WIXLIB

Table 5-9: Factors and measures found or revised after using Framework-1 to document21 case projects . 70Table 5-10: Framework-2 (The text in blue indicates the factors and measures that arenewly found or revised. The bullets are the descriptive features for a particularmeasure.) . 76Table 5-11: Factors and measures found or revised after using Framework-2 to document11 case projects . 84Table 5-12: Framework-3 (The text in blue indicates the factors and measures that arenewly found or revised for Framework-1; and the text in red indicates thefactors and measures that are newly found or revised for Framework-2. Thebullets are the descriptive features for a particular measure.) . 86Table 5-13: Factors and measures found or revised after using Framework-3 to document8 case projects . 94Table 6-1: A characterization framework to document BIM implementations onconstruction projects . 96Table 7-1: Validation metrics and methods for the characterization framework for BIMimplementations . 101Table 7-2: Calculating the sufficiency of the three versions of the characterizationframework for BIM implementations . 104Table 7-3: Examples of calculating the consistency (occurrence) of measures across the40 cases . 105Table 7-4: Calculating the consistency of the characterization framework for BIMimplementations . 106Table 7-5: Factors and measures used to develop crosswalk 1 . 109xii

Table 7-6: Crosswalk 1 links BIM uses to the corresponding impacts on product, process,and organization and the related benefits to project stakeholders. (The text initalic indicates case examples which are listed in Table 5-1, Table 5-2, andTable 5-3.) . 111Table 7-7: Factors and measures used to develop crosswalk 2 . 117Table 7-8: Crosswalk 2 links BIM uses with the impacts on product, organization, andprocess along the project timeline. 118Table 7-9: Factors and measures used to develop crosswalk 3 . 124Table 7-10: Crosswalk 3 links the key stakeholders’ roles in the BIM process with thebenefits to them as individual stakeholders . 125Table 7-11: Factors and measures used to develop crosswalk 2 . 130Table 7-12: Crosswalk 4 (part II) links the timing of developing the level of detail in BIMwith the corresponding benefits. . 134Table 7-13: A summary of the validation results. 138Table 8-1: Implementation patterns confirm or adjust the general beliefs about BIMimplementations . 140xiii

TABLE OF FIGURESFigure 2-1: Individual BIM stories only provide unstructured and fragmented capture ofBIM implementations and cannot help AEC professionals how to set up a BIMimplementation consistently. . 12Figure 2-2: Comparing BIM stories with insufficient and inconsistent project data tocapture BIM implementations cannot help AEC professionals understand theimplementation patterns (i.e., how to set up a BIM implementation to maximizebenefits). 15Figure 2-3: The “data to knowledge” chain is broken without a formalized framework. 16Figure 2-4: A formalized framework is an indispensable step in linking the broken chainof “data to knowledge.” . 20Figure 3-1: The structure of Framework-1 . 38Figure 3-2: Labeling the categories in Framework-1 . 39Figure 3-3: Labeling the factors in Framework-1 . 40Figure 5-1: Three phases of case studies for the development of the characterizationframework for BIM implementations . 50Figure 5-2: Research activities and deliverables involved in data collection, analysis, andframework development . 58Figure 7-1: Requirements of a good characterization framework for BIMimplementations . 99Figure 7-2: Overview map of the characterization framework for BIM implementations. 103xiv

Figure 7-3: Three levels (high, medium, and low) of occurrence of the measures in theframework . 107Figure 7-4: The trend line correlates the number of model uses to the number of benefitsfor the 40 cases (each case is represented by a dot). . 116Figure 7-5: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the “ownerleading” situations . 127Figure 7-6: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the “GCleading” situations . 128Figure 7-7: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the“designer leading” situations . 129Figure 7-8: Crosswalk 4 (part I) links the level of detail in BIM with the timing of BIM. 131Figure 7-9: Framework applied to different project types, delivery methods, and sizes 135xv

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH MOTIVATION AND READER’SGUIDETeicholz (2004) suggests that the introduction of 3D object-based CAD is one of the mostimportant new approaches to construction productivity improvement to allow improveddesign, team collaboration, construction bidding, planning and execution, and real ownervalue at all stages of a project’s life cycle. Despite this vision, few project teams availthemselves of the continued and widespread use of building information modeling1(BIM) to the extent possible and economical. One challenge of crossing the “chasm”(Moore 1999) from “early adopters” (a few visionaries) to “early majority” (mostpragmatists) lies in the lack of concrete and formal understanding of implementations andimpacts of BIM on projects. To develop this understanding, one of the approaches is tostudy what happened on past projects that have implemented BIM and to synthesize thedifferences and commonalities.The objective of the research is to provide a framework to characterize why, when, forwhom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIMimplementations are done on projects. With the characterization framework, past projectscan be documented sufficiently and consistently so that BIM managers or BIMresearchers can compare a group of BIM projects to gain insight into how to maximizethe benefits of BIM.1.1Research MotivationThe idea of this research started from the researcher’s experience visiting Finland,Norway, the Netherlands, India, and China. The researcher talked to many AECprofessionals and learned their stories in the world of virtual design and construction. Theresearcher also attended conferences and workshops where AEC practitioners presented1The definitions of the terms underlined and formatted in bold and italic are in Appendix A.1

their visions, experiences, and beliefs. While it was fascinating to learn about thesestories, it quickly became overwhelming. Can BIM professionals and researchers puttogether these anecdotes, compare BIM implementations across different projects, andunderstand them collectively? This frustration provided the motivation for the researchefforts presented here.1.2Reader’s Guide – Key Points of the ThesisThe contribution of the research is a characterization framework (as shown in Chapter 6 –Research Result) that: Organizes project data of BIM implementations into a classification scheme of 3categories, 14 factors, and 74 measures with an elaborating level of detail. Sufficiently and consistently captures:o why (building information models (BIM) uses),o when (timing of BIM),o for whom (stakeholders involvement),o at what level of detail (modeled data),o with which tools (BIM software),o how (BIM work flow),o for how much (effort and cost), ando how well (benefits) BIM implementations were done in 40 case projects. Supports cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations to gain insights intoimplementation patterns).The current BIM stories (as discussed in Chapter 2 – Practical Points of Departure) oftenpresent fragmented project data that cannot capture BIM implementations in a structured,sufficient, and consistent way. In addition, the currently available BIM frameworks andguidelines (as discussed in Chapter 3 – Theoretical Points of Departure) lack validationby a large number of real projects. From these two points, AEC professionals cannotachieve knowledge that guides them towards well-defined, measurable, and monitoredBIM implementations. To link the broken chain “from data to knowledge” (Ackoff2

1989), a framework (which characterizes BIM implementations sufficiently, consistently,and in a structured way) is needed to compare BIM implementations across projects andto facilitate the understanding of how to plan a BIM implementation to maximizebenefits.The quality of the characterization framework manifests itself in three aspects.1. A good framework has documentation power. Structured organization: The framework organizes the project data of BIMimplementations in a structured way; Sufficient and consistent capture: The framework captures the project data ofBIM implementations as sufficiently and consistently as needed forcomparing why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools,how, for how much, and how well BIM is implemented across differentprojects.2. A good framework supports the comparison of BIM implementations acrossprojects to gain insights on implementation patterns.3. A good framework has the methodological rigor that is embedded in researchdesign and data analysis. Generality: The framework should be applicable to a number of case projectswith variations in project type, size, delivery method, time period of designand construction, and project location. Validity: The validity of the framework depends on how well the frameworkreflects the BIM implementations which it intends to document.Validation studies (as discussed in Chapter 7 – Research Validation) show that thecharacterization framework for BIM implementations presented in this thesis: Enables the organization of a BIM implementation in a structured way. Facilitates the capture of a BIM implementation sufficiently and consistently.3

o Sufficient capture: The fewer new measures that have to be added to theframework as more case are carried out, the more confidence theresearcher can have that the framework is sufficiently developed. Afterthe study of BIM on 40 cases, the degree of saturation of the framework is100%. That is to say, within the scope of 40 case projects, the frameworkcaptures all the major characteristics related to why, when, for whom, atwhat level of detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how wellBIM implementations are done.o Consistent capture: The more measures (related to factors, e.g., modeluses, etc.) occurred in 40 cases, the more confidence the researcher hasthat this framework is consistent. After applying the framework to 40 caseprojects, I found that: 1) 56% of the 74 measures are observed in more than 75% of the40 case projects; 2) 20% of the 74 measures are observed in 25% - 75% of the 40case projects; and 3) 24% of the 74 measures are observed in fewer than 25% of thecase projects. Supports the comparison of BIM implementations across projects to gaininsights on implementation patterns. The researcher found four significantimplementation patterns from documenting and comparing 40 case projects withthe framework.o The higher the number of BIM uses on a project, the higher the numberof benefits.o The earlier BIM is created and used, the more lasting the benefits ofBIM.o The benefits to each individual stakeholder and to the whole project teamare maximized when the key stakeholders are all involved in creating andusing BIM.4

o Projects that maximized benefits have created BIMs at the appropriatelevel of detail that matches a particular model use and is just in time withthe information available at different design and construction stages.In addition, the generality of the framework is demonstrated by being applied to a widespectrum of projects (40 cases) with variations in project type, size, delivery method andcontract, time period of design and construction, and project location.The validity of the framework is demonstrated by the use of four techniques in researchdesign (as discussed in Chapter 4 – Research Methods and Chapter 5 – Research Tasks). Ethnographic interviews: The interview questions became refined and morespecific over the course of data collection and

Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a new way of working and AEC professionals and researchers are trying to understand its implementation and impacts. To develop this . Table 5-12: Framework-3 (The text in blue indicates the factors and measures that are newly found or r