Measuring BIM readiness with comprehension at the pre- maturity

Transcription

1 Creative Construction Conference 2015 Measuring BIM readiness with comprehension at the pre- maturity Senthilkumar Venkatachalam 1 *, Chamila D. D. Ramanayaka 2 1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, 27272, United Arab Emirates 2 The University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Jan Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, 2000, South Africa Abstract This study is contemplation into prevailing BIM (Building Information Modelling) development practices, especially at the prematurity level. Firstly, the authors investigate the incentives that are set based on quantitative techniques and illustrate that rational models could not assist practitioners to make decisions on BIM adoption. Secondly, the survey-based methodology, which is predominantly used to assess industry readiness, was also reviewed to evaluate the amount of attention given towards externalities, such as procurement, policy, technical and organizational environments which have a greater influence on BIM adoption. Further, the authors argue that the externalities are given a minimum consideration under the prevailing assessment criteria. The contextual-reflection is used to describe externalities and a qualitative study was done in the South African context to evaluate the contextual reflection comprehensively. Integrating the findings with the Technology Adoption Model and Bew Richard BIM Maturity Model, the authors suggest a conceptual framework at the end of this study which could be repeated successfully in other contexts to evaluate industry readiness in a holistic manner. Keywords: BIM; contextual reflection;readiness; technology adoption 1. Introduction Information management techniques in construction have been advanced significantly during the last few decades. In some countries, traditional methodologies, such as paper-based communication, are replaced by advanced BIM technologies, including the ability to share commercial data through proprietary interfaces (pbim) and work through integrated web services (ibim). Though BIM is believed as the future of the construction industry [1], many nations are still at the pre-bim maturity i.e. the Level of Development (LOD) zero according to the Bew-Richard maturity model [2]. Regardless of the abundance of literature, it is somewhat of a belief in such contexts still that BIM is a synonym for CAD [1]. However, the true value of BIM extends beyond simple spatial representation, hence its adoption in developed nations has been justified. BIM adoption in these countries depends on various factors, but practitioners attitudes towards BIM are largely governed by externalities [3] that are difficult to control. Secondly, there is no standard productivity data developed to estimate BIM s financial sustainability [4]. When rational data-driven decision making is impracticable, an alternative is to use subjective knowledge in estimating BIM s Return of Investment (ROI), which is a revoke of the chicken egg causality dilemma: BIM should be practiced to know its ROI, but without knowing financial sustainability, managers are reluctant to adopt BIM. Perhaps, this is why the establishment of technical pull (client pressure to use BIM) and push (availability of national protocols) strategies are required in order to encourage the wider BIM adoption and realize its benefits [2]. Strategy development is also unique: in the United Kingdom, stratagems are made by an industry-government leadership [2], whereas in New Zealand [1], France and Germany [5], the government leads the process. Perhaps, these different *Chamila D. D. Ramanayaka. Tel.: address: svenkat@sharjah.ac.ae 564

2 approaches are due to unique procurement, organizational and political characteristics of industries in which they operate. Under these circumstances, it is vital to evaluate the amount of contribution paid towards externalities by current methodologies under the assessment of industry readiness. More importantly, how existing methodologies could be improved in order to understand practitioners attitudes towards BIM? To answer these questions, this study suggests a conceptual framework to assess industry readiness by integrating the findings of a field study, which was conducted in South Africa, with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [6], Bew Richard Maturity Model [2] and annul BIM survey template used internationally [1]. The objectives pursued were: 1) finding the effectiveness of BIM stimuli set at the pre-bim maturity (literature review); 2) Identifying the effectiveness of current practices to evaluate industry readiness (content analysis to the BIM survey template); 3) Understanding how externalities influence practitioners reasoning towards BIM adoption (interviews analyzed via memo writing and systematic coding); and 4) Suggesting a comprehensive framework to evaluate industry readiness meaningfully. 2. BIM stimuli do they have wings? To encourage BIM development, the Productivity Partnership provides stimuli, solely believing in the merits of data-driven decision making. One fact is that only in 62% of situations, BIM could ensure greater ROIs in US [7]. Yet according to behavioral science, such facts rather induce negativity: a pessimist's attention is focused on the glass half empty allocates a disproportionately greater attention to the negative cues, while tending to forget the positive aspects [8]. As long as the construction industry is risk-averse [6], the possibility of occurring pessimistic information processing is perhaps high. Further, according to classical statistics, the amount of gain should be given as a frequency distribution to make decision under uncertainties. However, making such standard productivity data is quite impossible for BIM due to the presence of large amount of variables, including human factors [4]. Figure 1: Decision making collaboratively (a) and individually (b): (1,1), (1,3), (2,2) and (2,4) represent payoff values for each situation in the order of (client, contractor) Figure 1 illustrates two situations that managers could use rational models collaboratively (a) and individually (b). The first scenario is a decent of the Game Theory. In case one (no BIM by both parties), the lowest payoff values (1, 1) occur. When only the contractor adopts BIM, the client gets no advantage (1, 3); thus, the relevant BIM implementation cost should be spent by the contractor. Yet, when the client adopts BIM, the contractor s payoff is twice as of case 1. However, the fourth scenario has the highest payoff, and hence both are encouraged to use BIM collaboratively. In addition to optimize payoffs, this model tells the highest beneficiary, and hence the most responsible person for BIM adoption in terms of cost and time. However, the question remains: how a novice BIM user decides payoff values? The same question is relevant to individuals (Figure 1-b). To become financially viable, the net value of [a x GAIN - (100 - a) x LOSS] should be positive [LOSS= BIM implementation cost; GAIN equivalent value of expected benefits]. Yet, under the absence of standard productivity data, how beginners decide the probability of gain (a%)? Thus, BIM adoption is different to other technologies, such as changing formwork erection from traditional timber-frame to sheet-metal construction, where factors, such as the tolerable concrete pressure, adjustability, productivity and longevity, which are specified in standards formats. Since BIM s real benefits are long-term and ROI is uncertain [4], the industry would not be self-motivated to adopt BIM, which is why strategies and policies should be intervened [8]. However, when such policies are regulated, there should be national protocols (such as BS1992, AVANTI and Classification 1, 2), supporting the industry to establish common data environments, work procedures and data structures. It is highly likely that those protocols are context dependent. 565

3 3. Effect of externalities According to the Technical Adoption Model (TAM/Figure 2), perceived usefulness and ease of use are the two constructs psychometrically impacting technology adoption [6]. More importantly, practitioners who reject BIM are also positive about these constructs. For example, in New Zealand, compared to 74% of BIM-users, more non-users (80%) believe that BIM improves coordination between construction documents (perceived usefulness) [1]. Thus, it is reasonable to assume a strong element that governs practitioners action beyond BIM s properties, which are externalities (i.e. procurement, technical and organizational contexts) according to literature [3]. Though LOD1, which is the managed-cad status with common data environments [2], could be managed as a data-centric process, beyond that level, BIM is a knowledge-centric process implemented via integrated protocols, such as the Integrated project Delivery (IPD); yet in most countries, prevailing procurement methods are conventional and characterized by fragmentation, supporting only data-centric activities [10]. In New Zealand, where BIM development is at the pre-maturity, the contextual reflection, i.e. practitioners careful consideration of externalities and subsequent dependence beyond BIM s properties, before acting, crates a categorical model entitled process versus technology [11]; regardless of positive perceptions, the process-biased category tends mostly to avoid BIM due to prevailing unfavorable procurement and organizational characteristics. Also, externalities decide not only BIM adoption, but also the status of BIM uses (sub-optimal or near optimal) [11]. Figure 2: Technical Adoption Model by Davis et al. (1989) [6] 4. Is the contextual-reflection considered enough by developers To evaluate industry readiness, developers tend to repeat a universal survey template, annually [1]. Is this effective enough to uncover the uniqueness of the contextual-reflection? With the operational definitions focusing on differentiating BIM uses (U), internal properties (I) and externalities (E) (Table 1), the annual BIM survey template was analyzed to see the frequency of occurrence for the identified themes (Table 2). According to the frequencies counted for the 55 questions (Table 1), most externalities (E2, E3, E4 & E5) are given a minimum consideration compared to BIM s internal properties () and actual use () [Note that some subjective interpretations were done; the use of COBie (Construction Operations Building Information Exchange) demands life-cycle integration, and hence was considered under E3; providing BIM objects by software vendors (internal stakeholder with respect BIM) is under I2, but by manufactures (external stakeholders with respect to BIM) is under E1]. Perhaps, such efforts are well-suitable for countries at advanced BIM maturities such as the United Kingdome and Finland, due to richness in their BIM literature [2]. Yet at the pre-bim maturity, scarcity of literature could hinder practitioners attitudes towards BIM. Table 1: Themes in the annual BIM survey template operational definitions and frequencies Theme Operational definition Frequency Actual use () Implying BIM implementation in real construction projects 30, 54.5 % Behavioral intention to use (U2) Indicate BIM implementation in future, regardless of when 05, 9.1% Perceived usefulness () Measure BIM s ability to influence success or critical success factors 31, 56.3 % Ease of use (I2) Indicate user-friendliness, but internal to BIM s software capabilities (ability to bespoke design) 10, 18.2% Technical readiness (E1) Measures of external technicalities such as classification systems and user-guides 10, 18.2% Organizational readiness (E2) Indicate industry s organizational culture including work ethics 05, 9.1% Procurement readiness (E3) Measure inclination/existence of favorable procurement methods 05, 9.1% Policy readiness (E4) Imply authorities inclination towards introducing or existence of BIM policies 03, 5.5% Capital assets readiness (E5) Measure firms assets availability to support BIM enable construction/design 01, 1.8% 566

4 5. Design of the study To identify the contextual reflection in South Africa, a qualitative study was done. The findings will be generalized under future studies, and hence quantitative techniques, such as frequency of count, were not considered here. Due to limited South African BIM literature, the authors assumed that BIM adoption dynamics were unknown (i.e. minimum pre-conceptions), allowing the participants to define the problem through a systematic engagement. Face-to-face interviews were used and memo writing was the main mechanism to work with the data; sorting and coding were done using the memos to understand the contextual reflection Sample descriptions The contribution from this study to the main (future) research and the availability of resources (to answer the questions related to effective government intervention possibilities for the wider adoption of BIM) were considered as criteria for selecting the interviewees. P (participant) 1 (BIM vendor) and 7 (general consultant) had BIM experience in average of 18 years including more than 60% of that in the United Kingdom. The remaining participants were both BIM users and non-users subjected to the threshold criteria of minimum 10 years experience in South Africa and represented executives from regulatory bodies (P3, P4, P5 and P11), construction manager (P2), architects (P6 and P9), general consultant (P7), quantity surveyor (P8), client (P10) and real estate consultant (P12). The interviews were continued until no new theme was emerged (theoretical saturation at n=12). Table 2: Themes identified in the annual BIM survey template (ref) Criteria Questions/Statements in the questionnaire template (n=55) Themes Awareness and adoption of BIM Use of BIM in current projects Awareness and use of BIM (aware and using, aware, neither aware nor using), Where on the BIM journey are you? Is the use of BIM growing in your organization? You hear more and more about BIM these days BIM is the future of project information BIM is all about real time collaboration The industry is not clear enough on what BIM is yet, I trust what I hear about BIM, BIM does not facilitate bespoke design or construction methods BIM is all about software, BIM is just a synonym for 3D CAD drawings, Unless specifications are linked to the CAD model, it s not BIM, We will need BIM so we can design sustainable buildings, BIM is only for new build, not refurbishment, BIM leads to bland buildings Information models only work in the software they were made on I think the government is on the right track with BIM Within your organization have you adopted BIM for your projects, We produce hand drawings/2d CAD/3D CAD We work collaboratively on design/ We only share our CAD models inside our organization/ We share our CAD models with design team members outside our organization/ All the design team produce 3D building information models, but we don t have one model that includes all the information/ All the design team contribute to one 3D information model that we all share and contribute to, We use the model from the very start to the very end The model we use depends on one piece of software When producing CAD drawings, which of the following tools do you mainly use? We produce 2D visualizations using our CAD models/we produce 3D visualizations using our CAD models, We automatically generate schedules from our CAD models, We automatically generate bills from our CAD models, We carry out performance analysis (energy consumption/structural/acoustic) on our CAD models We export information from our CAD models to a non-proprietary format (IFC/gbXML), U2,,U2 / I2 I2 E4 /E2 / E3 / / E1 / Data coordination Use of BIM collaborative protocols Barriers to BIM adoption We need to have access to well-structured generic CAD objects, not just manufacturer's objects We keep a library of CAD objects we create for re-use Where do you get the CAD objects your organization uses (CAD package/created in-house and then re-used/created as needed for a project/manufacturers/..specialists outside our organization)? Which of the following statements best describes how your organization normally links CAD drawings to project specifications (automatically, manually, not relevant, etc.)? How does your organization co-ordinate the information in your CAD model and your specification (Masterspec/CBI section or clause numbering on drawings/internal, etc.)? Do you use IFC (Industry Foundation Classes) on your projects? I2/ E1 / E1 I2/ E1 / / E1 / E1, E2, Do you generate COBie on your projects? E1/ E3/ E2/ Lack of expertise E1, I2 Don t see benefit Liability concerns E4 Lack of standardized tools and protocol E1 567

5 BIM the future for the construction industry Lack of collaboration Cost How confident are you in your knowledge and skills in BIM? BIM the future for the construction industry (currently using/n years time)? Adopting BIM has required changes in our workflow, practices and procedures Adopting BIM has improved visualization, Adopting BIM has increased coordination of construction documents, Adopting BIM has brought cost efficiencies, Adopting BIM has increased speed of delivery, Adopting BIM has increased our profitability, Adopting BIM has made traditional bills of quantities redundant within our organization, Adopting BIM has made traditional specifications redundant within our organization, I d rather we had not adopted BIM We have adopted BIM successfully Adopting BIM has improved productivity due to easy retrieval of information Clients will increasingly insist on us using BIM Contractors will increasingly insist on us using BIM E2/ E3 E5 I2, U2 E2 / I2 / / I2/ / E3, E4 E3 6. Findings Though the main study considered current maturities, pertinent LOD transitions [2] and perceived usefulness, only unique characteristics of the contextual reflection are described due to the limited scope and aim of this paper. However, it is worth to mention here that advanced BIM maturities in South Africa are driven mainly by international joint-ventures (P1, 7). The capital assets readiness (E5) is not discussed, as long as the themes emerged were too general (e.g. cost). Technical readiness (E1): though the unavailability of national protocols was mentioned frequently by the BIM users (P1, 7, 9, 11), this is a general issue occurring beyond the LOD 0. In addition to difficulties in reusing data and prevailing misinterpretations, unavailability of user-guides incur difficulties in understanding minimum information requirements, leading to the over complicated BIM models (P7, 11). Insufficient internet infrastructures largely obstruct BIM implementation at advanced LODs (P1, 7). Under ideal BIM implementation, stakeholders could not wait until information is transferred through USB sticks and DVDs, but exchanging BIM models, which exceed 500 megabytes sometimes, is an enormous challenge (P1, 7) using the slowest internet speed in the world [12]. Organizational readiness (E2): In South Africa, contractors tend not to check design errors and constructability in advance, but rather are reactive under the presence of such issues to minimize consequences (for example, using cheap casual labors to recover schedule losses) (P6, 9, 10, 11). Thus, it is skeptic whether practitioners tend to use deliberate strategies to reduce design errors and enhance constructability (such as using BIM), specifically when BIM s financial sustainability is unknown (P1, 10, 11). Procurement readiness (E3): while half of the participants (P2, 7, 4, 5, 8, 11) were unable to answer, the rest believed that favorable procurement methods, similar to IPD, should be established, except P3 who believed that any procurement method could support BIM. As described in the discussion, BIM s two pillars (collaboration and integration) could not be differentiated well by the South African regulatory experts. Policy readiness (E4): though there is a possibility to encourage BIM through existing policy regimes (the Best Practice Project Assessment and Best Practice Contractor Recognition), no regulatory body starts such initiative until the industry lays the foundation (P3, 11). Yet, the industry does not believe that BIM implementation is mainly driven by the industry due to prevailing work ethics (P1, 9, 10, 12). Having no such policy schemes for other stakeholders, significant development could not be expected from regulating policies only for contractors (P10). Also, under the Regulatory Impact Assessment, existing policy regimes, such as the Black Employment Empowerment, could become critical considerations (P3, 10, P11), especially if BIM is driven by international jointventures. 7. Discussion To reduce opposing views and misconceptions about industry awareness, survey based techniques provide generalized and independent views [1]. Yet repeating a universal questionnaire, especially at the pre-maturity, is not comprehensive enough to uncover the contextual reflection [11], which largely governs practitioners' attitudes towards BIM [3]. Though the effect of externalities is frequently emphasized in literature, the current survey-based methodology provides a minimum attention to identify procurement, organizational, and policy characteristics that are unique from one context to another. Some other issues, such as inadequate internet infrastructures, are not under control by the construction industry, but define the scope of BIM implementation at the beginning of a project (e.g. amount of distant work and use of web-based servers). By using casual (perhaps unskilled) labors under the presence of design errors, could contractors complete projects with high quality construction standards? This is a motivation 568

6 for clients to think of mandating proactive strategies, such as using BIM, under contract obligations, so that constructability issues and design errors could be identified in advance. This implies that technical pull strategies are more appealing to countries like South Africa. For the public sector, BIM could be mandated at a realistic LOD through existing policy schemes, but it would be a challenge under regulatory impact assessments to prove BIM's financial sustainability due to the unavailability of standard productivity data [4]. In a country, where regulations are well-established to empower previously disadvantaged societies, BIM enabling policies could conflict existing policy regimes (such as the Black Employment Empowerment), especially if advanced BIM maturities are driven by international joint-ventures. In addition to provide threshold limits for BIM compliance design/construction/operation, knowledge diffusion mechanisms should be established to minimize disadvantages to small/medium firms. The regulatory bodies should have clearer understanding of BIM fundamentals, such as the meanings of integration and collaboration. As long as collaboration is based on data-centric activities that information is exchanged back and forth between project disciplines, it is true that even traditional procurement methods could support it. Yet under advance usage, BIM is a knowledge centric process that each stakeholder contributes specific knowledge from the very first to the every end of a project, where integration is a must [10]. Based on these findings, the evaluation of industry readiness should be a holistic process that measures actual use, perceived usefulness and ease of use along with the contextual-reflection, and also benchmarked to LODs (Figure 3). For example, if the most pertinent transition is the LOD 0-1, under the technical readiness, the utmost important criterion is the availability of common data environment to file, folder and layer naming; at this transition, there is no importance in evaluating the ability of exchanging commercial data through proprietary interfaces or bespoke middleware, which is a criterion relevant to the LOD 1-2 transition [2]. Yet the conclusions of the annual BIM surveys are independent of LODs [1]. Further, the amount of years taken for a transition (T) is unlikely to be decided through questionnaires; the countries at the pre-maturity could learn from comprehensive and holistic procedures followed by BIM competitive countries [2], and modify those procedures to reflect their own contexts. 8. Conclusion Figure 3: Conceptual framework for the evaluation of industry readiness and BIM awareness meaningfully BIM adoption is challenging and unique compared to other technology adoption phenomenon due to its strong influence from the contextual-reflection and unavailability of standard procedures to estimate its financial sustainability. As the participants emphasized, perhaps, the industry alone could not drive BIM, specifically at developing contexts due to fragmented organizational culture and prevailing poor work ethics. This is why both technical pull and push strategies should be crafted. However, the development of policies and national protocols must reflect industry's uniqueness in terms of organizational, technical, policy and procurement environments. Thus, in addition to perceived usefulness and ease of use (which mostly evaluate BIM's strengths and weaknesses), externalities should also be identified and evaluated to reflect on opportunities and threats, at any LOD beyond zero, The current survey-based methodology is not adequate alone to uncover the contextual-reflection at the pre- BIM maturity, specifically due to the scarcity of BIM literature in such contexts. References [1] Masterpec, New Zealand National BIM Survey 2013, Masterpec Construction Information Limited, Auckland, [2] GCCG, Building Information Modelling (BIM) Working Party Strategy Paper the Government Construction Client Group, London,

7 [3] The American Institute of Architects, Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide: The American Institute of Architects, Washington, [4] R. Sebastian, L. van Berlo, Tool for Benchmarking BIM Performance of Design, Engineering and Construction Firms in The Netherlands, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 6 (2010) [5] Knutt, E. (2015). France and Germany move forward on BIM adoption. from [6] S. M. E.Sepasgozar, L. E. Bernold, Factors Influencing the Decision of Technology Adoption in Construction. ICSDEC (2012) [7] The Productivity Partnership, Productivity Benifits of BIM, The Productivity Partenership, Auckalnd, [8] Hecht, D. (2013), The Neural Basis of Optimism and Pessimism, Experimental Neurobiology, 22(3), [9] Heiskanen, A., NBS International BIM Report, NBS, New Castle, [10] Beck, P., Collaboration vs. Integration: Implications of a Knowledge-Based Future for the AEC Industry, the Design Intelligence Design Futures Council, Georgia, [11]Ramanayaka, S.C.D.D., Will countries at the pre-maturity move towards BIM or remain traditional - an exploratory study, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, [12] Internet Society, Global Internet Report, 570