of the software capability issues as it allows for a trial of the
work processes. As well, it gives the project team exposure without a full
integration. It was shown from the literature review that some groups
consider BIM a software set (3D modeling, RAIC, 2007), but in actuality it is a
process (NBIMS, 2008 cited in Eastman et al., 2008). This requires an
organization to fundamentally change the way it creates, uses and shares
building data (Eastman et al., 2008). If an organization does not change how
130
it works then software capability could be used as a perceived barrier, as
new technology does not necessarily fix poor organizational processes.
Training Recommendations
It is recommended that all members of the AEC(FM) industry take
appropriate training on the benefits and pitfalls of BIM. There seems to be
some agreement that facility managers do not adequately know how to use
BIM technology, and industry expertise is lacking. Taking the
recommendation from above and executing a pilot project has the added
benefit of ‘just in time training’ where pilot project participants learn the
processes, software and benefits as they do the work.
Summary
Taking action to address the top three barriers for BIM adoption makes the
first iteration of the SSM model resemble the figure below:
131
Figure 54 – Shape of SSM for BIM Adoption (Modified from Checkland & Scholes, 1990).
Further Research
Further research is required on which management decisions are barriers to
BIM implementation. A possible research project on this could be to
conduct focus group interviews from several Actors from different
organizations. Their responses could be evaluated against each other to
determine if there are specific themes for the management decisions.
Secondly, a new research project could be conducted to investigate BIM use
for projects under $100,000 to determine if there is a specific monetary
BIM Adoption Issues
Action neededto improve the
situation
Comparisonof models
with perceivedreal situation
Relevantsystems
of purposefulactivity
yieldschoices
of
A. Business Case
Development
B. Pilot Project
C. TrainingBIM Benefits
& Pitfalls
132
threshold for BIM use in construction. A hypothesis might be formed, as
“Projects under $100,000 do not provide sufficient benefits to utilize BIM
over a more traditional approach.”
Finally, a case study (or case studies) could be conducted using the SSM
model developed above and re-interview the project participants to
determine if the purposeful activity outlined in the recommendations made
a meaningful improvement to the problem. This could lead to different
barriers to BIM adoption in facilities management, or could show
improvements in the adoption of BIM with facility managers.
133
References
Agdas, D. and Ellis, R., 2010. The Potential of XML Technology as an answer to the data interchange problems of the construction industry, Construction Management and Economics, July 201(28), pp.737-746 Allmon, E., Haas, C., Borcherding, J. and Goodrum, P., 2000. US Construction Labor Productivty Trends , 1970-1998. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, March / April, 2000, pp.97-104 Association of General Contractors, 2011. agcXML [online]. Available from: http://www.agc.org/cs/industry_topics/technology/agc_xml [Accessed November 10, 2011]. Atkin, B. and Brooks, A., 2005 Total Facilities Management. Second Edition. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK Autodesk, 2011. Building Information Modelling – Products [online]. Available from: http://usa.autodesk.com/building-information-modeling/products/ [Accessed November 15, 2011]. Autodesk, 2012. IBM Maximo Integration for Autodesk Revit 2013 Products, User Guide [online]. Accessed from: http://labs.autodesk.com/sites/default/files/Autodesk%20Revit%20Maximo%20Integration.pdf [Accessed September 15, 2012]. Bentley, 2011. Bentley Architecture, V8i [online]. Accessed from: http://www.bentley.com/en-US/Products/Bentley+Architecture/ [Accessed November 15, 2011]. buildingSMART, 2011a. IFC 3 [online]. Accessed from: http://buildingsmart-tech.org/ifc/IFC2x3/TC1/html/index.htm [Accessed viewed October 25, 2011]. buildingSMART, 2011b. IFC 4 – Preview [online]. Accessed from: http://buildingsmart-tech.org/ifc/IFC2x4/rc2/html/index.htm [Accessed October 25, 2011]. buildingSMART, 2012. What is BIM [online]. Accessed from: http://www.buildingsmartalliance.org/index.php/nbims/faq#faq1 [Accessed on February 2, 2012].
134
CaGBC, 2011. LEED Software for Energy Modeling [online]. Accessed from: http://www.cagbc.org/AM/PDF/LEED_Canada_approved_software_20110309.pdf [Accessed on October 15, 2011]. CADinfo.net, 2011. aecXML and IFC [online]. Accessed from: http://www.cadinfo.net/general-aec/aecxml-ifc [Accessed on November 10, 2011]. CanBIM, 2012. What is BIM [online]. Accessed from: http://www.canbim.com/about-canbim-0/faq-1 [Accessed on February 2, 2012]. Checkland, P., 2000. Soft Systems Methodology: A Thirty Year Retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, Syst. Res. 17, S11-S58 (2000). pp.S12-S57 Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Reprinted in 2007. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, England. CIC, 2012. BIM Planning Guide for Facility Owners. Version 1.02. Computer Integrated Construction Research Program, Pennsylvania State University, San Francisco California COBie, 2012. Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie) [online] Accessed from: http://www.wbdg.org/resources/cobie.php [Accessed on September 20, 2012]. Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T., 2002. Doing Action Research in your Organisation. Sage Publications, Ltd, London, England. Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, 2007. Adopting BIM for facilities Management –Solutions for managing the Sydney Opera House. Brisbane, Australia: Icon.Net Pty Ltd. DIGGSML, 2011. DIGGS XML [online]. Accessed from: http://www.diggsml.com/ [Accessed on November 10, 2011]. Eastman, C., 1975. The Use of Computers Instead of Drawings. AIA Journal. March Volume 63 Number 3 pp.46-50
135
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K., 2008. BIM Handbook. Hoboken New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Fellows, R. and Liu, A., 2008. Research Methods for Construction, 3rd Ed. West-Sussex: Blackwell Fox, S. and Hietanen, J., 2007. Interorganizational use of building information models: potential for automational, informational and transformational effects. Construction Management & Economics, March 2007 (25) pp.289-296. Goodrum, P., Hass, C. and Glover, R., 2001. The divergence in aggregate and activity estimates of US construction productivity. Construction Management and Economics. Vol. 20, Iss. 5, 2002. Gu, N. and London, K., 2010. Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Automation in Construction 19, 2010, pp 988-999. Hasan and Yolles, 2009. Building Information Modelling a Primer. Canadian Consulting Engineer. June/July (2009). pp.42-46. iMB, 2011. History of CAD [online]. Accessed from: http://mbinfo.mbdesign.net/CAD-History.htm [Accessed on September 25, 2011]. Khemlani, L., 2004. The IFC building model: look under the hood. AECbytes [online]. March 30 2004. Available from: http://www.aecbytels.com/features/2004.ifcmodel.html. NIBS, 2012. Lifecycle costs Analysis [online]. Accessed from: http://www.wbdg.org/resources/lcca.php [Accessed on January 5, 2012]. Ning and London, 2010. Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Automation in Construction. 19 (2010) pp.988-999 NIST, 2004. Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. Gaithersburg, Maryland Ott and Longnecker, 2010. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. 6th Edition, Brooks / Cole, Belmont CA, USA
136
RAIC, 2007. RAIC Practice Builder, Building Information Modeling (BIM) [online]. Accessed from: https://www.raic.org/practice/bim/bim-practice-builder_e.pd [Accessed on April 20, 2012]. Rao, S., Tang, J. and Wang, W., 2004. Measuring the Canada-U.S. Productivity Gap: Industry Dimensions. International Productivity Monitor. Centre for the Study of Living Standards, Fall, Vol. 9. pp.3-14. Reynolds, M. and Howell, S., 2010. Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. Milton Keynes: The Open University Sacks, R., Kaner, I., Eastman, C. and Jeong, Y., 2010. The Rosewood experiment – Building information modelling and interoperability for architectural precast facades. Automation in Construction. 12 (2010) pp. 419–432. Shelden, 2009. Information Modelling as a Paradigm Shift. Architectural Design, 79(2), p.80-83. Statistics Canada, 2011a. Indexes of labour productivity and related variables by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) seasonally adjusted. Table 383-0012. Statistics Canada, 2011b. Summary Table: Employment, payroll employment, by industry [online] Accessed from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr71a-eng.htm [Accessed on September 10, 2012]. Succar, 2008. Building information modeling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction. 18 (2009) pp 357-375. transxml.com, 2011. Transxml [online] Accessed from: http://www.transxml.org/ [Accessed on November 10, 2011]. Vanlande, R., Nicolle, C. and Cruz, C., 2008. IFC and building lifecycle management. Automation in Construction. 18 (2008) pp. 70-80. W3C, 2011. Extensible Markup Language (XML) [online]. Accessed from: http://www.w3.org/XML/ [Accessed on November 1, 2011].
137
Winter and Dodou, 2010. Five-Point Likert Items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. Volume 15, Number 11, October, 2010. Yamane, 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., New York: Harper and Row.
138
Appendix A - Questionnaires
139
Multiple Choice Questionnaire
Page 1
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey
This survey is part of my research for a Masters of Science in International Construction Management. The topic is "Barriers of Adoption to Building Information Modelling (BIM) in Facilities Management". All responses to this survey will be confidential and used in an aggregated format. There is an opportunity at the end of the survey to elect to participate in a structured interview if you want to expand on the answers given. Depending on the number of people who respond, not all may be accommodated. Finally the results of this research will be published in a construction publication. Thank you for your participation. Tony Valente, P.Eng
Introduction
Page 2
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey
1. What best describes your organization’s role?
2. Which of the following best describes your role in your organization?
3. What level of responsibility do you have in your organization?
Organizational details
*
*
Architectural
Engineering
Construction
Owner / Facilities Manager
Other (please specify)
Architect
Engineer
Project Manager or Project Engineer
Finance or Accountant
Facility Manager or Operations
Real Estate
Maintenance
Other (please specify)
Junior
Intermediate
Senior or Managerial
Executive Management
Page 3
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey4. What segment of the construction market is most appropriate to your organization?
(click all that apply)
5. Where are you located?
*
Health
Education
Commercial
Residential
Industrial
Transportation
Public Works
Other (please specify)
Page 4
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey
6. In the past 12 months how many construction projects has your organization participated in:
7. How many of your organization's projects utilized BIM technology?
8. In the past 12 months how many construction projects have you personally participated in:
Organizational details (2)
None
1-10
11-20
21-50
51-99
100+
Don't know.
None
1-10%
11-25%
25-50%
51-75%
76-100%
Don't know.
None
1-10
11-20
21-50
51-99
100+
Page 5
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey9. How many of your projects utilized BIM technology?
10. Of your projects that utilized BIM, briefly describe the reasons why BIM was chosen over a more traditional approach?
11. In the past 12 months what is the approximate value of the construction projects your organization has participated in?
12. What is your level of experience with BIM technology?
13. What is your personal experience using BIM software?
14. What is your organization's level of experience with BIM technology?
*
*
*
None
1-10%
11-25%
25-50%
51-75%
76-100%
$0-$100,000
$100,001-$500,000
$500,000-$1M
$1M-$10M
$10M - $50M
$50M+
Experienced
Intermediate
Novice
None
Experienced
Intermediate
Novice
None
Experienced
Intermediate
Novice
None
Don't know
Page 6
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey
15. Consider this statement: BIM can be used to manage a facility, from initial concept to final life-cycle, in order to improve the organizations' (or owner's) competitive advantage. Please choose the best answer.
16. In your opinion, who benifits the most from a BIM model?
17. In your opinion, who is required to implement an integrated BIM and Facilities Management Model (please check all that apply)?
BIM use in Facilities Management.
*
Strongly agree AgreeNeither agree nor
disagreeDisagree Strongly disagree
BIM can be used to improve facilities management.
BIM can be used to increase an organization's competitive advantage.
*
*
Architect
Engineer
Constructor
Facility Manager
Owner
Other (please specify)
Architect
Engineer
Constructor
Facility Manager
Owner
Other (please specify)
Page 7
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey
18. BIM management decisions. Please choose the best answer.
19. Standards and Work Process. Choose the best answer.
Barriers of BIM adoption.
*Strongly agree Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree Strongly disagree
Decision makers in my company understand the benefits of BIM.
Decision makers in my company believe BIM costs more to use compared to more traditional methods of delivery.
Decision makers in my company believe that BIM can be leveraged for use in Facilities Management.
BIM can be (or is) used for strategic planning in my organization.
Decision makers in my company are a barrier to BIM adoption.
*Strongly agree Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree Strongly disagree
My organization is aware of current industry standards, best practises and implementation methodologies for BIM.
Current BIM industry standards are sufficient to develop a usable BIM model.
Standards and work processes are a barrier to BIM implementation.
A process / implementation road map is required for my organization to use BIM in a project.
Current BIM standards and processes are too complicated to implement in my organization.
Page 8
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey20. BIM Software. Please select the best answer.
21. BIM Implementation. Please select the best answer.
*Strongly agree Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree Strongly disagree
Software limitations prevent BIM from effectively being used in Facilities Management
Facility Managers do not typically know how to use BIM software
My organization prefers more traditional methods for project delivery over BIM because of simplicity or ease of use of software.
Software limitations do not allow BIM software to interoperate with existing Facility Management tools.
Software limitations are a barrier to BIM adoption.
*Strongly agree Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree Strongly disagree
Design firms are trained to effectively utilize BIM technology.
The lack of facilities management consideration in design limits what a BIM can be used for in facilities management.
Data integrity issues result in an unusable BIM at turnover.
Lack of collaboration between parties results in an unusable BIM at project turnover.
Facility managers have sufficient knowledge or expertise to implement a BIM after project turnover.
BIM implementation issues are a barrier to adoption.
Page 9
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey22. From most significant (10) to least significant (1) rank the following barriers to
adoption of BIM in Facilities Management. Drag and drop the choices.
23. Are there any other barriers of adoption to BIM in Facilities Management that you can think of?
*
Management decision to implement BIM
Adequate Standards for BIM
Work / management processes
Version control of BIM model
Data integrity of BIM model (including as-built model)
Interoperability of BIM with other software packages (including Facility Management)
Collaboration between all parties in a construction project (Architects, Engineers, Constructors, Facility Managers)
Available training for BIM
Industry's level of expertise
Software capability
Page 10
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey
24. Is there anything you would like to add to your responses?
25. Would you be willing to participate in a structured interview?
End
*
Yes
No
Page 11
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey
26. Please provide contact information.
27. Preferred method of contact.
Contact Information
Name
Company
Title
Phone
Phone
Page 12
BIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM SurveyBIM Survey
Thank you for your participation
Thank you.
152
Multiple Choice Question - Data
Res
pond
entID
Col
lect
orID
Sta
rtD
ate
End
Dat
eC
ityW
hat b
est d
escr
ibes
you
r or
gani
zatio
n’s
role
?W
hat b
est d
escr
ibes
you
r or
gani
zatio
n’s
role
? N
Wha
t bes
t des
crib
es y
our
orga
niza
tion’
s ro
le?O
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)W
hich
of t
he fo
llow
ing
best
des
crib
es y
our
role
in y
our
orga
niza
tion?
Whi
ch o
f the
follo
win
g be
st d
escr
ibes
you
r ro
le in
you
r or
gani
zatio
n? N
1973
8742
2328
7061
1608
-31-
2012
08-3
1-20
12T
oron
toO
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)5
Cap
ital R
epai
r P
roje
cts
Coo
rdin
ator
Pro
ject
Man
ager
or
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r3
1971
7656
8428
7006
4708
-29-
2012
08-2
9-20
12E
ngin
eerin
g2
Pro
ject
Man
ager
or
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r3
1965
5211
0928
7061
1608
-28-
2012
08-2
8-20
12V
anco
uver
Con
stru
ctio
n3
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
819
5636
3404
2870
0647
08-2
1-20
1208
-21-
2012
Ow
ner
/ Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
er4
Pro
ject
Man
ager
or
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r3
1955
6993
2328
7061
1608
-21-
2012
08-2
1-20
12Q
uebe
cO
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)5
Res
eaec
hE
ngin
eer
219
5536
6332
2870
0647
08-2
0-20
1208
-20-
2012
Eng
inee
ring
2P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
5520
3783
2870
0647
08-2
0-20
1208
-20-
2012
Arc
hite
ctur
al1
Arc
hite
ct1
1954
9165
4128
7006
4708
-20-
2012
08-2
0-20
12E
ngin
eerin
g2
Eng
inee
r2
1954
9108
8228
7006
4708
-20-
2012
08-2
0-20
12A
rchi
tect
ural
1P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
5490
6798
2870
0647
08-2
0-20
1208
-20-
2012
Arc
hite
ctur
al1
Arc
hite
ct1
1954
8796
0728
7006
4708
-20-
2012
08-2
0-20
12E
ngin
eerin
g2
Pro
ject
Man
ager
or
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r3
1954
1370
1828
7006
4708
-19-
2012
08-1
9-20
12O
wne
r / F
acili
ties
Man
ager
4O
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)8
1946
3141
6028
7005
4908
-12-
2012
08-1
2-20
12H
amilt
onC
onst
ruct
ion
3P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
4506
3934
2870
0549
08-1
0-20
1208
-13-
2012
Tor
onto
Eng
inee
ring
2E
ngin
eer
219
4424
7166
2870
0549
08-1
0-20
1208
-10-
2012
Mon
trea
lO
wne
r / F
acili
ties
Man
ager
4O
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)8
1941
3805
8328
7006
4708
-07-
2012
08-0
7-20
12O
wne
r / F
acili
ties
Man
ager
4M
aint
enan
ce6
1940
9172
9028
7378
4508
-07-
2012
08-0
7-20
12E
dmon
ton
Arc
hite
ctur
al1
Arc
hite
ct1
1940
8369
3328
7006
4708
-07-
2012
08-0
7-20
12O
wne
r / F
acili
ties
Man
ager
4P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
3648
2308
2873
7845
08-0
2-20
1208
-02-
2012
Edm
onto
nO
wne
r / F
acili
ties
Man
ager
4P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
3486
1274
2870
0647
08-0
1-20
1208
-01-
2012
Ow
ner
/ Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
er4
Rea
l Est
ate
719
3443
5130
2870
0647
08-0
1-20
1208
-01-
2012
Eng
inee
ring
2E
ngin
eer
219
3312
3711
2870
0647
07-3
1-20
1207
-31-
2012
Ow
ner
/ Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
er4
Arc
hite
ct1
1932
2533
5528
7005
4907
-30-
2012
07-3
0-20
12C
alga
ryA
rchi
tect
ural
1O
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)8
1931
6279
1728
7005
4907
-30-
2012
07-3
0-20
12H
amilt
onC
onst
ruct
ion
3P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
2976
2206
2870
0647
07-2
7-20
1207
-27-
2012
Ow
ner
/ Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
er4
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
819
2857
1653
2870
0647
07-2
6-20
1207
-26-
2012
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
5C
omm
erci
al R
eal E
stat
e S
ales
and
Lea
sing
Con
sulta
nts
Rea
l Est
ate
719
2785
3970
2870
0549
07-2
6-20
1207
-26-
2012
Tor
onto
Con
stru
ctio
n3
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
819
2758
8979
2870
0647
07-2
6-20
1207
-29-
2012
Con
stru
ctio
n3
Fin
ance
or
Acc
ount
ant
419
2743
6975
2870
6116
07-2
6-20
1207
-26-
2012
Van
couv
erE
ngin
eerin
g2
Eng
inee
r2
1927
0631
6828
7005
4907
-25-
2012
07-2
6-20
12M
issi
ssau
gaC
onst
ruct
ion
3P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
2644
1254
2870
0647
07-2
5-20
1207
-25-
2012
Ow
ner
/ Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
er4
Pro
ject
Man
ager
or
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r3
1926
2232
5528
7005
4907
-25-
2012
07-2
5-20
12T
oron
toC
onst
ruct
ion
3P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
2558
0752
2870
0549
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Tor
onto
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
5M
ater
ial S
uppl
ier
Eng
inee
r2
1925
5447
5128
7005
4907
-24-
2012
07-2
4-20
12Lo
ndon
Con
stru
ctio
n3
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
819
2547
9720
2870
0549
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Cal
gary
Arc
hite
ctur
al1
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
819
2535
6774
2870
0549
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Eng
inee
ring
2P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
2534
2351
2870
0647
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Eng
inee
ring
2P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
2532
6258
2870
0549
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Abb
otsf
ord
Eng
inee
ring
2E
ngin
eer
219
2532
1921
2870
0549
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Tor
onto
Eng
inee
ring
2P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
2531
1656
2870
0549
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
5V
irtua
l Con
stru
ctio
n S
ervi
ces
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
819
2528
1588
2870
0647
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Arc
hite
ctur
al1
Pro
ject
Man
ager
or
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r3
1925
2806
6928
7005
4907
-24-
2012
07-2
4-20
12A
rchi
tect
ural
1A
rchi
tect
119
2525
9835
2870
0647
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Eng
inee
ring
2P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
2521
1376
2870
0549
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Con
stru
ctio
n3
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
819
2520
4811
2870
0549
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Con
stru
ctio
n3
Pro
ject
Man
ager
or
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r3
1925
1975
1828
7005
4907
-24-
2012
07-2
4-20
12A
rchi
tect
ural
1A
rchi
tect
119
2518
1276
2870
0647
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Ow
ner
/ Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
er4
Pro
ject
Man
ager
or
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r3
1925
1170
8228
7006
4707
-24-
2012
07-2
4-20
12O
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)5
Com
mun
icat
ions
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
819
2507
6922
2870
6116
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Arc
hite
ctur
al1
Arc
hite
ct1
1924
5781
2828
7006
4707
-24-
2012
07-2
4-20
12E
ngin
eerin
g2
Pro
ject
Man
ager
or
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r3
1924
5233
0228
7006
4707
-24-
2012
07-2
4-20
12C
onst
ruct
ion
3P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
2451
3959
2870
0647
07-2
4-20
1207
-24-
2012
Ow
ner
/ Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
er4
Mai
nten
ance
619
2442
9855
2870
0647
07-2
3-20
1207
-24-
2012
Con
stru
ctio
n3
Pro
ject
Man
ager
or
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r3
1924
4175
4728
7006
4707
-23-
2012
07-2
3-20
12E
ngin
eerin
g2
Eng
inee
r2
1924
3021
2328
7006
4707
-23-
2012
07-2
3-20
12O
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)5
Edu
catio
nO
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)8
1924
1021
9828
7006
4707
-23-
2012
07-2
3-20
12O
wne
r / F
acili
ties
Man
ager
4P
roje
ct M
anag
er o
r P
roje
ct E
ngin
eer
319
2405
9447
2870
0647
07-2
3-20
1207
-23-
2012
Ow
ner
/ Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
er4
Rea
l Est
ate
719
2405
7249
2870
0549
07-2
3-20
1207
-23-
2012
Arc
hite
ctur
al1
Arc
hite
ct1
1924
0533
5128
7006
4707
-23-
2012
07-2
3-20
12O
wne
r / F
acili
ties
Man
ager
4R
eal E
stat
e7
1924
0511
7528
7006
4707
-23-
2012
07-2
3-20
12E
ngin
eerin
g2
Pro
ject
Man
ager
or
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r3
1924
0478
9728
7006
4707
-23-
2012
07-2
4-20
12E
ngin
eerin
g2
Eng
inee
r2
1924
0406
0828
7006
4707
-23-
2012
07-3
1-20
12E
ngin
eerin
g2
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
819
2403
8295
2870
0647
07-2
3-20
1207
-23-
2012
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
5F
inan
cial
Inst
itutio
nO
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)8
Res
pond
entID
1973
8742
2319
7176
5684
1965
5211
0919
5636
3404
1955
6993
2319
5536
6332
1955
2037
8319
5491
6541
1954
9108
8219
5490
6798
1954
8796
0719
5413
7018
1946
3141
6019
4506
3934
1944
2471
6619
4138
0583
1940
9172
9019
4083
6933
1936
4823
0819
3486
1274
1934
4351
3019
3312
3711
1932
2533
5519
3162
7917
1929
7622
0619
2857
1653
1927
8539
7019
2758
8979
1927
4369
7519
2706
3168
1926
4412
5419
2622
3255
1925
5807
5219
2554
4751
1925
4797
2019
2535
6774
1925
3423
5119
2532
6258
1925
3219
2119
2531
1656
1925
2815
8819
2528
0669
1925
2598
3519
2521
1376
1925
2048
1119
2519
7518
1925
1812
7619
2511
7082
1925
0769
2219
2457
8128
1924
5233
0219
2451
3959
1924
4298
5519
2441
7547
1924
3021
2319
2410
2198
1924
0594
4719
2405
7249
1924
0533
5119
2405
1175
1924
0478
9719
2404
0608
1924
0382
95
Whi
ch o
f the
follo
win
g be
st d
escr
ibes
you
r ro
le in
you
r or
gani
zatio
n?O
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)W
hat l
evel
of r
espo
nsib
ility
do
you
have
in y
our
orga
niza
tion?
Wha
t lev
el o
f res
pons
ibili
ty d
o yo
u ha
ve in
you
r or
gani
zatio
n? N
Wha
t seg
men
t of t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
mar
ket i
s m
ost a
ppro
pria
te to
you
r or
gani
zatio
n? (
clic
k al
l tha
t app
ly)H
ealth
Wha
t seg
men
t of t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
mar
ket i
s m
ost a
ppro
pria
te to
you
r or
gani
zatio
n? (
clic
k al
l tha
t app
ly)E
duca
tion
Wha
t seg
men
t of t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
mar
ket i
s m
ost a
ppro
pria
te to
you
r or
gani
zatio
n? (
clic
k al
l tha
t app
ly)C
omm
erci
alW
hat s
egm
ent o
f the
con
stru
ctio
n m
arke
t is
mos
t app
ropr
iate
to y
our
orga
niza
tion?
(cl
ick
all t
hat a
pply
)Res
iden
tial
Wha
t seg
men
t of t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
mar
ket i
s m
ost a
ppro
pria
te to
you
r or
gani
zatio
n? (
clic
k al
l tha
t app
ly)I
ndus
tria
lW
hat s
egm
ent o
f the
con
stru
ctio
n m
arke
t is
mos
t app
ropr
iate
to y
our
orga
niza
tion?
(cl
ick
all t
hat a
pply
)Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Wha
t seg
men
t of t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
mar
ket i
s m
ost a
ppro
pria
te to
you
r or
gani
zatio
n? (
clic
k al
l tha
t app
ly)P
ublic
Wor
ksW
hat s
egm
ent o
f the
con
stru
ctio
n m
arke
t is
mos
t app
ropr
iate
to y
our
orga
niza
tion?
(cl
ick
all t
hat a
pply
)Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
Whe
re a
re y
ou lo
cate
d?Ju
nior
1C
omm
erci
alIn
dust
rial
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
VD
C M
anag
erS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3H
ealth
Edu
catio
nC
omm
erci
alIn
dust
rial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Pub
lic W
orks
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Com
mer
cial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Edu
catio
nC
anad
aS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3H
ealth
Edu
catio
nC
omm
erci
alR
esid
entia
lIn
dust
rial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Pub
lic W
orks
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Edu
catio
nT
rans
port
atio
nC
anad
aS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3H
ealth
Edu
catio
nC
omm
erci
alIn
dust
rial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Pub
lic W
orks
Can
ada
Exe
cutiv
e M
anag
emen
t4
Hea
lthE
duca
tion
Com
mer
cial
Res
iden
tial
Indu
stria
lT
rans
port
atio
nP
ublic
Wor
ksC
ultu
ral &
Con
serv
atio
nC
anad
aJu
nior
1C
omm
erci
alR
esid
entia
lP
ublic
Wor
ksC
anad
aIn
dust
rial
Can
ada
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Exe
cutiv
e M
anag
emen
t4
Com
mer
cial
Indu
stria
lT
rans
port
atio
nC
anad
aS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3H
ealth
Edu
catio
nC
omm
erci
alR
esid
entia
lIn
dust
rial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Pub
lic W
orks
Can
ada
Inte
rmed
iate
3E
duca
tion
Com
mer
cial
Can
ada
BIM
Man
ager
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Hea
lthR
esid
entia
lIn
dust
rial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Com
mer
cial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
Inte
rmed
iate
3H
ealth
Com
mer
cial
Res
iden
tial
Indu
stria
lT
rans
port
atio
nP
ublic
Wor
ksF
ire &
Am
bula
nce,
Pol
ice,
Lib
rarie
s, Z
oo, H
igh
Ris
es, R
ec C
ente
rs, P
ools
, Are
nas,
Par
ks,
Can
ada
Inte
rmed
iate
3C
omm
erci
alT
rans
port
atio
nP
ublic
Wor
ksC
anad
aS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3C
omm
erci
alF
inan
cial
Inst
itutio
nC
anad
aE
xecu
tive
Man
agem
ent
4C
omm
erci
alC
anad
aE
xecu
tive
Man
agem
ent
4H
ealth
Edu
catio
nC
omm
erci
alR
esid
entia
lIn
dust
rial
Pub
lic W
orks
Can
ada
Inte
rmed
iate
3T
rans
port
atio
nC
anad
aC
oord
inat
orS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3H
ealth
Edu
catio
nC
omm
erci
alR
esid
entia
lIn
dust
rial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Pub
lic W
orks
Can
ada
Inte
rmed
iate
3C
omm
erci
alC
anad
aR
ecor
ds m
anag
emen
tS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3C
omm
erci
alT
rans
port
atio
nP
ublic
Wor
ksC
anad
aS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3C
omm
erci
alIn
dust
rial
Can
ada
VD
C M
anag
erS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3H
ealth
Edu
catio
nC
omm
erci
alIn
dust
rial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Pub
lic W
orks
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Mili
tary
Rec
onst
ruct
ion
- P
ost C
onfli
ct A
reas
Iraq
, Afg
hani
stan
and
Gui
nea
Wes
t Afr
ica
Juni
or1
Com
mer
cial
Indu
stria
lC
anad
aIn
term
edia
te3
Hea
lthE
duca
tion
Com
mer
cial
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Com
mer
cial
Indu
stria
lT
rans
port
atio
nC
anad
aE
xecu
tive
Man
agem
ent
4H
ealth
Com
mer
cial
Indu
stria
lC
anad
aS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3C
omm
erci
alR
esid
entia
lIn
dust
rial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
Dire
ctor
Hea
lthE
duca
tion
Com
mer
cial
Res
iden
tial
Indu
stria
lT
rans
port
atio
nP
ublic
Wor
ksC
anad
aN
atio
nal B
IM M
anag
erS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3H
ealth
Com
mer
cial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Hea
lthE
duca
tion
Can
ada
Inte
rmed
iate
3P
ublic
Wor
ksC
anad
aS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3C
omm
erci
alIn
dust
rial
Can
ada
Exe
cutiv
e M
anag
emen
t4
Hea
lthE
duca
tion
Com
mer
cial
Res
iden
tial
Indu
stria
lT
rans
port
atio
nP
ublic
Wor
ksC
anad
aS
enio
r ex
ecut
ive
Exe
cutiv
e M
anag
emen
t4
Com
mer
cial
Res
iden
tial
Indu
stria
lC
anad
aS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3H
ealth
Edu
catio
nC
omm
erci
alIn
dust
rial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
Exe
cutiv
e M
anag
emen
t4
Com
mer
cial
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Com
mer
cial
Indu
stria
lC
anad
aP
resi
dent
Exe
cutiv
e M
anag
emen
t4
Hea
lthE
duca
tion
Com
mer
cial
Indu
stria
lC
anad
aE
xecu
tive
Man
agem
ent
4H
ealth
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Hea
lthE
duca
tion
Com
mer
cial
Res
iden
tial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
Com
mun
icat
ions
(pu
blic
rel
atio
ns)
Exe
cutiv
e M
anag
emen
t4
Com
mer
cial
Can
ada
Exe
cutiv
e M
anag
emen
t4
Hea
lthE
duca
tion
Com
mer
cial
Res
iden
tial
Indu
stria
lP
ublic
Wor
ksC
anad
aS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3T
rans
port
atio
nC
anad
aS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3T
rans
port
atio
nC
anad
aIn
term
edia
te3
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
Exe
cutiv
e M
anag
emen
t4
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
Inte
rmed
iate
3In
dust
rial
Can
ada
Inst
ruct
orIn
term
edia
te3
Edu
catio
nC
anad
aJu
nior
1T
rans
port
atio
nC
anad
aS
enio
r or
Man
ager
ial
3C
omm
erci
alIn
dust
rial
Can
ada
Exe
cutiv
e M
anag
emen
t4
Hea
lthE
duca
tion
Com
mer
cial
Res
iden
tial
Indu
stria
lT
rans
port
atio
nP
ublic
Wor
ksB
IM C
onsu
lting
Can
ada
Exe
cutiv
e M
anag
emen
t4
Res
iden
tial
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Can
ada
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Indu
stria
lC
anad
aU
rban
Pla
nner
Inte
rmed
iate
3C
omm
erci
alR
esid
entia
lIn
dust
rial
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Pub
lic W
orks
Can
ada
Com
mer
cial
Ban
ker
Sen
ior
or M
anag
eria
l3
Com
mer
cial
Res
iden
tial
Can
ada
Res
pond
entID
1973
8742
2319
7176
5684
1965
5211
0919
5636
3404
1955
6993
2319
5536
6332
1955
2037
8319
5491
6541
1954
9108
8219
5490
6798
1954
8796
0719
5413
7018
1946
3141
6019
4506
3934
1944
2471
6619
4138
0583
1940
9172
9019
4083
6933
1936
4823
0819
3486
1274
1934
4351
3019
3312
3711
1932
2533
5519
3162
7917
1929
7622
0619
2857
1653
1927
8539
7019
2758
8979
1927
4369
7519
2706
3168
1926
4412
5419
2622
3255
1925
5807
5219
2554
4751
1925
4797
2019
2535
6774
1925
3423
5119
2532
6258
1925
3219
2119
2531
1656
1925
2815
8819
2528
0669
1925
2598
3519
2521
1376
1925
2048
1119
2519
7518
1925
1812
7619
2511
7082
1925
0769
2219
2457
8128
1924
5233
0219
2451
3959
1924
4298
5519
2441
7547
1924
3021
2319
2410
2198
1924
0594
4719
2405
7249
1924
0533
5119
2405
1175
1924
0478
9719
2404
0608
1924
0382
95
In th
e pa
st 1
2 m
onth
s ho
w m
any
cons
truc
tion
proj
ects
has
you
r or
gani
zatio
n pa
rtic
ipat
ed in
: In
the
past
12
mon
ths
how
man
y co
nstr
uctio
n pr
ojec
ts h
as y
our
orga
niza
tion
part
icip
ated
in: N
)H
ow m
any
of y
our
orga
niza
tion'
s pr
ojec
ts u
tiliz
ed B
IM te
chno
logy
?H
ow m
any
of y
our
orga
niza
tion'
s pr
ojec
ts u
tiliz
ed B
IM te
chno
logy
? N
In th
e pa
st 1
2 m
onth
s ho
w m
any
cons
truc
tion
proj
ects
hav
e yo
u pe
rson
ally
par
ticip
ated
in:
In th
e pa
st 1
2 m
onth
s ho
w m
any
cons
truc
tion
proj
ects
hav
e yo
u pe
rson
ally
par
ticip
ated
in: N
)H
ow m
any
of y
our
proj
ects
util
ized
BIM
tech
nolo
gy?
How
man
y of
you
r pr
ojec
ts u
tiliz
ed B
IM te
chno
logy
? N
Of y
our
proj
ects
that
util
ized
BIM
, brie
fly d
escr
ibe
the
reas
ons
why
BIM
was
cho
sen
over
a m
ore
trad
ition
al a
ppro
ach?
In th
e pa
st 1
2 m
onth
s w
hat i
s th
e ap
prox
imat
e va
lue
of th
e co
nstr
uctio
n pr
ojec
ts y
our
orga
niza
tion
has
part
icip
ated
in?
In th
e pa
st 1
2 m
onth
s w
hat i
s th
e ap
prox
imat
e va
lue
of th
e co
nstr
uctio
n pr
ojec
ts y
our
orga
niza
tion
has
part
icip
ated
in?
NW
hat i
s yo
ur le
vel o
f exp
erie
nce
with
BIM
tech
nolo
gy?
Wha
t is
your
leve
l of e
xper
ienc
e w
ith B
IM te
chno
logy
? N
Wha
t is
your
per
sona
l exp
erie
nce
usin
g B
IM s
oftw
are?
100+
5
Non
e0
100
5
N
one
0$5
0M+
6N
one
0N
one
51-9
94
1-
10%
101
-10
1N
one
0$5
0M+
6N
ovic
e1
Non
e10
0+5
1-
10%
151
-99
4
1-
10%
1T
ime
and
Mon
ey s
avin
g$5
0M+
6E
xper
ienc
ed3
Exp
erie
nced
21-5
03
1-
10%
101
-10
11-
10%
1T
he a
rchi
tect
onl
y w
orks
in B
IM.$1
0M -
$50
M3
Nov
ice
1N
one
01-1
01
76
-100
%5
01-1
01
76-1
00%
5B
ecau
se B
IM a
llow
s fo
r sh
arin
g da
ta a
mon
g st
akeh
olde
rs.
$50M
+6
Exp
erie
nced
3E
xper
ienc
ed10
0+5
D
on't
know
.6
01-1
01
11-2
5%2
Pilo
t pro
gram
for
clie
nt c
ham
pion
ed b
y ar
chite
ct.
$50M
+6
Non
e0
Non
e01
-10
1
Non
e0
01-1
01
Non
e0
$500
,000
-$1M
5N
one
0N
one
100+
5
Don
't kn
ow.
611
-20
2
25
-50%
3C
lient
and
/ or
Arc
hite
ct p
refe
renc
e$5
0M+
6In
term
edia
te2
Nov
ice
21-5
03
76
-100
%5
01-1
01
76-1
00%
5In
crea
sed
proj
ect v
iabi
lity
and
redu
ced
risk
$100
,001
-$50
0,00
02
Exp
erie
nced
3E
xper
ienc
ed11
-20
2
25-5
0%3
01-1
01
Non
e0
$1M
-$10
M4
Nov
ice
1N
ovic
eD
on't
know
.6
D
on't
know
.6
01-1
01
Non
e0
$50M
+6
Non
e0
Non
e11
-20
2
Don
't kn
ow.
6N
one
-
$50M
+6
Non
e0
Non
e10
0+5
D
on't
know
.6
01-1
01
1-10
%1
We
did
not c
hoos
e. O
wne
rs d
icta
ted
use
to c
onsu
ltant
s.$5
0M+
6In
term
edia
te2
Inte
rmed
iate
11-2
02
76
-100
%5
01-1
01
76-1
00%
5T
hat i
s ou
r st
anda
rd a
ppro
ach
to e
very
pro
ject
, eve
n if
the
clie
nt d
oesn
't de
man
d it.
$50M
+6
Exp
erie
nced
3E
xper
ienc
ed10
0+5
D
on't
know
.6
21-5
03
11-2
5%2
Bet
ter
colla
bora
tion
$50M
+6
Exp
erie
nced
3E
xper
ienc
ed21
-50
3
1-10
%1
21-5
03
$50M
+6
Non
e0
Non
e10
0+5
1-
10%
151
-99
4
N
one
0O
ur c
onsu
ltant
s ch
ose
to u
se B
IM to
pro
duce
thei
r bu
ildin
g dr
awin
gs.
$50M
+6
Nov
ice
1N
one
21-5
03
1-
10%
101
-10
1N
one
0$5
0M+
6N
ovic
e1
Nov
ice
11-2
02
N
one
001
-10
1N
one
0$1
M-$
10M
4N
ovic
e1
Non
e01
-10
1
Non
e0
01-1
01
Non
e0
$10M
- $
50M
3N
one
0N
one
51-9
94
25
-50%
321
-50
3
1-
10%
1A
rcht
iect
/Ow
ner
requ
irem
ent
$50M
+6
Inte
rmed
iate
2N
ovic
e21
-50
3
1-10
%1
01-1
01
1-10
%1
Eor
Co-
ordi
natio
n P
urpo
ses
$50M
+6
Inte
rmed
iate
2N
one
100+
5
25-5
0%3
Non
e-
C
lient
req
uire
men
ts$5
0M+
6In
term
edia
te2
Nov
ice
100+
5
1-10
%1
01-1
01
25-5
0%3
BIM
age
nda
was
pus
hed
by th
e A
rchi
tect
$50M
+6
Nov
ice
1N
ovic
e21
-50
3
1-10
%1
11-2
02
1-10
%1
oppo
rtun
ity fo
r a
pilo
t pro
ject
$50M
+6
Nov
ice
1N
ovic
e01
-10
1
Don
't kn
ow.
601
-10
1N
one
0$1
0M -
$50
M3
Non
e0
Non
e10
0+5
1-
10%
151
-99
4
51
-75%
4C
larit
y, C
onst
ruct
ibili
ty, S
ched
ulin
g, L
ogis
tics
and
Spe
ed$5
0M+
6E
xper
ienc
ed3
Exp
erie
nced
11-2
02
N
one
011
-20
2
N
one
0D
ue to
con
stra
ints
and
the
extr
eme
chal
leng
ing
envi
ronm
ent o
f pos
t-w
ar c
onfli
ct z
ones
, BIM
is n
ot u
sed.
$50M
+6
Non
e0
Non
e
01-1
01
25
-50%
301
-10
111
-25%
2G
eom
etry
of t
he c
ladd
ing
is c
ompl
ex, t
radi
tiona
l app
roac
h m
ay n
ot h
ave
achi
eved
the
desi
red
finis
hed
prod
uct.
Als
o to
red
uce
sche
dule
and
cos
t. A
ll st
ruct
ural
ste
el a
nd m
isc
met
al s
ub c
ontr
acto
rs u
sed
BIM
tech
nolo
gy a
s it
is fu
lly in
treg
rate
d in
to th
eir
regu
lar
proc
esse
s.$5
0M+
6E
xper
ienc
ed3
Exp
erie
nced
21-5
03
1-
10%
101
-10
11-
10%
1T
he A
rchi
tect
of r
ecor
d us
es B
IM a
s a
tool
for
mor
e ef
ficie
nt d
eesi
gn$1
M-$
10M
4N
one
0N
one
11-2
02
1-
10%
101
-10
11-
10%
1T
rade
inst
alla
tion
inte
rfer
ence
dra
win
gs$1
0M -
$50
M3
Nov
ice
1N
one
100+
5
11-2
5%2
21-5
03
11-2
5%2
We
are
targ
etin
g to
use
BIM
on
all m
ajor
wor
k an
d/or
whe
n cl
ient
s as
k fo
r it.
$50M
+6
Exp
erie
nced
3E
xper
ienc
ed10
0+5
51
-75%
401
-10
176
-100
%5
Ow
ner
requ
ests
, prim
e co
nsul
tant
req
uest
& w
orkf
low
ben
efits
$50M
+6
Exp
erie
nced
3E
xper
ienc
edD
on't
know
.6
1-
10%
101
-10
176
-100
%5
Nov
ice
1N
one
21-5
03
25
-50%
301
-10
11-
10%
1T
o un
ders
tand
the
scal
e of
the
proj
ect a
nd it
's d
etai
ls.
$500
,000
-$1M
5N
one
0N
one
21-5
03
76
-100
%5
01-1
01
76-1
00%
5In
our
com
pany
BIM
has
bee
n us
ed fo
r a
very
long
tim
e be
caus
e of
the
cost
sav
ings
. Als
o, o
fferin
g B
IM m
odel
s to
our
clie
nts
inst
ead
of ju
st 2
D d
raw
ings
and
3D
mod
el a
dds
valu
e to
our
ser
vice
s. S
o ev
ery
proj
ect i
s a
BIM
pro
ject
for
us.
$50M
+6
Exp
erie
nced
3E
xper
ienc
ed01
-10
1
25-5
0%3
Non
e-
25
-50%
3W
e w
ork
only
in th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t. i a
m h
eavi
ly fo
cuss
ed o
n B
IM fo
r ex
istin
g bu
ildin
gs. S
o it
is n
ot r
eally
con
stru
ctio
n.$1
00,0
01-$
500,
000
2In
term
edia
te2
Nov
ice
11-2
02
76
-100
%5
Non
e-
76
-100
%5
We
are
a co
nsul
ting
firm
spe
cial
izin
g in
virt
ual c
onst
ruct
ion
serv
ices
. K
ey s
ervi
ce :
BIM
Coo
rdin
atio
n$5
0M+
6E
xper
ienc
ed3
Nov
ice
11-2
02
25
-50%
301
-10
176
-100
%5
Clie
nt r
eque
sts
$50M
+6
Inte
rmed
iate
2N
ovic
e10
0+5
1-
10%
121
-50
3
1-
10%
1C
lient
dem
and
$10M
- $
50M
3N
ovic
e1
Nov
ice
11-2
02
N
one
011
-20
2
N
one
0$1
00,0
01-$
500,
000
2In
term
edia
te2
Inte
rmed
iate
51-9
94
1-
10%
151
-99
4
1-
10%
1T
his
was
man
date
d by
the
Gen
eral
Con
trac
tor
in o
rder
to e
stab
lish
a B
IM p
roto
col w
ith it
's s
ub c
ontr
acto
rs a
nd s
uppl
iers
.$1
0M -
$50
M3
Nov
ice
1N
one
21-5
03
1-
10%
111
-20
2
1-
10%
1C
lient
s re
ques
t$1
M-$
10M
4N
ovic
e1
Nov
ice
11-2
02
51
-75%
401
-10
151
-75%
4m
ostly
clie
nt d
riven
$10M
- $
50M
3E
xper
ienc
ed3
Exp
erie
nced
21-5
03
1-
10%
1N
one
-
Non
e0
$50M
+6
Non
e0
Non
e01
-10
1
Don
't kn
ow.
6N
one
-
Non
e0
$0-$
100,
000
1N
one
0N
one
21-5
03
76
-100
%5
21-5
03
76-1
00%
5B
est s
olut
ion
for
our
clie
nts
$10M
- $
50M
3E
xper
ienc
ed3
Exp
erie
nced
100+
5
Don
't kn
ow.
601
-10
1N
one
0$5
0M+
6N
ovic
e1
Non
e21
-50
3
Non
e0
01-1
01
Non
e0
$50M
+6
Non
e0
Non
e11
-20
2
1-10
%1
01-1
01
Non
e0
$50M
+6
Non
e0
Non
e01
-10
1
25-5
0%3
01-1
01
25-5
0%3
Red
uce
com
plic
atio
ns d
ue to
inte
rfac
es$5
0M+
6N
ovic
e1
Non
eD
on't
know
.6
D
on't
know
.6
Non
e-
N
one
0N
one
0N
one
Non
e-
Non
e0
01-1
01
Non
e0
$0-$
100,
000
1N
one
0N
one
21-5
03
D
on't
know
.6
11-2
02
1-10
%1
I bel
ieve
that
the
exis
ting
BIM
will
be
upda
ted
by th
e ar
chite
ctur
al c
onsu
ltant
(s)
invo
lved
in th
e te
nant
impr
ovem
ents
of t
he n
ew c
entr
al o
ffice
tow
er a
t the
Edm
onto
n In
tern
atio
nal A
irpor
t. H
ad B
IM n
ot b
een
prev
ious
ly d
one,
then
it w
ould
not
hav
e be
en c
ost e
ffect
ive
to h
ave
BIM
wor
k do
ne fo
r th
e te
nant
spa
ces
from
scr
atch
.$5
0M+
6N
one
0N
one
21-5
03
1-
10%
111
-20
2
N
one
0$5
0M+
6N
one
0N
one
11-2
02
76
-100
%5
11-2
02
76-1
00%
5A
lway
s us
e th
e ab
solu
te b
est s
olut
ions
for
your
clie
nt. N
ever
use
any
thin
g as
an
excu
se to
not
suc
ceed
$1M
-$10
M4
Exp
erie
nced
3E
xper
ienc
edN
one
-
D
on't
know
.6
Non
e-
N
one
0$0
-$10
0,00
01
Non
e0
Non
e10
0+5
D
on't
know
.6
01-1
01
1-10
%1
BIM
was
cho
sen
due
to th
e co
mpl
ex g
eom
etry
of t
he b
uild
ing.
It w
as n
ot p
ossi
ble
to c
oord
inat
e al
l of t
he b
uild
ing
enve
lope
ele
men
ts w
ithou
t the
use
of a
3D
inte
grat
ed m
odel
$50M
+6
Nov
ice
1N
one
01-1
01
N
one
001
-10
1N
one
0N
ot A
pplic
able
$1M
-$10
M4
Nov
ice
1N
one
100+
5
Don
't kn
ow.
6N
one
-
Non
e0
$10M
- $
50M
3N
one
0N
one
Res
pond
entID
1973
8742
2319
7176
5684
1965
5211
0919
5636
3404
1955
6993
2319
5536
6332
1955
2037
8319
5491
6541
1954
9108
8219
5490
6798
1954
8796
0719
5413
7018
1946
3141
6019
4506
3934
1944
2471
6619
4138
0583
1940
9172
9019
4083
6933
1936
4823
0819
3486
1274
1934
4351
3019
3312
3711
1932
2533
5519
3162
7917
1929
7622
0619
2857
1653
1927
8539
7019
2758
8979
1927
4369
7519
2706
3168
1926
4412
5419
2622
3255
1925
5807
5219
2554
4751
1925
4797
2019
2535
6774
1925
3423
5119
2532
6258
1925
3219
2119
2531
1656
1925
2815
8819
2528
0669
1925
2598
3519
2521
1376
1925
2048
1119
2519
7518
1925
1812
7619
2511
7082
1925
0769
2219
2457
8128
1924
5233
0219
2451
3959
1924
4298
5519
2441
7547
1924
3021
2319
2410
2198
1924
0594
4719
2405
7249
1924
0533
5119
2405
1175
1924
0478
9719
2404
0608
1924
0382
95
Wha
t is
your
per
sona
l exp
erie
nce
usin
g B
IM s
oftw
are?
NW
hat i
s yo
ur o
rgan
izat
ion'
s le
vel o
f exp
erie
nce
with
BIM
tech
nolo
gy?
Wha
t is
your
org
aniz
atio
n's
leve
l of e
xper
ienc
e w
ith B
IM te
chno
logy
? N
BIM
can
be
used
to im
prov
e fa
cilit
ies
man
agem
ent.
BIM
can
be
used
to im
prov
e fa
cilit
ies
man
agem
ent.
NB
IM c
an b
e us
ed to
incr
ease
an
orga
niza
tion'
s co
mpe
titiv
e ad
vant
age.
BIM
can
be
used
to in
crea
se a
n or
gani
zatio
n's
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e. N
In y
our
opin
ion,
who
ben
ifits
the
mos
t fro
m a
BIM
mod
el?
In y
our
opin
ion,
who
ben
ifits
the
mos
t fro
m a
BIM
mod
el?O
ther
In y
our
opin
ion,
who
is r
equi
red
to im
plem
ent a
n in
tegr
ated
BIM
and
Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
emen
t Mod
el (
plea
se c
heck
all
that
app
ly)?
Arc
hite
ctIn
you
r op
inio
n, w
ho is
req
uire
d to
impl
emen
t an
inte
grat
ed B
IM a
nd F
acili
ties
Man
agem
ent M
odel
(pl
ease
che
ck a
ll th
at a
pply
)?E
ngin
eer
In y
our
opin
ion,
who
is r
equi
red
to im
plem
ent a
n in
tegr
ated
BIM
and
Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
emen
t Mod
el (
plea
se c
heck
all
that
app
ly)?
Con
stru
ctor
In y
our
opin
ion,
who
is r
equi
red
to im
plem
ent a
n in
tegr
ated
BIM
and
Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
emen
t Mod
el (
plea
se c
heck
all
that
app
ly)?
Fac
ility
Man
ager
In y
our
opin
ion,
who
is r
equi
red
to im
plem
ent a
n in
tegr
ated
BIM
and
Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
emen
t Mod
el (
plea
se c
heck
all
that
app
ly)?
Ow
ner
In y
our
opin
ion,
who
is r
equi
red
to im
plem
ent a
n in
tegr
ated
BIM
and
Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
emen
t Mod
el (
plea
se c
heck
all
that
app
ly)?
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
0D
on't
know
4S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2F
acili
ty M
anag
erA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r0
Nov
ice
1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
All
all
Arc
hite
ctE
ngin
eer
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
4In
term
edia
te2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Ow
ner
Arc
hite
ctE
ngin
eer
Con
stru
ctor
Fac
ility
Man
ager
0D
on't
know
4S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Arc
hite
ctE
ngin
eer
Con
stru
ctor
Fac
ility
Man
ager
4E
xper
ienc
ed3
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Ow
ner
Ow
ner
0In
term
edia
te2
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Ow
ner
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
0N
one
0A
gree
1A
gree
1O
wne
rA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r1
Exp
erie
nced
3S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
llA
ll of
the
abov
eO
wne
r4
Inte
rmed
iate
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Ow
ner
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
1In
term
edia
te2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Arc
hite
ctA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
or0
Don
't kn
ow4
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Ow
ner
Arc
hite
ctE
ngin
eer
Con
stru
ctor
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
0D
on't
know
4N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0O
ther
(pl
ease
spe
cify
)D
on't
know
Don
't kn
ow3
Exp
erie
nced
3A
gree
1A
gree
1O
wne
rA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r4
Exp
erie
nced
3S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2C
onst
ruct
orA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r4
Nov
ice
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0O
wne
rA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r0
Nov
ice
1A
gree
1A
gree
1F
acili
ty M
anag
erF
acili
ty M
anag
er0
Nov
ice
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
llI b
elie
ve e
very
one
coul
d be
nefit
if B
IM w
as u
sed
prop
erlyFac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
1D
on't
know
4A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Eng
inee
rA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
rT
rade
s0
Non
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Ow
ner
Arc
hite
ctE
ngin
eer
Con
stru
ctor
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
0N
one
0A
gree
1A
gree
1C
onst
ruct
orA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r1
Exp
erie
nced
3A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1F
acili
ty M
anag
erA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
or0
Nov
ice
1A
gree
1A
gree
1F
acili
ty M
anag
erA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r1
Exp
erie
nced
3D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1C
onst
ruct
orA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r1
Inte
rmed
iate
2A
gree
1A
gree
1F
acili
ty M
anag
erA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r1
Non
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Con
stru
ctor
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
0N
one
0A
gree
1A
gree
1C
onst
ruct
orA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
or4
Inte
rmed
iate
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2C
onst
ruct
orA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
er0
Don
't kn
ow4
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
All
I wou
ld a
gree
that
all
part
ies
wou
ld b
enef
itA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
or
4E
xper
ienc
ed3
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Con
stru
ctor
Ow
ner
0N
one
0A
gree
1A
gree
1A
rchi
tect
Arc
hite
ctE
ngin
eer
Con
stru
ctor
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
0N
ovic
e1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0F
acili
ty M
anag
erA
rchi
tect
Ow
ner
4E
xper
ienc
ed3
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
All
depe
nds
on th
e th
e co
ntac
t typ
e an
d w
ho is
at r
isk.
typi
cally
the
build
er &
sub
s as
they
are
at r
isk.
Con
stru
ctor
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
ME
P s
ub c
ontr
acto
rs m
ust p
rovi
de c
ritic
al c
omm
issi
onin
g da
ta4
Exp
erie
nced
3S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2O
wne
rA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r0
Nov
ice
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0O
wne
rA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r0
Inte
rmed
iate
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2C
onst
ruct
orA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
r4
Exp
erie
nced
3S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2O
wne
rC
onst
ruct
or1
Inte
rmed
iate
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2O
wne
rA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
rB
IM c
onsu
ltant
s1
Exp
erie
nced
3S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2O
wne
rO
wne
r1
Exp
erie
nced
3S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2O
wne
rA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rO
wne
r1
Nov
ice
13
Inte
rmed
iate
2A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
0N
one
0A
gree
1A
gree
1A
llA
ll ca
n be
nefit
dep
endi
ng o
n th
e le
vel o
f det
ail i
n th
e m
odel
Arc
hite
ctE
ngin
eer
Con
stru
ctor
Fac
ility
Man
ager
1N
ovic
e1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0O
wne
rA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r4
Exp
erie
nced
3S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2C
onst
ruct
orC
onst
ruct
or0
Non
e0
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1O
wne
rA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r0
Non
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Ow
ner
Arc
hite
ctE
ngin
eer
Con
stru
ctor
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
4E
xper
ienc
ed3
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
The
pro
ject
itse
lfA
rchi
tect
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
0D
on't
know
4N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0F
acili
ty M
anag
erF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r0
Don
't kn
ow4
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
0N
ovic
e1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erIT
0N
ovic
e1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1O
wne
rA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r0
Don
't kn
ow4
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Arc
hite
ct0
Don
't kn
ow4
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Oth
er (
plea
se s
peci
fy)
Don
't kn
owD
on't
know
0N
ovic
e1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0F
acili
ty M
anag
erA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r0
Don
't kn
ow4
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1O
wne
rE
ngin
eer
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
4E
xper
ienc
ed3
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
All
Ent
ire p
roje
ct te
amE
ntire
pro
ject
team
0D
on't
know
4A
gree
1A
gree
1F
acili
ty M
anag
erA
rchi
tect
Eng
inee
rC
onst
ruct
orF
acili
ty M
anag
er0
Don
't kn
ow4
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
All
Arc
hite
ct r
equi
res
it to
des
ign.
Con
stru
ctor
nee
ds th
e de
taile
d de
sign
dra
win
gs. O
wne
r be
nefit
s du
e to
sav
ings
in s
ched
ule
and
bette
r in
tegr
atio
n of
the
draw
ings
. Les
s ch
ange
s. C
ost s
avin
gs.
Arc
hite
ctE
ngin
eer
Con
stru
ctor
Fac
ility
Man
ager
Ow
ner
0N
ovic
e1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0F
acili
ty M
anag
erF
acili
ty M
anag
erO
wne
r0
Exp
erie
nced
3A
gree
1A
gree
1E
ngin
eer
Eng
inee
r
Res
pond
entID
1973
8742
2319
7176
5684
1965
5211
0919
5636
3404
1955
6993
2319
5536
6332
1955
2037
8319
5491
6541
1954
9108
8219
5490
6798
1954
8796
0719
5413
7018
1946
3141
6019
4506
3934
1944
2471
6619
4138
0583
1940
9172
9019
4083
6933
1936
4823
0819
3486
1274
1934
4351
3019
3312
3711
1932
2533
5519
3162
7917
1929
7622
0619
2857
1653
1927
8539
7019
2758
8979
1927
4369
7519
2706
3168
1926
4412
5419
2622
3255
1925
5807
5219
2554
4751
1925
4797
2019
2535
6774
1925
3423
5119
2532
6258
1925
3219
2119
2531
1656
1925
2815
8819
2528
0669
1925
2598
3519
2521
1376
1925
2048
1119
2519
7518
1925
1812
7619
2511
7082
1925
0769
2219
2457
8128
1924
5233
0219
2451
3959
1924
4298
5519
2441
7547
1924
3021
2319
2410
2198
1924
0594
4719
2405
7249
1924
0533
5119
2405
1175
1924
0478
9719
2404
0608
1924
0382
95
Dec
isio
n m
aker
s in
my
com
pany
und
erst
and
the
bene
fits
of B
IM.
Dec
isio
n m
aker
s in
my
com
pany
und
erst
and
the
bene
fits
of B
IM. N
Dec
isio
n m
aker
s in
my
com
pany
bel
ieve
BIM
cos
ts m
ore
to u
se c
ompa
red
to m
ore
trad
ition
al m
etho
ds o
f del
iver
y.D
ecis
ion
mak
ers
in m
y co
mpa
ny b
elie
ve B
IM c
osts
mor
e to
use
com
pare
d to
mor
e tr
aditi
onal
met
hods
of d
eliv
ery.
ND
ecis
ion
mak
ers
in m
y co
mpa
ny b
elie
ve th
at B
IM c
an b
e le
vera
ged
for
use
in F
acili
ties
Man
agem
ent.
Dec
isio
n m
aker
s in
my
com
pany
bel
ieve
that
BIM
can
be
leve
rage
d fo
r us
e in
Fac
ilitie
s M
anag
emen
t. N
BIM
can
be
(or
is)
used
for
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng in
my
orga
niza
tion.
BIM
can
be
(or
is)
used
for
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng in
my
orga
niza
tion.
ND
ecis
ion
mak
ers
in m
y co
mpa
ny a
re a
bar
rier
to B
IM a
dopt
ion.
Dec
isio
n m
aker
s in
my
com
pany
are
a b
arrie
r to
BIM
ado
ptio
n.S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Ent
ire p
roje
ct te
amS
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Res
pond
entID
1973
8742
2319
7176
5684
1965
5211
0919
5636
3404
1955
6993
2319
5536
6332
1955
2037
8319
5491
6541
1954
9108
8219
5490
6798
1954
8796
0719
5413
7018
1946
3141
6019
4506
3934
1944
2471
6619
4138
0583
1940
9172
9019
4083
6933
1936
4823
0819
3486
1274
1934
4351
3019
3312
3711
1932
2533
5519
3162
7917
1929
7622
0619
2857
1653
1927
8539
7019
2758
8979
1927
4369
7519
2706
3168
1926
4412
5419
2622
3255
1925
5807
5219
2554
4751
1925
4797
2019
2535
6774
1925
3423
5119
2532
6258
1925
3219
2119
2531
1656
1925
2815
8819
2528
0669
1925
2598
3519
2521
1376
1925
2048
1119
2519
7518
1925
1812
7619
2511
7082
1925
0769
2219
2457
8128
1924
5233
0219
2451
3959
1924
4298
5519
2441
7547
1924
3021
2319
2410
2198
1924
0594
4719
2405
7249
1924
0533
5119
2405
1175
1924
0478
9719
2404
0608
1924
0382
95
Cur
rent
BIM
indu
stry
sta
ndar
ds a
re s
uffic
ient
to d
evel
op a
usa
ble
BIM
mod
el.
Cur
rent
BIM
indu
stry
sta
ndar
ds a
re s
uffic
ient
to d
evel
op a
usa
ble
BIM
mod
el. N
A p
roce
ss /
impl
emen
tatio
n ro
ad m
ap is
req
uire
d fo
r m
y or
gani
zatio
n to
use
BIM
in a
pro
ject
.A
pro
cess
/ im
plem
enta
tion
road
map
is r
equi
red
for
my
orga
niza
tion
to u
se B
IM in
a p
roje
ct. N
Cur
rent
BIM
sta
ndar
ds a
nd p
roce
sses
are
too
com
plic
ated
to im
plem
ent i
n m
y or
gani
zatio
n.C
urre
nt B
IM s
tand
ards
and
pro
cess
es a
re to
o co
mpl
icat
ed to
impl
emen
t in
my
orga
niza
tion.
NM
y or
gani
zatio
n is
aw
are
of c
urre
nt in
dust
ry s
tand
ards
, bes
t pra
ctis
es a
nd im
plem
enta
tion
met
hodo
logi
es fo
r B
IM.
My
orga
niza
tion
is a
war
e of
cur
rent
indu
stry
sta
ndar
ds, b
est p
ract
ises
and
impl
emen
tatio
n m
etho
dolo
gies
for
BIM
. NS
tand
ards
and
wor
k pr
oces
ses
are
a ba
rrie
r to
BIM
impl
emen
tatio
n.S
tand
ards
and
wor
k pr
oces
ses
are
a ba
rrie
r to
BIM
impl
emen
tatio
n. N
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Res
pond
entID
1973
8742
2319
7176
5684
1965
5211
0919
5636
3404
1955
6993
2319
5536
6332
1955
2037
8319
5491
6541
1954
9108
8219
5490
6798
1954
8796
0719
5413
7018
1946
3141
6019
4506
3934
1944
2471
6619
4138
0583
1940
9172
9019
4083
6933
1936
4823
0819
3486
1274
1934
4351
3019
3312
3711
1932
2533
5519
3162
7917
1929
7622
0619
2857
1653
1927
8539
7019
2758
8979
1927
4369
7519
2706
3168
1926
4412
5419
2622
3255
1925
5807
5219
2554
4751
1925
4797
2019
2535
6774
1925
3423
5119
2532
6258
1925
3219
2119
2531
1656
1925
2815
8819
2528
0669
1925
2598
3519
2521
1376
1925
2048
1119
2519
7518
1925
1812
7619
2511
7082
1925
0769
2219
2457
8128
1924
5233
0219
2451
3959
1924
4298
5519
2441
7547
1924
3021
2319
2410
2198
1924
0594
4719
2405
7249
1924
0533
5119
2405
1175
1924
0478
9719
2404
0608
1924
0382
95
Sof
twar
e lim
itatio
ns p
reve
nt B
IM fr
om e
ffect
ivel
y be
ing
used
in F
acili
ties
Man
agem
ent
Sof
twar
e lim
itatio
ns p
reve
nt B
IM fr
om e
ffect
ivel
y be
ing
used
in F
acili
ties
Man
agem
ent N
Fac
ility
Man
ager
s do
not
typi
cally
kno
w h
ow to
use
BIM
sof
twar
eF
acili
ty M
anag
ers
do n
ot ty
pica
lly k
now
how
to u
se B
IM s
oftw
are
NM
y or
gani
zatio
n pr
efer
s m
ore
trad
ition
al m
etho
ds fo
r pr
ojec
t del
iver
y ov
er B
IM b
ecau
se o
f sim
plic
ity o
r ea
se o
f use
of s
oftw
are.
My
orga
niza
tion
pref
ers
mor
e tr
aditi
onal
met
hods
for
proj
ect d
eliv
ery
over
BIM
bec
ause
of s
impl
icity
or
ease
of u
se o
f sof
twar
e. N
Sof
twar
e lim
itatio
ns d
o no
t allo
w B
IM s
oftw
are
to in
tero
pera
te w
ith e
xist
ing
Fac
ility
Man
agem
ent t
ools
.S
oftw
are
limita
tions
do
not a
llow
BIM
sof
twar
e to
inte
rope
rate
with
exi
stin
g F
acili
ty M
anag
emen
t too
ls. N
Sof
twar
e lim
itatio
ns a
re a
bar
rier
to B
IM a
dopt
ion.
Sof
twar
e lim
itatio
ns a
re a
bar
rier
to B
IM a
dopt
ion.
ND
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
eeS
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
eeS
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
eeN
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Res
pond
entID
1973
8742
2319
7176
5684
1965
5211
0919
5636
3404
1955
6993
2319
5536
6332
1955
2037
8319
5491
6541
1954
9108
8219
5490
6798
1954
8796
0719
5413
7018
1946
3141
6019
4506
3934
1944
2471
6619
4138
0583
1940
9172
9019
4083
6933
1936
4823
0819
3486
1274
1934
4351
3019
3312
3711
1932
2533
5519
3162
7917
1929
7622
0619
2857
1653
1927
8539
7019
2758
8979
1927
4369
7519
2706
3168
1926
4412
5419
2622
3255
1925
5807
5219
2554
4751
1925
4797
2019
2535
6774
1925
3423
5119
2532
6258
1925
3219
2119
2531
1656
1925
2815
8819
2528
0669
1925
2598
3519
2521
1376
1925
2048
1119
2519
7518
1925
1812
7619
2511
7082
1925
0769
2219
2457
8128
1924
5233
0219
2451
3959
1924
4298
5519
2441
7547
1924
3021
2319
2410
2198
1924
0594
4719
2405
7249
1924
0533
5119
2405
1175
1924
0478
9719
2404
0608
1924
0382
95
Des
ign
firm
s ar
e tr
aine
d to
effe
ctiv
ely
utili
ze B
IM te
chno
logy
.D
esig
n fir
ms
are
trai
ned
to e
ffect
ivel
y ut
ilize
BIM
tech
nolo
gy. N
The
lack
of f
acili
ties
man
agem
ent c
onsi
dera
tion
in d
esig
n lim
its w
hat a
BIM
can
be
used
for
in fa
cilit
ies
man
agem
ent.
The
lack
of f
acili
ties
man
agem
ent c
onsi
dera
tion
in d
esig
n lim
its w
hat a
BIM
can
be
used
for
in fa
cilit
ies
man
agem
ent.
ND
ata
inte
grity
issu
es r
esul
t in
an u
nusa
ble
BIM
at t
urno
ver.
Dat
a in
tegr
ity is
sues
res
ult i
n an
unu
sabl
e B
IM a
t tur
nove
r. N
Lack
of c
olla
bora
tion
betw
een
part
ies
resu
lts in
an
unus
able
BIM
at p
roje
ct tu
rnov
er.
Lack
of c
olla
bora
tion
betw
een
part
ies
resu
lts in
an
unus
able
BIM
at p
roje
ct tu
rnov
er. N
Fac
ility
man
ager
s ha
ve s
uffic
ient
kno
wle
dge
or e
xper
tise
to im
plem
ent a
BIM
afte
r pr
ojec
t tur
nove
r.F
acili
ty m
anag
ers
have
suf
ficie
nt k
now
ledg
e or
exp
ertis
e to
impl
emen
t a B
IM a
fter
proj
ect t
urno
ver.
ND
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Dis
agre
e-1
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1A
gree
1A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Agr
ee1
Dis
agre
e-1
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1S
tron
gly
agre
e2
Agr
ee1
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
2D
isag
ree
-1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0D
isag
ree
-1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee-2
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0S
tron
gly
disa
gree
-2D
isag
ree
-1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Agr
ee1
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1A
gree
1N
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
0A
gree
1
Res
pond
entID
1973
8742
2319
7176
5684
1965
5211
0919
5636
3404
1955
6993
2319
5536
6332
1955
2037
8319
5491
6541
1954
9108
8219
5490
6798
1954
8796
0719
5413
7018
1946
3141
6019
4506
3934
1944
2471
6619
4138
0583
1940
9172
9019
4083
6933
1936
4823
0819
3486
1274
1934
4351
3019
3312
3711
1932
2533
5519
3162
7917
1929
7622
0619
2857
1653
1927
8539
7019
2758
8979
1927
4369
7519
2706
3168
1926
4412
5419
2622
3255
1925
5807
5219
2554
4751
1925
4797
2019
2535
6774
1925
3423
5119
2532
6258
1925
3219
2119
2531
1656
1925
2815
8819
2528
0669
1925
2598
3519
2521
1376
1925
2048
1119
2519
7518
1925
1812
7619
2511
7082
1925
0769
2219
2457
8128
1924
5233
0219
2451
3959
1924
4298
5519
2441
7547
1924
3021
2319
2410
2198
1924
0594
4719
2405
7249
1924
0533
5119
2405
1175
1924
0478
9719
2404
0608
1924
0382
95
BIM
impl
emen
tatio
n is
sues
are
a b
arrie
r to
ado
ptio
n.B
IM im
plem
enta
tion
issu
es a
re a
bar
rier
to a
dopt
ion.
NM
anag
emen
t dec
isio
n to
impl
emen
t BIM
Ade
quat
e S
tand
ards
for
BIM
Wor
k / m
anag
emen
t pro
cess
esV
ersi
on c
ontr
ol o
f BIM
mod
elD
ata
inte
grity
of B
IM m
odel
(in
clud
ing
as-b
uilt
mod
el)
Inte
rope
rabi
lity
of B
IM w
ith o
ther
sof
twar
e pa
ckag
es (
incl
udin
g F
acili
ty M
anag
emen
t)C
olla
bora
tion
betw
een
all p
artie
s in
a c
onst
ruct
ion
proj
ect (
Arc
hite
cts,
Eng
inee
rs, C
onst
ruct
ors,
Fac
ility
Man
ager
s)A
vaila
ble
trai
ning
for
BIM
Indu
stry
's le
vel o
f exp
ertis
eS
oftw
are
capa
bilit
yA
re th
ere
any
othe
r ba
rrie
rs o
f ado
ptio
n to
BIM
in F
acili
ties
Man
agem
ent t
hat y
ou c
an th
ink
of?
Is th
ere
anyt
hing
you
wou
ld li
ke to
add
to y
our
resp
onse
s?W
ould
you
be
will
ing
to p
artic
ipat
e in
a s
truc
ture
d in
terv
iew
?S
tron
gly
agre
e2
26
59
103
71
48
IY
esA
gree
18
57
16
29
410
3C
ost o
f tra
inin
g w
thin
a v
ery
finan
cial
ly c
ompe
titiv
e m
arke
tN
oD
isag
ree
-16
79
34
510
28
1Y
esA
gree
12
46
108
53
91
7Y
esS
tron
gly
agre
e2
108
12
36
94
57
Yes
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
09
310
25
47
86
1N
oD
isag
ree
-11
75
89
103
24
6I a
m s
o so
rry
that
I'm
not
fam
iliar
with
BIM
. Per
haps
a p
recu
rsor
to m
y pa
rtic
ipat
ion
in th
is s
urve
y m
ight
be
an a
rtic
le o
r pr
imer
so
I und
erst
and
it be
tter.
Yes
Agr
ee1
67
24
35
89
101
Yes
Agr
ee1
102
63
49
51
78
gene
ratio
nal d
iffer
ence
s be
twee
n th
e de
cisi
on m
aker
s an
d th
e de
cisi
on im
plem
ente
rsY
esN
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
91
67
23
48
105
No
Agr
ee1
82
64
97
105
31
No
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
09
21
34
56
78
10N
ot fa
mili
ar w
ith B
IMN
oA
gree
110
23
45
67
89
1Y
esD
isag
ree
-14
52
110
67
38
9I t
hink
as
long
as
desi
gner
s ar
e w
orki
ng u
nder
trad
ition
al c
ontr
acts
and
del
iver
y m
odel
s w
e w
ill c
ontin
ue to
see
the
focu
s se
t on
draw
ings
and
not
the
mod
els.
Des
ign
build
con
trac
ts s
eem
to b
e th
e m
ost e
ffect
ive,
sin
ce it
inte
grat
es m
ost o
f the
team
, but
firm
s w
ill s
till o
nly
do w
hat t
hey
are
paid
to d
o.Y
esA
gree
16
43
27
105
18
9N
oN
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
14
52
36
78
910
No
Agr
ee1
13
72
84
106
95
BIM
is n
ot w
idel
y us
ed a
t thi
s cu
rren
t tim
e; o
ur o
rgan
izat
ion
need
s to
ens
ure
that
our
AsB
uilt
draw
ings
, BIM
Mod
el, d
ata
etc.
can
be
acce
ssed
and
use
d by
var
ious
are
a af
ter
the
data
is c
reat
ed.
No
Agr
ee1
87
91
54
102
63
No
Agr
ee1
910
23
14
57
68
Que
stio
n 22
doe
s no
t allo
w m
e to
ran
k th
e ba
rrie
rs p
rope
rly.
No
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
01
35
107
96
42
8Y
esN
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
72
39
810
51
64
Har
war
e re
quire
men
ts/s
peed
No
Dis
agre
e-1
84
52
36
910
71
Cos
tB
IM is
acc
essi
ble
to th
e la
rger
Firm
s be
caus
e of
the
initi
al in
vest
emen
t and
cos
t oth
er s
yste
ms
are
also
ava
ilabl
e an
d be
com
min
g m
ore
com
petit
ive,
it is
all
in a
pro
cess
of d
evel
opm
ent.
No
Agr
ee1
42
61
710
83
59
Aw
aren
ess
by th
e in
dust
ry a
s a
who
le. T
here
are
gap
s be
twee
n de
sign
ers,
con
trac
tors
, sub
-tra
des,
and
FM
. The
re is
a fi
nanc
ial b
arrie
r fr
o sm
all a
nd m
ediu
m s
ize
ente
rpris
es (
SM
E's
) to
get
into
BIM
with
littl
e re
turn
on
inve
stm
ent.
Thi
s su
rvey
take
s a
broa
d pe
rspe
ctiv
e of
BIM
how
ever
the
barr
iers
to im
plem
enta
tion
are
muc
h m
ore
gran
ular
and
will
var
y by
indu
stry
. For
exa
mpl
e it
is e
asie
r fo
r th
e A
rchi
tect
to c
reat
e a
viab
le B
IM m
odel
vs.
the
ME
P e
ngin
eers
or
the
gene
ral c
ontr
acto
r ha
s ha
s m
ore
bene
fits
than
the
sub-
trad
es a
nd w
e no
t eve
n cl
ose
to v
iabl
e B
IM fi
les
for
man
ufac
ture
rs a
nd o
pera
tions
and
man
agem
ent.
Yes
Agr
ee1
25
67
38
19
410
Ple
ase
note
that
my
know
ledg
e of
faci
litie
s m
anag
emen
t and
use
of B
IM fo
r fa
cilit
ies
man
agem
ent i
s lim
ited
Yes
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
24
75
93
62
101
8w
illin
gnes
s of
sta
ff m
embe
rs to
use
new
tech
nolo
gy.
Yes
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
01
43
67
92
108
5N
oN
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
69
51
73
104
82
Yes
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
01
23
45
67
89
10N
o
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
210
12
37
98
45
6N
Ono
Yes
Agr
ee1
17
63
58
49
210
Upf
ront
cos
ts, e
xecu
tive
man
agem
ent d
o no
t see
the
cost
ben
efits
for
BIM
and
are
wai
ting
for
othe
rs to
lead
the
way
inst
ead.
Hon
estly
I ca
nnot
bla
me
them
.Y
esA
gree
18
49
12
310
56
7O
wne
r do
es n
ot s
ee th
e be
nefit
or
will
ing
to p
ay th
e ex
tra
cost
s fo
r de
sign
and
Arc
hite
cts
do n
ot s
ell i
ts fe
atur
es!
The
com
plet
e de
sign
team
has
to b
e on
boa
rd.
Yes
Agr
ee1
104
53
98
61
27
Clie
nt's
dem
and
is ti
ed to
RO
I and
val
ue. T
he m
ain
valu
e of
hav
ing
a F
M B
IM is
dat
a ac
cess
& o
rgan
isat
ion.
Thi
s do
esn'
t typ
ical
ly s
ave
the
clie
nt m
oney
or
mak
e th
em m
oney
, the
refo
re th
e co
st b
enef
it is
diff
icul
t to
sell.
For
that
mat
ter,
any
ser
vice
that
cla
ims
the
save
mon
ey a
nd b
e pr
oact
ive
is d
iffic
ult t
o se
ll.It
is a
com
mon
mis
conc
eptio
n to
bel
ieve
that
the
desi
gn B
IM c
an b
e "u
pdat
ed a
nd m
aint
aine
d" th
roug
h co
nstr
uctio
n to
be
turn
ed o
ver
to th
e cl
ient
at t
he e
nd o
f the
pro
ject
. In
fact
the
mod
els
that
are
cre
ated
at t
he b
egin
ning
of t
he p
roje
ct d
on’t
repr
esen
t the
end
res
ult a
t all.
Des
igne
rs o
nly
show
the
“inte
nt”
and
put t
he r
espo
nsib
ility
of e
ngin
eerin
g al
l the
det
ails
on
the
cont
ract
or a
nd tr
ades
. The
Tra
de m
odel
s ar
e th
e m
ost a
ccur
ate
to th
e as
built
con
ditio
ns a
nd a
re th
eref
ore
mor
e va
luab
le to
the
FM
BIM
. The
se m
odel
s ar
e cr
eate
d in
man
y di
ffere
nt s
yste
ms
that
don
't ne
cess
arily
plu
g an
d pl
ay w
ith th
e de
sign
mod
els.
The
con
tact
or is
als
o ty
pica
lly r
espo
nsib
le to
del
iver
the
2D a
sbui
lts, p
roje
ct d
ata,
sho
p dr
awin
g su
bmis
sion
s an
d co
mm
issi
onin
g sc
ripts
, the
refo
re th
ey a
re in
the
best
pos
ition
to a
ssem
ble
this
into
a to
ol fo
r th
e cl
ient
. Thi
s of
cou
rse
is m
y op
inio
n, is
mor
e th
e ca
se w
ith p
roje
ct o
ver
$30m
. Sm
alle
r pr
ojec
ts m
ay h
ave
GC
s an
d T
rade
s w
ho d
on’t
even
hav
e a
com
pute
r…Y
esA
gree
110
25
36
78
14
9Y
esN
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
37
42
61
98
510
from
a c
onsu
lting
eng
inee
ring
pers
pect
ive
(ME
P)
- co
st.
No
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
010
39
14
62
57
8N
oA
gree
110
19
24
75
38
6O
wne
rs s
houl
d un
ders
tand
the
huge
val
ue B
IM h
as fo
r th
em a
nd th
en d
eman
d co
mpa
nies
they
wor
k w
ith to
del
iver
inte
llige
nt B
IM m
odel
s in
stea
d of
just
dra
win
gs a
nd in
accu
rate
and
dum
b 3D
mod
el. A
ccur
ate
and
relia
ble
mod
els
are
requ
ired
to g
et m
axim
um s
avin
gs, b
ut v
ast m
ajor
ity o
f cur
rent
ly d
eliv
ered
mod
els
are
not a
ccur
ate
nor
inte
llige
nt n
or c
ompl
ete
and
usin
g th
em fo
r fa
cilit
ies
man
agem
ent d
oesn
't ne
cess
arily
mak
e se
nse.
.U
tiliz
ing
all t
he a
venu
es B
IM h
as to
offe
r sa
ves
load
s of
mon
ey fo
r th
e ow
ner/
deve
lope
r. B
ut if
they
onl
y se
e ba
sic
3D m
odel
s w
ithou
t hav
ing
acce
ss to
any
tool
s an
d m
odel
s to
act
ually
leve
rage
all
the
info
rmat
ion
in B
IM, t
hey
thin
k 3D
and
cla
sh c
heck
is a
ll th
at B
IM c
an o
ffer.
If
they
saw
with
thei
r ow
n ey
es h
ow u
sing
mod
els
will
ena
ble
them
to m
ake
the
best
dec
isio
ns a
s ea
rly a
s po
ssib
le a
nd r
eact
to c
hang
es a
s qu
ickl
y an
d as
che
aply
as
poss
ible
they
mig
ht s
ee th
e va
lue.
Ahh
h...m
aybe
in 3
-5 y
ears
.Y
esS
tron
gly
agre
e2
36
410
71
59
82
getti
ng e
xist
ing
build
ings
into
BIM
. but
we
have
a s
olut
ion.
Yes
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
010
38
21
59
67
4Y
esN
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
56
34
910
71
28
No
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
09
26
34
78
510
1N
oA
gree
11
25
46
710
89
3N
oA
gree
19
12
34
56
78
10F
M h
as a
bro
ad r
ange
a s
ingl
e si
te m
ill w
ill b
e m
anag
ed d
iffer
ently
from
mul
ti si
te h
ealth
care
faci
litie
s I d
on't
belie
ve B
IM c
an a
ccom
mod
ate
thes
e ch
ange
s in
the
glob
al F
M m
arke
t, F
M p
acka
ges
such
as
mic
ro m
ain
or M
P2
are
spec
ified
to m
anag
e ha
rd F
M is
sues
, as
I hav
e sa
id I
don'
t bel
ieve
BIm
can
it's
not
rea
lly w
hat i
t's a
bout
tryi
ng to
put
a s
quar
e pe
g in
a r
ound
hol
e co
mes
to m
ind.
No
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
25
12
34
67
89
10Y
esA
gree
110
38
14
27
96
5N
oA
gree
11
210
34
56
78
9N
oS
tron
gly
disa
gree
-210
38
94
57
12
6T
he a
ctua
l und
erst
andi
ng o
f BIM
bey
ond
a te
chno
logy
cha
nge.
The
loos
ley
over
used
clic
hes
that
invo
lve
BIM
ofte
n is
bas
ed o
n a
pure
mis
-und
erst
andi
ng o
r fu
ll in
gorin
g of
the
fact
that
BIM
is a
tech
onol
gy th
at r
equi
res
a to
tal P
RO
CE
SS
CH
AN
GE
or
it w
ill n
ot s
ucce
ed a
t any
leve
l.Y
esN
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
71
23
45
68
910
No
Agr
ee1
106
91
27
83
45
Yes
Dis
agre
e-1
98
17
210
54
63
No
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
210
23
84
75
91
6N
o
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
03
25
101
98
76
4N
ever
hea
rd o
f it
No
Dis
agre
e-1
95
61
38
102
74
We
are
still
a v
ery
pape
r or
ient
ed s
ocie
ty.
You
don
't se
e co
ntra
ctor
s us
ing
a co
mpu
ter
on jo
b si
tes.
No
Agr
ee1
12
34
56
78
109
wha
t is
the
dolla
r va
lue
asso
ciat
ed w
ith im
plem
enta
tion?
Som
e of
the
answ
ers
are
subj
ectiv
e an
d ba
rrie
rs d
epen
d of
per
sona
l and
met
hodo
logi
es o
f dec
isio
n m
aker
s w
ithin
the
orga
niza
tion.
Yes
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or d
isag
ree
08
45
12
67
910
3N
oA
gree
13
74
89
62
51
10N
oN
eith
er a
gree
nor
dis
agre
e0
89
12
34
56
710
No
162
Long Form Questionnaire
Long%Answer%Questionnaire%%Name:%%%%Title%%%%Company%%%%How%would%you%describe%your%company’s%role%in%the%construction%industry?%%%%%%%What%is%your%role%in%your%organization?%%%%%%%%How%many%construction%projects%has%your%company%completed%in%the%last%12%months?%%%%Did%your%company%use%BIM%technology%in%any%of%these%projects,%and%if%so%how%many?%%%%If%yes,%why%did%your%company%use%BIM?%%%%%%%%%%%%
Do%you%think%that%a%company%can%use%BIM%technology%to%manage%a%facility%more%effectively,%and%why?%%%%%%%%%%Do%you%think%BIM%technology%can%be%used%to%increase%a%facility%manager’s%competitive%advantage,%and%why?%%%%%%%%%%What%do%you%think%is%keeping%companies%from%adopting%BIM%technology%in%facilities%management?%%%%%%%%%%%%%Rank%the%reasons%from%most%to%least%significant.%%%%%%%%%Is%there%anything%else%you%would%like%to%add%to%your%questionnaire?%%%%%%%%%%%%
165
Long Form Questionnaire – Responses
Summarized
The long form questionnaire responses are summarized from notes taken
during the structured interview.
166
Q: Name?
A: *************** (removed for privacy)
Q: Title?
A: Senior Project Manager
Q: Company?
A: *************** (removed for privacy)
Q: How would you describe your company’s role in the construction
industry?
A: Owners side, facility management of assets. Own infrastructure, involved
in building new construction by 3rd parties. Approve design.
Q: What is your role in your organization?
A: Project manager, deliver projects as defined by sponsor (as vetted
through senior management)
Q: How many construction projects have you competed in the last 12
months?
A: 10-20
Q: Did you use BIM technology in any of these projects, and if so how
many?
A: Yes, 1
Q: If yes, why did your company use BIM?
A: Architect was a proponent of the technology for design.
167
Q: Do you think that a company can use BIM technology to manager a
facility more effectively, and why?
A: There is potential, yes. Culture needs to change, the model needs to be
up to date or it loses its relevance. Then, owners don’t bother to use it.
BIM has to be fully populated to be useful.
Q: Do you think BIM technology can be used to increase a facility manger’s
competitive advantage, and why?
A: Potential is there, largest barrier is costs factor. BIM software,
maintenance software, software licensing, BIM DB accurate, all takes effort
and costs to manage.
Q: What do you think is keeping companies from adopting BIM technology
in facilities management?
A: 1. Cost, 2. Lack of understanding of BIM concept, 3. Management of
Change. PM’s like more traditional approach and may resist change. BIM
requires more skill set than what is typically found in facilities management
(or maintenance) skill sets.
Q: Rank the reasons from most to least significant.
A: 1. Cost, 2. Lack of Understanding, 3. Managing change.
Q: Is there anything else you would like to add to your questionnaire?
168
A: No, well. PM experience, BIM a benefit or hindrance? BIM has
challenges with all parties cooperating, costs of entry are high, if all parties
don’t work in BIM the whole project suffers.
169
Q: Name?
A: *************** (removed for privacy)
Q: Title?
A: Manager of Technical Services
Q: Company?
A: *************** (removed for privacy)
Q: How would you describe your company’s role in the construction
industry?
A: Owner
Q: What is your role in your organization?
A: Preliminary engineering and design, document and drawing
management.
Q: How many construction projects have you competed in the last 12
months?
A: Over 15.
Q: Did you use BIM technology in any of these projects, and if so how
many?
A: Yes, 3
Q: If yes, why did your company use BIM?
A: Complexity of the project required BIM, presentation capabilities and it
was a pilot project.
170
Q: Do you think that a company can use BIM technology to manager a
facility more effectively, and why?
A: Yes, the data is more easily available to the FM team.
Q: Do you think BIM technology can be used to increase a facility manger’s
competitive advantage, and why?
A: Yes, BIM allows for better informed decisions, better use of resources.
Q: What do you think is keeping companies from adopting BIM technology
in facilities management?
A: Hanging on to traditional methods of doing things. Combination of not
wanting to change from the familiar, unavailability or resources of training,
maintenance planning does not look at the long term (reactive, not
proactive), requires a mind set change.
Q: Rank the reasons from most to least significant.
A: 1. Hanging on to the old way because they don’t make time to learn new
technology of skills. 2. Taking the training.
Q: Is there anything else you would like to add to your questionnaire?
A: BIM to be adopted need to make people, mandate it, not a choice.
Management commitment required from top down. Mechanical designers /
vendors are lacking experience in BIM in the local market. They need to
understand the benefits. People tend to not be open to new technologies
in the local market. Adoption also tied to demographics (i.e. age).
171
Q: Name?
A: *************** (removed for privacy)
Q: Title?
A: Executive Director of Integrated Practice
Q: Company?
A: *************** (removed for privacy)
Q: How would you describe your company’s role in the construction
industry?
A: Architectural based with planning and interior design.
Q: What is your role in your organization?
A: Architect / Executive management
Q: How many construction projects have you competed in the last 12
months?
A: 12
Q: Did you use BIM technology in any of these projects, and if so how
many?
A: Yes, 75%+
Q: If yes, why did your company use BIM?
A: Primarily because it allowed us work in a virtual construction
environment, which helps in mitigating risk.
Q: Do you think that a company can use BIM technology to manager a
facility more effectively, and why?
172
A: Yes, inherent data in the BIM (ie areas, volumes, components) can be
used to reduce the costs to maintain a facility. As maintenance costs can be
5x the construction cost over the lifecycle of the project, there is significant
untapped / underused potential for this information.
Q: Do you think facility managers value this information?
A: Typically, facility managers are real estate professionals, whom
typically do not value this type of information. It is engineers or
architects that need this information; we need to move towards more
information based decisions in FM as the current practice is
unsustainable.
Q: What do you think is the breakdown between the ‘informed client
function’ and non-ICF?
A: it is about 25% ICF, and 75% non-ICF.
Q: Do you think BIM technology can be used to increase a facility manger’s
competitive advantage, and why?
A: Yes, again relative cost of 15-25% of initial capital cost is spent on
operations / year. But if improvements are made today, will increase the
benefit many years into the future. Capital costs today help lower operating
costs in the future will lead to higher lease rates for real estate managers.
Also, in the future tenants will demand these types of improvements
because the current practice is unsustainable.
173
Q: What do you think is keeping companies from adopting BIM technology
in facilities management?
A: Two things, 1. Psychological change is needed and 2. New way of doing
business. Engineers and architects traditionally do not concern themselves
with ways and means like contractors do. This must change and BIM forces
them to look at how a building is going to be constructed. Change is
disrupted; there will be winners and losers.
Q: Rank the reasons from most to least significant.
A: 1. Disruptive Technology, 2. Psychological / nature of change of practice,
3. Getting over the disruptive nature of the change.
Q: Is there anything else you would like to add to your questionnaire?
A: Industry is going through a rapid evolution period. BIM does not work
by itself, BIM needs:
a. Contract
b. Process
BIM is the technology, the contract must be integrated project delivery, and
the process is lean construction.
Q: What is lean construction to you?
A: Ways in which we can remove / reduce waste in construction.
Greatest waste is the human factor, and we cannot afford to waste
time. Find ways to streamline, like just in time scheduling.
174
Q: Name?
A: *************** (removed for privacy)
Q: Title?
A: Project Coordinator
Q: Company?
A: *************** (removed for privacy)
Q: How would you describe your company’s role in the construction
industry?
A: Owner
Q: What is your role in your organization?
A: Coordinate major projects for oil and gas.
Q: How many construction projects have you competed in the last 12
months?
A: 2
Q: Did you use BIM technology in any of these projects, and if so how
many?
A: No
Q: If yes, why did your company use BIM?
A: Don’t know.
Q: Do you think that a company can use BIM technology to manager a
facility more effectively, and why?
175
A: Don’t know.
Q: Do you think BIM technology can be used to increase a facility manger’s
competitive advantage, and why?
A: Don’t know.
Q: What do you think is keeping companies from adopting BIM technology
in facilities management?
A: Don’t know.
Q: Rank the reasons from most to least significant.
A: Don’t know.
Q: Is there anything else you would like to add to your questionnaire?
A: No.
176
Q: Name?
A: *************** (removed for privacy)
Q: Title?
A: Account Executive
Q: Company?
A: *************** (removed for privacy)
Q: How would you describe your company’s role in the construction
industry?
A: HR Recruitment
Q: What is your role in your organization?
A: I am the clients’ main point of contact. I have over 20 clients in various
industries including construction. I assist clients’ everyday recruitment needs
Q: How many construction projects have you competed in the last 12
months?
A: None
Q: Did you use BIM technology in any of these projects, and if so how
many?
A: N/A
Q: If yes, why did your company use BIM?
A: N/A
177
Q: Do you think that a company can use BIM technology to manager a
facility more effectively, and why?
A: I’m not that familiar with BIM.
Q: Do you think BIM technology can be used to increase a facility manger’s
competitive advantage, and why?
A: Don’t know.
Q: What do you think is keeping companies from adopting BIM technology
in facilities management?
A: Don’t know.
Q: Rank the reasons from most to least significant.
A: Don’t know.
Q: Is there anything else you would like to add to your questionnaire?
A: BIM has not been a required skill set requested in any of my construction
HR recruitment campaigns.
178
Appendix B - Charts
179
Organizational Demographic Question
Responses
180
181
182
183
Individual Demographic Question Responses
184
185
186
187
Root Definit ion Responses
188
189
Software Limitations Theme
190
191
192
193
Management Decision Theme
194
195
196
197
Standards and Work Processes Theme
198
199
200
Implementation Theme
201
202
203
Barrier Ranking
204
205
206
207
208
Other
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
Appendix C – Mini-tab Output
Mini-Tab Outputs
************************************************************************************
Anthony ValenteMSc DissertationUniversity of Bath
November 2012
*************************************************************************************
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.Executing from file: C:\Program Files (x86)\Minitab 15\English\Macros\Startup.mac
This Software was purchased for academic use only. Commercial use of the Software is prohibited.
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.Retrieving project from file:'C:\Users\Public\Documents\Minitab\data_thesis.MPJ'Retrieving worksheet from file: 'Z:\Downloads\Data\data(normalized).xls'Worksheet was saved on 24/09/2012
Results for: Sheet1 Dotplot of What best describes your orga_1
Dotplot of What level of responsibility _1
Histogram of How many of your projects uti_1
* WARNING * Multiple observations were summed. If you want a different * function, recalculate your summaries. Chart of What best describes your orga_1
Chart of What best describes your organi
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.Retrieving project from file:'C:\Users\Public\Documents\Minitab\data_thesis.MPJ'
Results for: Sheet1 Summary for What best describes your orga_1
Summary for BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Summary for BIM can be used to increase a_1
X Data Display
BIM can
be used to improveRow What best describes your organi fa_1 1 Other (please specify) 2 2 Engineering 1 3 Construction 2 4 Owner / Facilities Manager 2 5 Other (please specify) 2 6 Engineering 1 7 Architectural 1 8 Engineering 2 9 Architectural 2 10 Architectural 0 11 Engineering 1 12 Owner / Facilities Manager 0 13 Construction 1 14 Engineering 2 15 Owner / Facilities Manager 2 16 Owner / Facilities Manager 1 17 Architectural 1 18 Owner / Facilities Manager 1 19 Owner / Facilities Manager 1 20 Owner / Facilities Manager 1 21 Engineering 1 22 Owner / Facilities Manager 1 23 Architectural -1 24 Construction 1 25 Owner / Facilities Manager 1 26 Other (please specify) 1 27 Construction 2 28 Construction 1 29 Engineering * 30 Construction 2 31 Owner / Facilities Manager 1 32 Construction 1 33 Other (please specify) * 34 Construction 1 35 Architectural 2 36 Engineering 0 37 Engineering 2 38 Engineering 2 39 Engineering 2 40 Other (please specify) 2 41 Architectural 2 42 Architectural * 43 Engineering 1 44 Construction 1 45 Construction 1 46 Architectural 2 47 Owner / Facilities Manager 2 48 Other (please specify) 1 49 Architectural 2 50 Engineering 0 51 Construction 0 52 Owner / Facilities Manager 1 53 Construction 0 54 Engineering 0 55 Other (please specify) 0 56 Owner / Facilities Manager 1 57 Owner / Facilities Manager 2 58 Architectural 2 59 Owner / Facilities Manager 1 60 Engineering 1 61 Engineering 1 62 Engineering 1
63 Other (please specify)
Scatterplot of What best describes your vs Which of the following b
Scatterplot of What best describes your vs Which of the following b
Scatterplot of What best describes your vs BIM can be used to impro
A Scatterplot of What best describes your vs BIM can be used to impro
Including rows where 'BIM can be used to improve fa_1' > -994 rows excluded
Dotplot of What best describes your orga_1
Dotplot of BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Dotplot of What best describes your orga_1
Dotplot of BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Excluding rows where 'BIM can be used to improve fa_1' = -994 rows excluded
Dotplot of BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Dotplot of BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Excluding rows where 'BIM can be used to improve fa_1' = -994 rows excluded
Pie Chart of What best describes your organi
Pie Chart of What best describes your orga_2
Pie Chart of Which of the following best des
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.Retrieving project from file:'C:\Users\Public\Documents\Minitab\data_thesis.MPJ'
Results for: Sheet1 Regression Analysis: In the past 12 m versus In the past 12 m
The regression equation isIn the past 12 months what is_1 = - 0.07 + 1.00 In the past 12 months how man_3
Predictor Coef SE Coef T PConstant -0.066 2.345 -0.03 0.978In the past 12 months how man_3 1.0039 0.1082 9.28 0.000
S = 18.3929 R-Sq = 58.5% R-Sq(adj) = 57.9%
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F PRegression 1 29137 29137 86.13 0.000Residual Error 61 20636 338Total 62 49773
Unusual Observations
In the In the past 12 past 12 months months how whatObs man_3 is_1 Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 29 -99.0 -99.00 -99.45 10.60 0.45 0.03 X 33 -99.0 -99.00 -99.45 10.60 0.45 0.03 X 36 1.0 -99.00 0.94 2.36 -99.94 -5.48R 54 0.0 -99.00 -0.07 2.35 -98.93 -5.42R 63 -99.0 -99.00 -99.45 10.60 0.45 0.03 X
R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual.X denotes an observation whose X value gives it large leverage.
Regression Analysis: In the past 12 months ho versus In the past 12 months wh
The regression equation isIn the past 12 months how man_3 = - 1.343 + 0.5831 In the past 12 months what is_1
S = 14.0177 R-Sq = 58.5% R-Sq(adj) = 57.9%
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F PRegression 1 16923.8 16923.8 86.13 0.000Error 61 11986.2 196.5Total 62 28910.0
Fitted Line: In the past 12 months how man_3 versus In the past 12 months what
Results for In the past 12 months what is_1 = -99
Summary for In the past 12 months how man_3 (In the past 12 months what is_1 =
Results for In the past 12 months what is_1 = 1 Summary for In the past 12 months how man_3 (In the past 12 months what is_1 =
Results for In the past 12 months what is_1 = 2 Summary for In the past 12 months how man_3 (In the past 12 months what is_1 =
Results for In the past 12 months what is_1 = 3 Summary for In the past 12 months how man_3 (In the past 12 months what is_1 =
Results for In the past 12 months what is_1 = 4 Summary for In the past 12 months how man_3 (In the past 12 months what is_1 =
Results for In the past 12 months what is_1 = 5
* ERROR * Cannot produce a graphical summary for In the past 12 months how man_3.* ERROR * Not enough data. Results for In the past 12 months what is_1 = 6 Summary for In the past 12 months how man_3 (In the past 12 months what is_1 =
A Scatterplot of What best describes your vs BIM can be used to impro
Including rows where 'In the past 12 months how man_3' = -99 Or 'In the past 12 months what is_1' = -9958 rows excluded
Scatterplot of What best describes your vs BIM can be used to impro
Excluding rows where 'In the past 12 months how man_3' = -99 Or 'In the past 12 months what is_1' = -995 rows excluded
Scatterplot of What best describes your vs BIM can be used to impro
Excluding rows where ('In the past 12 months how man_3' = -99) And ('In the past 12 months what is_1' = -99)3 rows excluded
Scatterplot of What best describes your vs BIM can be used to impro
Excluding rows where ('In the past 12 months how man_3' = -99) Or ('In the past 12 months what is_1' = -99)5 rows excluded
Scatterplot of What best describes your vs BIM can be used to impro
Including rows where 'In the past 12 months how man_3' Or 'In the past 12 months what is_1' <> -991 rows excluded
A Scatterplot of What best describes your vs BIM can be used to impro
Including rows where ( 'In the past 12 months how man_3' Or 'In the past 12 months what is_1' ) <> -990 rows excluded
Scatterplot of In the past 12 months ho vs In the past 12 months wh
Including rows where ( 'In the past 12 months how man_3' Or 'In the past 12 months what is_1' ) <> -990 rows excluded
Scatterplot of In the past 12 months ho vs In the past 12 months wh
Including rows where ('In the past 12 months how man_3' <> -99) And ('In the past 12 months what is_1' <> -99)5 rows excluded
Chart of In the past 12 months wh, In the past 12 months ho
Including rows where ( 'In the past 12 months how man_3' <> -99 ) And ( 'In the past 12 months what is_1' <> -99 )5 rows excluded
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs In the past 12 months wh
Including rows where ( 'How many of your organization_1' <> -99 ) And ( 'In the past 12 months what is_1' <> -99 )5 rows excluded
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs What is your organizatio
Including rows where ( 'How many of your organization_1' <> -99 ) And ('What is
your organization_s l_1' <> -99)3 rows excluded
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs In the past 12 months wh
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs What is your organizatio
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs Which of the following b
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs In the past 12 months ho
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs What is your organizatio
Including rows where ( 'How many of your organization_1' <> -99 ) And ( 'What is your organization_s l_1' <> -99 )3 rows excluded
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs What is your organizatio
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs What is your organizatio
Matrix Plot of How many of vs In the past , What is your, ...
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs What best describes your
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs In the past 12 months ho
Chart of How many of your organiz, In the past 12 months wh
Histogram of How many of your organiz, In the past 12 months ho
Histogram of How many of your organiz, In the past 12 months ho
Histogram of How many of your organiz, In the past 12 months ho
Distribution Plot
3D Scatterplot of In the past vs How many of vs In the past
Marginal Plot of How many of your organization_1 vs In the past 12 months what
Marginal Plot of How many of your organization_1 vs In the past 12 months how m
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs In the past 12 months ho
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs What is your organizatio
Including rows where ( 'How many of your organization_1' <> -99 ) And ( 'What is your organization_s l_1' <> -99 )0 rows excluded
Correlations: How many of your organization_1, In the past 12 months how man_3
Pearson correlation of How many of your organization_1 and In the past 12 months how man_3 = -0.323P-Value = 0.012
Stem-and-Leaf Display: How many of your, In the past 12 m
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 0 N = 9Leaf Unit = 0.10
(9) 0 000000000 0 1
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 1 N = 18Leaf Unit = 0.10N* = 1
6 0 000000(9) 1 000000000 3 2 3 3 0 2 4 0 1 5 0
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 2 N = 1Leaf Unit = 0.10
(1) 2 0
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 3 N = 7Leaf Unit = 0.10N* = 1
1 0 0 3 1 00
(1) 2 0 3 3 00 1 4 1 5 0
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 4 N = 2Leaf Unit = 0.10
1 4 0 1 5 0
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 5 N = 7Leaf Unit = 0.10
(7) 5 0000000
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 6 N = 13Leaf Unit = 0.10N* = 1
(7) 0 0000000 6 1 000 3 2 00 1 3 0
* NOTE * All missing values in one or more groups.
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 0 N = 9Leaf Unit = 0.10
(6) 1 000000 3 2 00 1 3 1 4 1 5 0
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 1 N = 19Leaf Unit = 0.10
1 0 0(9) 1 000000000 9 2 000 6 3 00 4 4 0000
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 2 N = 1Leaf Unit = 0.10
(1) 3 0
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 3 N = 8Leaf Unit = 0.10
2 0 00(5) 1 00000 1 2 1 3 0
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 4 N = 2Leaf Unit = 0.10
(2) 1 00
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 5 N = 7Leaf Unit = 0.10
1 0 0(4) 1 0000 2 2 0 1 3 0
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 6 N = 14Leaf Unit = 0.10
5 0 00000(6) 1 000000 3 2 00 1 3 0
* NOTE * All missing values in one or more groups.
Stem-and-Leaf Display: How many of your, In the past 12 m
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 0 N = 9Leaf Unit = 0.10
(9) 0 000000000 0 1
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 1 N = 18Leaf Unit = 0.10N* = 1
6 0 000000(9) 1 000000000
3 2 3 3 0 2 4 0 1 5 0
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 2 N = 1Leaf Unit = 0.10
(1) 2 0
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 3 N = 7Leaf Unit = 0.10N* = 1
1 0 0 3 1 00(1) 2 0 3 3 00 1 4 1 5 0
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 4 N = 2Leaf Unit = 0.10
1 4 0 1 5 0
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 5 N = 7Leaf Unit = 0.10
(7) 5 0000000
Stem-and-leaf of How many of your projects uti_1 How many of your organization_1 = 6 N = 13Leaf Unit = 0.10N* = 1
(7) 0 0000000 6 1 000 3 2 00 1 3 0
* NOTE * All missing values in one or more groups.
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 0 N = 9Leaf Unit = 0.10
(6) 1 000000 3 2 00
1 3 1 4 1 5 0
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 1 N = 19Leaf Unit = 0.10
1 0 0(9) 1 000000000 9 2 000 6 3 00 4 4 0000
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 2 N = 1Leaf Unit = 0.10
(1) 3 0
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 3 N = 8Leaf Unit = 0.10
2 0 00(5) 1 00000 1 2 1 3 0
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 4 N = 2Leaf Unit = 0.10
(2) 1 00
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 5 N = 7Leaf Unit = 0.10
1 0 0(4) 1 0000 2 2 0 1 3 0
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 How many of your organization_1 = 6 N = 14Leaf Unit = 0.10
5 0 00000(6) 1 000000 3 2 00 1 3 0
* NOTE * All missing values in one or more groups.
Stem-and-Leaf Display: In the past 12 months how man_3
Stem-and-leaf of In the past 12 months how man_3 N = 60Leaf Unit = 0.10N* = 3
9 0 000000000(32) 1 00000000000000000000000000000000 19 2 00000000 11 3 000000 5 4 0000 1 5 0
Pareto Chart of How many of your organization_1
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs In the past 12 months ho
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs What is your organizatio
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs What best describes your
Scatterplot of How many of your organiz vs How many of your project
Scatterplot of BIM can be used to incre vs BIM can be used to impro
S X Pie Chart of What best describes your organi
Excluding rows where 'Where are you located?' <> "Canada"1 rows excluded
Pareto Chart of Which of the following best d_1
Pie Chart of Which of the following best des
Pie Chart of What level of responsibility do
Pie Chart of In the past 12 months how many
Pie Chart of How many of your projects utili
Pie Chart of What is your level of experie_1
Pie Chart of What is your personal experienc
Pie Chart of Which of the following best des
Excluding rows where 'Where are you located?' <> "Canada"1 rows excluded
Pie Chart of What level of responsibility do
Excluding rows where 'Where are you located?' <> "Canada"1 rows excluded
X X S Histogram of In the past 12 months how man_1
Histogram of In the past 12 months how man_1
Excluding specified rows: 281 rows excluded
Summary for In the past 12 months how man_3
Summary for In the past 12 months how man_1
Summary for In the past 12 months how man_3
Chart of In the past 12 months how man_3
Including specified rows: 2862 rows excluded
Chart of In the past 12 months how man_3
Excluding specified rows: 281 rows excluded
Chart of In the past 12 months how man_2
Excluding specified rows: 281 rows excluded
Pie Chart of In the past 12 months how man_2
Excluding specified rows: 281 rows excluded
Pie Chart of In the past 12 months how man_2
Pie Chart of How many of your projects utili
X X Chart of In the past 12 months ho, How many of your project
Results for: Subset of Sheet1 Pie Chart of How many of your projects uti_1
Excluding rows where 'In the past 12 months how man_3' = 00 rows excluded
X
Results for: Sheet1 Stepwise Regression: BIM can be used versus What is your org
Alpha-to-Enter: 0.15 Alpha-to-Remove: 0.15
Response is BIM can be used to improve fa_1 on 1 predictors, with N = 58N(cases with missing observations) = 4 N(all cases) = 62
No variables entered or removed
Probability Plot of BIM can be used to increase a_1
Summary for BIM can be used to improve fa_1
X Pie Chart of What is your level of experienc
Pie Chart of What is your personal experienc
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.Retrieving project from file:'C:\Users\Public\Documents\Minitab\data_thesis.MPJ'
Results for: Sheet1 One-Sample T: BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Test of mu = 1 vs not = 1
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI TBIM can be used to impro 58 1.1897 0.7364 0.0967 (0.9960, 1.3833) 1.96
Variable PBIM can be used to impro 0.055
Histogram of BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.Retrieving project from file:'C:\Users\Public\Documents\Minitab\data_thesis.MPJ'
Results for: Data One-Sample T: BIM can be used to increase a_1
Test of mu = 1 vs not = 1
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI TBIM can be used to incre 58 0.983 0.868 0.114 (0.754, 1.211) -0.15
Variable PBIM can be used to incre 0.880
Histogram of BIM can be used to increase a_1
Summary for BIM can be used to increase a_1
One-Sample Z: BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Test of mu = 1 vs < 1The assumed standard deviation = 1
95% UpperVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound Z PBIM can be used to impro 58 1.190 0.736 0.131 1.406 1.44 0.926
Histogram of BIM can be used to improve fa_1
One-Sample T: BIM can be used to increase a_1
Test of mu = 1 vs < 1
95% Upper
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PBIM can be used to incre 58 0.983 0.868 0.114 1.173 -0.15 0.440
Histogram of BIM can be used to increase a_1
One-Sample T: BIM can be used to increase a_1
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PBIM can be used to incre 58 0.983 0.868 0.114 0.792 -0.15 0.560
Histogram of BIM can be used to increase a_1
One-Sample T: BIM can be used to increase a_1
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
90% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PBIM can be used to incre 58 0.983 0.868 0.114 0.835 -0.15 0.560
Histogram of BIM can be used to increase a_1
One-Sample T: BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PBIM can be used to impro 58 1.1897 0.7364 0.0967 1.0280 1.96 0.027
Histogram of BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.Retrieving project from file:'C:\Users\Public\Documents\Minitab\data_thesis.MPJ' X X X
Results for: Test One-Sample T: BIM can be used (42)
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T P
BIM can be used (42) 58 4.1897 0.7364 0.0967 4.0280 32.99 0.000
Histogram of BIM can be used (42)
One-Sample T: BIM can be used (42)
Test of mu = 4 vs > 4
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PBIM can be used (42) 58 4.1897 0.7364 0.0967 4.0280 1.96 0.027
Histogram of BIM can be used (42)
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.Retrieving project from file:'C:\Users\Public\Documents\Minitab\data_thesis.MPJ'
Results for: Data Descriptive Statistics: Software limitations prevent _1
Total Sum ofVariable Count N N* Mean StDev Squares Minimum Q1Software limitations pre 62 55 7 0.055 0.951 49.000 -2.000 -1.000
Variable Median Q3 MaximumSoftware limitations pre 0.000 1.000 2.000
Descriptive Statistics: Facility Man, My organizat, Software lim, Software lim
TotalVariable Count N N* Mean StDevFacility Managers do not 62 55 7 0.836 0.898My organization prefers 62 55 7 0.036 1.053Software limitations do 62 55 7 0.127 0.904Software limitations are 62 55 7 0.091 1.041
One-Sample T: Software lim, Facility Man, My organizat, Software lim, ...
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PSoftware limitations pre 55 0.055 0.951 0.128 -0.160 -7.37 1.000Facility Managers do not 55 0.836 0.898 0.121 0.634 -1.35 0.909My organization prefers 55 0.036 1.053 0.142 -0.201 -6.78 1.000Software limitations do 55 0.127 0.904 0.122 -0.077 -7.16 1.000Software limitations are 55 0.091 1.041 0.140 -0.144 -6.47 1.000
Histogram of Software limitations prevent _1
Histogram of Facility Managers do not typi_1
Histogram of My organization prefers more _1
Histogram of Software limitations do not a_1
Histogram of Software limitations are a ba_1
One-Sample T: Facility Managers do not typi_1
Test of mu = 0 vs > 0
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PFacility Managers do not 55 0.836 0.898 0.121 0.634 6.91 0.000
Histogram of Facility Managers do not typi_1
One-Sample T: Current BIM industry standard_1
Test of mu = -1 vs < -1
95% UpperVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PCurrent BIM industry sta 55 -0.018 0.952 0.128 0.197 7.65 1.000
Histogram of Current BIM industry standard_1
One-Sample T: A process / implementation ro_1
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PA process / implementati 55 1.109 0.875 0.118 0.912 0.92 0.180
Histogram of A process / implementation ro_1
One-Sample T: Current BIM standards and pro_1
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PCurrent BIM standards an 55 -0.382 0.933 0.126 -0.592 -10.99 1.000
Histogram of Current BIM standards and pro_1
One-Sample T: My organization is aware of c_1
Test of mu = -1 vs < -1
95% UpperVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PMy organization is aware 55 0.364 1.078 0.145 0.607 9.38 1.000
Histogram of My organization is aware of c_1
One-Sample T: Standards and work processes _1
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PStandards and work proce 55 0.073 1.034 0.139 -0.161 -6.65 1.000
Histogram of Standards and work processes _1
One-Sample T: Decision makers , Decision makers , BIM can be (or i
Test of mu = -1 vs < -1
95% UpperVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PDecision makers in my co 55 0.418 1.197 0.161 0.688 8.79 1.000Decision makers in my co 55 0.655 0.886 0.120 0.855 13.84 1.000BIM can be (or is) used 55 0.509 1.069 0.144 0.750 10.47 1.000
Histogram of Decision makers in my company_1
Histogram of Decision makers in my company_4
Histogram of BIM can be (or is) used for s_1
One-Sample T: Decision makers in my company_2, Decision makers in my company_5
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PDecision makers in my co 55 0.200 0.951 0.128 -0.015 -6.24 1.000Decision makers in my co 55 -0.273 1.193 0.161 -0.542 -7.91 1.000
Histogram of Decision makers in my company_2
Histogram of Decision makers in my company_5
Chart of Facility managers have sufficie
One-Sample T: Design firms are trained to e_1, Facility managers have suffic_1
Test of mu = -1 vs < -1
95% UpperVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PDesign firms are trained 55 -0.309 1.034 0.139 -0.076 4.95 1.000Facility managers have s 54 -0.556 0.816 0.111 -0.370 4.00 1.000
Histogram of Design firms are trained to e_1
Histogram of Facility managers have suffic_1
One-Sample T: The lack of , Data integri, Lack of coll, BIM implemen
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PThe lack of facilities m 55 0.582 0.875 0.118 0.384 -3.54 1.000Data integrity issues re 55 0.327 0.862 0.116 0.133 -5.79 1.000Lack of collaboration be 55 0.891 0.896 0.121 0.689 -0.90 0.815BIM implementation issue 55 0.545 0.919 0.124 0.338 -3.67 1.000
Histogram of The lack of facilities manage_1
Histogram of Data integrity issues result _1
Histogram of Lack of collaboration between_1
Histogram of BIM implementation issues are_1
Summary for Management decision to implemen
Probability Plot of Management decision to implemen
Probability Plot of Management decision to implemen
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Excluding rows where 'How many of your organization_1' = 614 rows excluded
Dotplot of Management decision to implemen
Distribution Plot
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
One-Sample T: Management decision to implemen
Test of mu = 7 vs > 7
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PManagement decision to i 55 6.273 3.413 0.460 5.503 -1.58 0.940
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Sign CI: Management decision to implemen
Sign confidence interval for median
Confidence Achieved Interval N N* Median Confidence Lower UpperManagement decision to implemen 55 7 8.000 0.9409 5.000 9.000 0.9500 5.000 9.000 0.9690 5.000 9.000
PositionManagement decision to implemen 21 NLI 20
Wilcoxon Signed Rank CI: Management decision to implemen
Confidence Estimated Achieved Interval N N* Median Confidence Lower UpperManagement decision to implemen 55 7 6.00 95.0 5.50 7.50
Interval Plot of Management decision to implemen
Summary for Adequate Standards for BIM
Test and CI for One-Sample Poisson Rate: Management decision to implemen
* NOTE * Rows containing missing values were ignored in the calculations for that particular sample.
Test of rate = 5 vs rate > 5
Total Rate of 95% Lower ExactVariable Occurrences N Occurrence Bound P-ValueManagement decision to implemen 345 55 6.27273 5.72777 0.000
"Length" of observation = 1.
Histogram of Work / management processes
Descriptive Statistics: Work / management processes
TotalVariable Count N N* Percent Mean StDev VarianceWork / management proces 62 55 7 88.7097 5.036 2.538 6.443
N forVariable Median Mode Mode KurtosisWork / management proces 5.000 5 12 -0.81
Distribution Plot
Stem-and-Leaf Display: Version control of BIM model
Stem-and-leaf of Version control of BIM model N = 55Leaf Unit = 0.10N* = 7
11 1 00000000000 21 2 0000000000(13) 3 0000000000000 21 4 000000 15 5 15 6 0 14 7 000 11 8 000 8 9 0000 4 10 0000
Histogram of Version control of BIM model
Histogram of Data integrity of BIM model (in
Histogram of Interoperability of BIM with ot
Histogram of Collaboration between all parti
Histogram of Available training for BIM
Histogram of Industry_s level of expertise
Histogram of Software capability
Descriptive Statistics: Management d, Adequate Sta, Work / manag, ...
N forVariable N N* Mean StDev Variance Median Mode ModeManagement decision to i 55 7 6.273 3.413 11.646 8.000 10 13Adequate Standards for B 55 7 4.164 2.440 5.954 4.000 2 13Work / management proces 55 7 5.036 2.538 6.443 5.000 5 12Version control of BIM m 55 7 4.018 2.966 8.796 3.000 3 13Data integrity of BIM mo 55 7 5.018 2.461 6.055 4.000 4 13Interoperability of BIM 55 7 6.091 2.398 5.751 6.000 6 11Collaboration between al 55 7 6.582 2.424 5.877 7.000 7 11Available training for B 55 7 5.527 2.974 8.846 6.000 8 9Industry_s level of expe 55 7 6.200 2.745 7.533 7.000 8 10Software capability 55 7 6.091 3.099 9.603 6.000 10 10
Wilcoxon Signed Rank CI: Management d, Adequate Sta, Work / manag, Version cont
Confidence Estimated Achieved Interval N N* Median Confidence Lower UpperManagement decision to implemen 55 7 6.00 95.0 5.50 7.50Adequate Standards for BIM 55 7 4.00 95.0 3.50 5.00Work / management processes 55 7 5.00 95.0 4.00 5.50Version control of BIM model 55 7 3.50 95.0 2.50 5.00Data integrity of BIM model (in 55 7 5.00 95.0 4.00 5.50Interoperability of BIM with ot 55 7 6.00 95.0 5.50 7.00Collaboration between all parti 55 7 6.50 95.0 6.00 7.50Available training for BIM 55 7 5.50 95.0 4.50 6.50Industry_s level of expertise 55 7 6.50 95.0 5.50 7.00Software capability 55 7 6.00 95.0 5.50 7.00
Sign CI: Management decision to implemen
Sign confidence interval for median
Confidence Achieved Interval N N* Median Confidence Lower UpperManagement decision to implemen 55 7 8.000 0.9409 5.000 9.000 0.9500 5.000 9.000 0.9690 5.000 9.000
PositionManagement decision to implemen 21 NLI 20
Sign CI: Management decision to implemen, Adequate Standards for BIM
Sign confidence interval for median
Confidence Achieved Interval N N* Median Confidence Lower UpperManagement decision to implemen 55 7 8.000 0.9409 5.000 9.000 0.9500 5.000 9.000 0.9690 5.000 9.000Adequate Standards for BIM 55 7 4.000 0.9409 3.000 5.000 0.9500 3.000 5.000 0.9690 3.000 5.000
PositionManagement decision to implemen 21 NLI 20Adequate Standards for BIM 21 NLI 20
Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit Test for Categorical Variable: Management decision t
Test ContributionCategory Observed Proportion Expected to Chi-Sq1 9 0.1 5.5 2.22732 3 0.1 5.5 1.13643 4 0.1 5.5 0.40914 3 0.1 5.5 1.13645 2 0.1 5.5 2.22736 4 0.1 5.5 0.40917 2 0.1 5.5 2.22738 7 0.1 5.5 0.40919 8 0.1 5.5 1.136410 13 0.1 5.5 10.2273
N N* DF Chi-Sq P-Value55 7 9 21.5455 0.010
Chart of Observed and Expected Values
Chart of Contribution to the Chi-Square Value by Category
Matrix Plot of How many of vs What best de, In the past , ...
Matrix Plot of How many of vs Which of the, What level o, ...
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.Retrieving project from file:'C:\Users\Public\Documents\Minitab\data_thesis.MPJ'
Results for: Data Matrix Plot of How many of vs Software lim, Facility Man, ...
Including rows where 'How many of your organization_1' < 232 rows excluded
Chart of How many of your organiz, What best describes your
Chart of Count( How many of your organization_1 )
Including rows where 'How many of your organization_1' = 054 rows excluded
Histogram of Management d, Adequate Sta, Work / manag, Version cont
Including rows where 'How many of your organization_1' < 232 rows excluded
Histogram of Decision mak, Decision mak, Decision mak, ...
Including rows where 'How many of your organization_1' = 054 rows excluded
Chart of How many of your organiz, In the past 12 months wh
Chart of How many of your organiz, In the past 12 months wh
Chart of How many of your organiz, In the past 12 months wh
Chart of How many of your organiz, In the past 12 months ho
Chart of How many of your organiz, In the past 12 months wh
Chart of How many of your organiz, In the past 12 months ho
Chart of How many of your organiz, What is your organizatio
Chart of How many of your project, Which of the following b
Chart of How many of your project, What level of responsibi
Chart of How many of your project, What is your level of ex
Correlations: What is your level of experie_1, How many of your projects uti_1
Pearson correlation of What is your level of experie_1 and How many of your projects uti_1 = 0.745P-Value = 0.000
Scatterplot of How many of your project vs What is your level of ex
Including rows where ( 'How many of your organization_1' <> -99 ) And ( 'What is your organization_s l_1' <> -99 )0 rows excluded
Chart of In the past 12 months wh, In the past 12 months ho
Chart of How many of your organiz, What best describes your
Histogram of Management d, Adequate Sta, Work / manag, ...
Including rows where 'What best describes your orga_1' = 447 rows excluded
Histogram of Decision mak, Decision mak, Decision mak, ...
Including rows where 'What best describes your orga_1' = 447 rows excluded
Histogram of Design firms, The lack of , Data integri, ...
Including rows where 'What best describes your orga_1' = 447 rows excluded
Histogram of BIM can be used to impro, BIM can be used to incre
Including rows where 'What best describes your orga_1' = 447 rows excluded
Histogram of Software lim, Facility Man, My organizat, ...
Including rows where 'What best describes your orga_1' = 447 rows excluded
Histogram of Current BIM , A process / , Current BIM , ...
Including rows where 'What best describes your orga_1' = 447 rows excluded
Matrix Plot of Management decision to i vs What is your level of ex
Including rows where 'How many of your organization_1' < 232 rows excluded
Matrix Plot of Management d vs What level o, What is your, ...
Including rows where 'How many of your organization_1' < 232 rows excluded
Results for: FM Data Two-Sample T-Test and CI
Sample N Mean StDev SE Mean1 55 5.73 3.62 0.492 15 6.27 3.41 0.88
Difference = mu (1) - mu (2)Estimate for difference: -0.5495% CI for difference: (-2.62, 1.54)T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -0.54 P-Value = 0.597 DF = 23
Two-Sample T-Test and CI
Sample N Mean StDev SE Mean1 15 0.933 0.961 0.252 55 0.836 0.898 0.12
Difference = mu (1) - mu (2)Estimate for difference: 0.09795% CI for difference: (-0.477, 0.672)T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 0.35 P-Value = 0.728 DF = 21
MTB > t test
* ERROR * Unknown Minitab command: T
MTB > two-sample t-test
* ERROR * Unknown Minitab command: TWO
MTB > t
* ERROR * Unknown Minitab command: T
MTB > helpMTB > twosample
* ERROR * 0 is too few arguments.
MTB > twot 1 1 1 1
* ERROR * Argument is a constant or matrix, but a column was expected.
MTB > twot 1 .5 1.5 2
* ERROR * Argument is a constant or matrix, but a column was expected.
MTB >
Histogram of Management d, Adequate Sta, Work / manag, ...
Including rows where 'Which of the following best d_1' = 6 Or 'Which of the following best d_1' = 710 rows excluded
Pie Chart of In the past 12 months what is_1
Results for: Data Pie Chart of In the past 12 months what is t
Pie Chart of In the past 12 months what is_1
Pie Chart of What level of responsibility _1
Pie Chart of In the past 12 months how man_3
Pie Chart of What is your level of experie_1
Pie Chart of What is your personal experie_1
One-Sample T: BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PBIM can be used to impro 58 1.1897 0.7364 0.0967 1.0280 1.96 0.027
One-Sample T: BIM can be used to increase a_1
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1
95% Lower
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PBIM can be used to incre 58 0.983 0.868 0.114 0.792 -0.15 0.560
One-Sample T: BIM can be used to increase a_1
Test of mu = 0 vs > 0
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PBIM can be used to incre 58 0.983 0.868 0.114 0.792 8.62 0.000
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Including rows where 'What level of responsibility _1' = 332 rows excluded
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Including rows where 'What level of responsibility _1' = 447 rows excluded
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Including rows where 'What level of responsibility _1' < 345 rows excluded
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
* WARNING * Multiple observations were summed. If you want a different * function, recalculate your summaries. Chart of Management decision to implemen
Dotplot of Management decision to implemen
Matrix Plot of Management decis vs What best descri, What level of re
Marginal Plot of Management decision to implemen vs Which of the following best
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Including rows where 'How many of your organization_1' < 232 rows excluded
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
* NOTE * Distribution could not be fit. The number of distinct rows of data * in Management decision to implemen (for What best describes your * orga_1 = 1, What level of responsibility _1 = 1) must be greater * than or equal to the number of estimated distribution parameters.
* NOTE * Distribution could not be fit. The number of distinct rows of data * in Management decision to implemen (for What best describes your * orga_1 = 1, What level of responsibility _1 = 2) must be greater * than or equal to the number of estimated distribution parameters.
* NOTE * Distribution could not be fit. The number of distinct rows of data * in Management decision to implemen (for What best describes your * orga_1 = 1, What level of responsibility _1 = 4) must be greater * than or equal to the number of estimated distribution parameters.
* NOTE * Distribution could not be fit. The number of distinct rows of data * in Management decision to implemen (for What best describes your * orga_1 = 2, What level of responsibility _1 = 1) must be greater * than or equal to the number of estimated distribution parameters.
* NOTE * Distribution could not be fit. The number of distinct rows of data * in Management decision to implemen (for What best describes your * orga_1 = 4, What level of responsibility _1 = 1) must be greater * than or equal to the number of estimated distribution parameters.
* NOTE * Distribution could not be fit. The number of distinct rows of data * in Management decision to implemen (for What best describes your * orga_1 = 5, What level of responsibility _1 = 1) must be greater * than or equal to the number of estimated distribution parameters.
* NOTE * Distribution could not be fit. The number of distinct rows of data * in Management decision to implemen (for What best describes your * orga_1 = 5, What level of responsibility _1 = 2) must be greater * than or equal to the number of estimated distribution parameters.
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.Retrieving project from file:'C:\Users\Public\Documents\Minitab\data_thesis.MPJ'
Results for: Data Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Including rows where 'What level of responsibility _1' = 332 rows excluded
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Including rows where 'What is your organization_s l_1' = 346 rows excluded
Histogram of Management decision to implemen
Pie Chart of What best describes your orga_1
Pie Chart of In the past 12 months how man_1
Pie Chart of How many of your organization_1
Pie Chart of What is your organization_s l_1
Pie Chart of Where are you located?
Pie Chart of Which of the following best d_1
Summary for BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Histogram of BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Including rows where 'What is your organization_s l_1' = 346 rows excluded
Histogram of BIM can be used to improve fa_1
Histogram of BIM can be used to increase a_1
Results for: FM Data Chart of What segment of the construct_2
Histogram of Adequate Standards for BIM
Histogram of Adequate Standards for BIM
Results for: Data
Histogram of Adequate Standards for BIM
Software Limitations (results - Minitab t-test 95% confidence interval)
95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PSoftware limitations pre 55 0.055 0.951 0.128 -0.160 -7.37 1.000Facility Managers do not 55 0.836 0.898 0.121 0.634 -1.35 0.909My organization prefers 55 0.036 1.053 0.142 -0.201 -6.78 1.000Software limitations do 55 0.127 0.904 0.122 -0.077 -7.16 1.000Software limitations are 55 0.091 1.041 0.140 -0.144 -6.47 1.000
Standards and process (results - Mintab t-test, 95% confidence interval)
Test of mu = -1 vs < -1 95% UpperVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PCurrent BIM industry sta 55 -0.018 0.952 0.128 0.197 7.65 1.000
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1 95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PA process / implementati 55 1.109 0.875 0.118 0.912 0.92 0.180
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1 95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PCurrent BIM standards an 55 -0.382 0.933 0.126 -0.592 -10.99 1.000
Test of mu = -1 vs < -1 95% UpperVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PMy organization is aware 55 0.364 1.078 0.145 0.607 9.38 1.000
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1 95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T PStandards and work proce 55 0.073 1.034 0.139 -0.161 -6.65 1.000
Management and Management Decisions (results - Minitab t-test 95% confidence interval)
Test of mu = -1 vs < -1 95% UpperVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T P[1]Decision makers in my co 55 0.418 1.197 0.161 0.688 8.79 1.000[3]Decision makers in my co 55 0.655 0.886 0.120 0.855 13.84 1.000[4]BIM can be (or is) used 55 0.509 1.069 0.144 0.750 10.47 1.000
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1 95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T P[2]Decision makers in my co 55 0.200 0.951 0.128 -0.015 -6.24 1.000[5]Decision makers in my co 55 -0.273 1.193 0.161 -0.542 -7.91 1.000
BIM Implementation (results - Minitab t-test 95% confidence interval)
Test of mu = -1 vs < -1 95% UpperVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T P[1]Design firms are trained 55 -0.309 1.034 0.139 -0.076 4.95 1.000[5]Facility managers have s 54 -0.556 0.816 0.111 -0.370 4.00 1.000
Test of mu = 1 vs > 1 95% LowerVariable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T P[2]The lack of facilities m 55 0.582 0.875 0.118 0.384 -3.54 1.000[3]Data integrity issues re 55 0.327 0.862 0.116 0.133 -5.79 1.000[4]Lack of collaboration be 55 0.891 0.896 0.121 0.689 -0.90 0.815[6]BIM implementation issue 55 0.545 0.919 0.124 0.338 -3.67 1.000
N forVariable N N* Mean StDev Variance Median Mode ModeManagement decision to i 55 7 6.273 3.413 11.646 8.000 10 13Adequate Standards for B 55 7 4.164 2.440 5.954 4.000 2 13Work / management proces 55 7 5.036 2.538 6.443 5.000 5 12Version control of BIM m 55 7 4.018 2.966 8.796 3.000 3 13Data integrity of BIM mo 55 7 5.018 2.461 6.055 4.000 4 13Interoperability of BIM 55 7 6.091 2.398 5.751 6.000 6 11Collaboration between al 55 7 6.582 2.424 5.877 7.000 7 11Available training for B 55 7 5.527 2.974 8.846 6.000 8 9Industry_s level of expe 55 7 6.200 2.745 7.533 7.000 8 10Software capability 55 7 6.091 3.099 9.603 6.000 10 10
Wilcoxon Signed Rank CI: Management d, Adequate Sta, Work / manag, Version cont
Confidence Estimated Achieved Interval N N* Median Confidence Lower UpperManagement decision to implemen 55 7 6.00 95.0 5.50 7.50Adequate Standards for BIM 55 7 4.00 95.0 3.50 5.00Work / management processes 55 7 5.00 95.0 4.00 5.50Version control of BIM model 55 7 3.50 95.0 2.50 5.00Data integrity of BIM model (in 55 7 5.00 95.0 4.00 5.50Interoperability of BIM with ot 55 7 6.00 95.0 5.50 7.00Collaboration between all parti 55 7 6.50 95.0 6.00 7.50Available training for BIM 55 7 5.50 95.0 4.50 6.50Industry_s level of expertise 55 7 6.50 95.0 5.50 7.00Software capability 55 7 6.00 95.0 5.50 7.00
two sample t test
FM only responsesdelta = 0 =(x1-x2)/(SQRT(((s1^2)/n1) + ((s2^2)/n2)))
Ho = x1 = x2Ha = x1 <> x2confidence = 0.95
x1 s1 n1 x2 s2 n2 t t0.05Management decision to implement BIM 6.273 3.413 55 5.733 3.615 150.518893338 1.761Adequate standards for BIM 4.164 2.44 55 4.933 2.344 15 -1.116327445 1.761Work / management processes 5.036 2.538 55 4.667 2.32 15 0.534870341.761Version control of BIM model 4.018 2.966 55 3.933 3.348 15 0.089240535
1.761Data integrity of BIM model 5.018 2.461 55 4.133 2.031 15 1.426091891.761Interoperability of BIM software 6.091 2.398 55 6.333 2.289 15 -0.3592172521.761Collaboration between parties 6.582 2.424 55 6.2 2.336 15 0.5568339441.761Available BIM training 5.527 2.974 55 6.6 3.135 15 -1.187811102 1.761Industry’s expertise 6.2 2.745 55 5.933 3.081 15 0.304306781 1.761Software capability 6.091 3.099 55 6.533 3.067 15 -0.493642544 1.761
No Ho can be rejected.
Real Estate and Maintenance only responses
delta = 0Ho = x1 = x2 =(x1-x2)/(SQRT(((s1^2)/n1) + ((s2^2)/n2)))
Ha = x1 <> x2confidence = 0.95
x1 s1 n1 x2 s2 n2 t t0.05Management decision to implement BIM 6.273 3.413 55 4 4.123 5 1.1961.761Adequate standards for BIM 4.164 2.44 55 4.2 2.28 5 -0.034 1.761Work / management processes 5.036 2.538 55 3.8 1.789 5 1.420 1.761Version control of BIM model 4.018 2.966 55 4.8 3.701 5 -0.459 1.761Data integrity of BIM model 5.018 2.461 55 3.8 2.168 5 1.189 1.761Interoperability of BIM software 6.091 2.398 55 7.4 1.949 5 -1.408 1.761Collaboration between parties 6.582 2.424 55 6.4 0.8944 5 0.352 1.761Available BIM training 5.527 2.974 55 6.6 2.408 5 -0.934 1.761Industry’s expertise 6.2 2.745 55 7.4 3.435 5 -0.759 1.761Software capability 6.091 3.099 55 6.6 3.362 5 -0.326 1.761
No Ho can be rejected.
