Investigating the intangible benefits of employing building information modeling on the design and construction industry

Abstract

Building information modeling (BIM) is a viable technology that can be applied to improving the design and construction process. To better understand the effect of BIM on the design and construction industry, a comprehensive survey that consists of a general questionnaire and expert interview was conducted. The survey aimed to distinguish the participants' responses based on their positions and their firm's sector, role, experience, size, and level of BIM implementation in order to collect their views on various related topics for the theoretical contribution of this study. By utilizing the survey results, an interview was designed to investigate and identify further in-depth information regarding BIM's possible intangible benefits. This study indicates that among 41 identified BIM intangibles, 33 are autonomous and relatively disconnected from the system, suggesting that most of the intangibles should be considered separately and are not affected by, or driving additional factors.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00527-8
TECHNICAL PAPER
Investigating theintangible benefits ofemploying building
information modeling onthedesign andconstruction industry
YahyaAlassaf1· AmirsamanMahdavian2 · AmrA.Oloufa3
Received: 19 January 2021 / Accepted: 24 April 2021
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
Abstract
Building information modeling (BIM) is a viable technology that can be applied to improving the design and construction
process. To better understand the effect of BIM on the design and construction industry, a comprehensive survey that consists
of a general questionnaire and expert interview was conducted. The survey aimed to distinguish the participants’ responses
based on their positions and their firm’s sector, role, experience, size, and level of BIM implementation in order to collect
their views on various related topics for the theoretical contribution of this study. By utilizing the survey results, an interview
was designed to investigate and identify further in-depth information regarding BIM’s possible intangible benefits. This
study indicates that among 41 identified BIM intangibles, 33 are autonomous and relatively disconnected from the system,
suggesting that most of the intangibles should be considered separately and are not affected by, or driving additional factors.
Keywords Building information modeling· Construction industry· Design· Intangible benefits· Driving and dependence
power diagram· Structural self-interaction matrix
Introduction
Construction projects often face expensive impediments
such as change orders and contract adjustments, which have
been found to cost the industry between 5 and 10% of the
total project value [30], and Serag [31]. According to the
Bureau [5], construction work performed in 2015 costs
upwards of $1125 billion, meaning these common con-
struction problems may have cost the industry ~ $58 billion
that year alone. One of the leading causes of these project
overrun issues is the lack of quality information exchange
between all parties involved in a given project [6], and [8].
Elhendawi etal. [9] reported that the common issues are
inter-party conflicts, safety or quality concerns, going over
budget, time delays, increases in order changes, increased
project waste or complexity, and finally, client satisfaction.
The utilization of building information modeling (BIM)
in the construction industry has gained support in recent
years Park etal. [26]. At present, BIM is increasingly used
to address chief concerns in the AEC industry but has not
yet gained widespread governmental acceptance, primarily
in developing nations Elhendawi etal. [9]. Past studies have
identified a clear link between BIM use and industry-wide
improvements in the field of construction, but this relation-
ship has yet to be fully assessed Ahankoob etal. [2]. In the
study by Guo etal. [11], the use of BIM in the construction
industry is dependent on members of the construction project
(architects, project managers, stakeholders, and designers)
obtaining the appropriate knowledge and expertise Doum-
bouya etal. [7]. In the research side, the benefits of BIM
technological implementation have been well documented.
Despite this, studies that address the actual quantification
and comparative analysis of these benefits are still needed.
Current research methods put a greater emphasis on the tan-
gible benefits (cost and time savings, building productivity)
* Amirsaman Mahdavian
amirsaman@knights.ucf.edu
Yahya Alassaf
yalassaf@knights.ucf.edu
Amr A. Oloufa
amr.oloufa@ucf.edu
1 Civil andEnvironmental Engineering, University ofCentral
Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
2 Department ofCivil Engineering, College ofEngineering
andComputer Science, University ofCentral Florida,
Orlando, FL32816, USA
3 Department ofCivil andEnvironmental Engineering,
University ofCentral Florida, P.O. Box98765, Orlando, FL,
USA

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
174 Page 2 of 13
but fail to consider the more intangible benefits of using
BIM technology such as increased trust and collaboration
Doumbouya etal. [7]. Lee and Yu [17] and Lee etal. [18]
stated that building information modeling (BIM) technology
is now regarded globally as a valuable method of devising
a knowledge-based construction industry. This technology
utilized three-dimensional (3D) visualization (or greater)
and simulation methods to enhance business performance.
To quote Giel and Issa [10], “The emergence of BIM, and
the evolution of virtual design and construction (VDC) in
the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) indus-
try are fundamentally changing the process by which build-
ings are designed and constructed.” The nature of the AEC
industry is that of a sophisticated, multidisciplinary team
working together in an environment of mass interaction. As
BIM impacts include measurable and immeasurable aspects,
it can be challenging to determine the impact of BIM as a
single variable in a construction project. The measurable
aspects of BIM outcomes, such as time savings, can be
measured and monetized by the amount of cash reduction on
the number of required resources. On the other hand, BIM
intangible benefits, such as a better team culture, enhanced
conflict resolution, and increased client confidence, are soft
benefits that cannot be so easily monetized. BIM enables
better coordination between various project parties, which in
turn prevents common problems generated by the traditional
method of design and information exchange. For instance,
for architects and engineers, BIM 3D modeling reduces the
design cycle time by 20–50% [12]. Some AEC profession-
als still adhere to traditional methods, while others insist
that BIM will revolutionize the entire industry [24]. Adopt-
ing new methods or technologies is often costly in many
respects, and industry parties such as owners, designers, and
contractors may require substantial evidence to justify the
adoption of BIM [24].
Some of the understudied issues in the BIM field involve
the relationship between a firms’ role, the market level,
experience, the level of BIM implementation, the level of
investment required for BIM, and the BIM’s metrics, adop-
tion motivations, and concerns. Additionally, while there
has been an extensive literature review discussing the tangi-
ble benefits of using BIM in the construction industry, only
limited research has addressed the intangible benefits that
cannot easily be calculated and monetized.
The principal goal of this study is to fill the above-men-
tioned gaps by using the data collected from the general
survey, and the interviews conducted in this study. By ana-
lyzing the results of the general survey and obtaining a better
understanding about the system dynamics between various
stakeholders of the BIM market between, an interview was
then designed to investigate the intangibles benefits of BIM
utilization. BIM impacts on tangibles such as cost, schedule,
ROI, safety were investigated in many studies. Intangible
benefits of BIM were also mentioned in many studies but
were never of main concern. This study’s main focus on
intangible benefits adds value to body of the knowledge.
Although many other studies have investigated the various
aspects of BIM’s applications and tangible benefits, this
research tackles the effect of the intangibles in BIM pro-
jects employing both survey and interview methods to elicit
information required for the study. The study demonstrated
that many of these intangibles are measurable.
The next section of this study encompasses a literature
review, investigating any previously published studies
covering various areas related to BIM. Subsequently, the
methodology of this research, including the data collection
procedures in the general survey and from the interviews,
is addressed. Finally, the conclusion section highlights how
this research is distinct from previous studies in this area,
the contribution of this research, and recommendations for
future research.
Literature review
BIM technology can provide benefits in every stage of the
construction project, including improved information shar-
ing, reduced design errors and cost, improved implementa-
tion, and improved design quality. Besides, BIM allowed
for higher energy efficiency overall, more operational effi-
ciency among owners, better support among construction
and project management, and improvements that resulted in
faster work and a shorter construction time [7]. Moreover,
the study by Elhendawi etal. [9] indicated that an inadequate
awareness of BIM or a resistance to change was key issues
that impeded BIM implementation. BIM experience was
identified as a significant factor in recognizing BIM ben-
efits, suggesting that increased BIM experience improved
BIM understanding and may lead to greater adoption of the
technology Ahankoob etal. [2]. Guo etal. [11] reported that
changing the project delivery method improved trust when
stakeholders interacted via BIM, when stakeholders could
minimize conflicts, or when the project was more compli-
cated or of a higher value.
As BIM impacts include measurable and immeasurable
aspects, it can be challenging to determine the effect of BIM
as a single variable in a construction project. The tangible
benefits, such as time savings, can more readily be measured
and monetized by the amount of cost reduction and the num-
ber of required resources [3, 4, 14]. In contrast, intangible
benefits are the profits attributable to the improvement of
the project that are not formally reportable for accounting
objectives. These benefits are not entered into the financial
considerations, as they cannot be easily monetized, or are
subjective or challenging to measure; although they may still
have a very notable business impact [3, 4]. Some of the BIM

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
Page 3 of 13 174
intangible benefits include a better team culture, enhanced
conflict resolution, and increased client confidence.
Many AEC professionals do not rely on the qualitative
benefits of BIM, such as improved scope clarification,
adverse risks reduction, communication improvement, coor-
dination improvement, and quality increase [24]. Instead,
they seek quantitative evidence derived from real construc-
tion cases, in which owners and contractors prefer to com-
pare the monetized benefits of employing BIM-related soft-
ware in their projects [24]. The McGraw Hill Smart Market
Report [23] compiled a list of long- and short-term BIM
benefits. The top long-term BIM benefit was “maintaining
repeat business”, at 49% in 2012 and 36% in 2009, whereas
“fewer claims/litigation” was last on the list at 28% in 2012
and 20% in 2009 [23]. Other long-term benefits included
“reduce project duration,” “increase economic profit,” and
“reduce construction cost.” Barlish and Sullivan [4] con-
ducted a case study analysis of 21 real construction projects,
identifying the benefits by building a comparison model of
BIM and non-BIM projects, and measuring the effects of
BIM on the following metrics: RFIs, change orders, sched-
ule, design cost, and construction cost. They found that BIM
projects have benefited from BIM by decreasing the number
of RFIs, the percentage of change orders, and the percent-
age of projects “behind standard schedule.” BIM users gave
“significantly reduce change order/claim” a low ranking
among the other benefits and put more faith in BIMs ability
to improve collaboration and decision making.
Owners are consistently striving to reduce financial con-
flicts that may result between a disagreement in claimed
order changes. As a result, there is a strong incentive to
research ways that BIM can be a tool capable of reducing
the order change; and in turn, reduce the cost of the project.
Martinez-Aires etal. [21] stated that BIM contributes
a robust visual perception of a site and the working states
before the beginning of the construction stage and promotes
a visual depiction of site conditions. BIM allows users to
recognize the risks, plan for the work at hand, and there-
fore accomplish the task more efficiently and safely. This
is achieved by recognizing each task and work zone with
their corresponding hazards, and allowing communication
and collaboration among various team members, both in the
design phase and during construction. Ahankoob etal. [2]
also showed that builders with 5–10years of BIM experi-
ence had a more robust perception of BIM advantages than
builders with less than five years’ experience in the fol-
lowing items: “making an informed decision,” “decreases
design-errors,” and “design alternatives.” Similarly, builders
with more than ten years of BIM experience comprehended
the items “decreases design-errors” better than builders with
less than five years’ experience. Khanzode etal. [15] also
stated that BIM has resulted in “positive outcomes in the
production process as significantly less rework and zero con-
flicts in the field installation system”.
A study by Zheng etal. [35] created a quantitative SVN
model for BIM-based capital projects where “knowledge/
information” flows were distinguished as capital value flows
(38%). Furthermore, Zheng etal. [35] reported that intangi-
ble value flows (69%) were more than twice that of tangible
ones (31%).
Although BIM is anticipated to serve the construction
sector significantly, it is still in its initial stages. The main
reason for this is the need to combine BIM with other tech-
nologies; which results in a shortage of interoperability of
BIM concepts with other standards data management. Cur-
rently, industry foundation classes (IFC) are the only BIM-
related ISO standard being employed by AEC professionals.
The required adjustments and adaptations also result in a
shortage of expertise among the project team and outside
organizations. Consequently, continued work is needed on
the process of standardization to enhance the use of BIM
technologies and its forecasted profits [25].
The obstacles that users of BIM face are in general com-
mon, understandable concerns. Abazid etal. [1] stated that
most of the respondents believe there is a poor implementa-
tion of BIM in the execution of construction projects, which
is regarded as the most crucial factor leading to poor total
quality management. The most substantial obstacles to BIM
adoption include insufficient demand from clients and other
firms on projects, insufficient time to evaluate it, the expen-
sive of software, the expensive of hardware upgrades [34],
and legal and contractual issues. These concerns relate to the
model ownership, risk allocation, project responsibilities,
and other contractual issues that are addressed in standard
contract form. These concerns have been organized in the
FMI/CMAA survey and are included as hurdles that prevent
the use of BIM [6]. Companies adopt new technology or
methods at different rates. The adoption of BIM requires
an internal change in these organizations [27], and [28]. To
measure the rate of BIM adoption, the BIM maturity level
scale was created by the UK Department of Business Inno-
vation and Skills (BIS). Researchers also identified BIM
obstacles in the AEC industry, such as Tan etal. [33], which
asserted that compared with cost-related obstacles, the short-
age of research conducted on BIM implementation and the
deficiency of standards and domestic-oriented tools were
issues that deserved more considerable attention.
One of the essential issues in the BIM field is a lack of
analysis of the relationship between firms’ roles, the market
level, experience, the level of BIM implementation, the level
of investment required for BIM, and BIM’s metrics, adop-
tion motivations, and concerns. Additionally, as stated in
the reviewed literature of this study, while the BIM impacts
on both tangible and intangible benefits were mentioned in

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
174 Page 4 of 13
many studies, the intangible benefits were never of main
concern.
This study is framed in two stages, following a general
survey and 45 semi-structured expert interviews. By utiliz-
ing the analysis of the results of the general survey, a better
understanding about the system dynamics of the BIM market
between various stakeholders was obtained. Furthermore,
the expert interview questions were designed based on the
results of the general survey to investigate the intangibles
benefits of BIM targeting BIM managers. Ultimately, 41
intangible benefits and their interrelationships were identi-
fied by the expert interviews, utilizing seven metrics includ-
ing BIM management, cost, schedule, safety, project deliv-
ery, and quality.
Methodology
The principal goal of this study was to investigate the intan-
gible benefits of employing building information modeling
in the design and construction industry. From a system-
atic perspective, this study aims to address the following
objectives:
1. Generating a reference to test the effect of BIM features
against standard metrics (including seven metrics of
BIM management, cost, schedule, safety, project deliv-
ery, and quality).
2. Analyzing the relationship between a firms’ role, the
market level, experience, level of BIM implementation,
level of investment required for BIM, and BIM’s met-
rics, adoption motivations, concerns, and uses.
3. Identifying the intangible benefits of BIM for project
success and money-saving as a vital aspect that requires
specific investigation.
The objectives of the study were investigated in two main
steps. The first step was based on a general survey that cov-
ered the various firm’s role, specialty, level of BIM imple-
mentation, implementation duration, level of experience,
market level, and sector. This goal of this step was to gather
the general perceptions of AEC professionals regarding the
effect of BIM in design and construction. The general ques-
tionnaire aimed to distinguish the participants’ responses
based on their position and their firm’s sector, role, experi-
ence, size, and the level of BIM implementation in order to
highlight their views on various related topics. By utilizing
the results of the general survey, 14 questions were designed
to investigate more in-depth information regarding BIM fea-
tures and BIM intangibles. This was accomplished through
interviews targeting BIM managers, directors, or leaders in
large or medium-sized companies that were experienced in
BIM projects with an advanced BIM level of development
based on the AIA or BIM forum standard.
After conducting a comprehensive literature review, the
general survey questionnaire was designed with 30 questions
and issued to BIM professionals in the design and construc-
tion industry. The reason for concentrating on design and
construction firms was that they were consistently consid-
ered as partners in every project. However, in terms of BIM,
they had different perceptions and usage levels. BIM profes-
sionals in the AEC industry targeted in this research included
managers, engineers, and architects who had used BIM
professionally in actual projects. These cohorts were cho-
sen to participate in this research to gather in-depth insight
and understanding into how BIM features were used. Two
groups of BIM professional participants were selected from
all over the USA, the Revit Users Group and the Contrac-
tors’ Users’ Group, located in Florida, Georgia, California,
Texas, New York, Washington, Virginia, and North Carolina
and attended the general survey and interviews in this study.
Only participants who used and implemented BIM in most
of their projects were targeted. The questionnaire was sent to
210 selected stakeholders, and 145 responded. The response
rate was 69%, which is an acceptable rate for a questionnaire
study. Most respondents (61.48%) were BIM managers, fol-
lowed by engineers (27.87%), and architects (22.13%). The
results indicate that 79.51% of respondents worked in pri-
vate firms, while 20.49% worked in public entities. Most of
the respondents (52.49%) belonged to large organizations,
followed by respondents from medium-sized organizations
(18.49%) and finally small and micro-organizations (11.76%
and 14.29%, respectively).
Regarding their role, we had an almost equal number of
designers and contractors participating in the general survey,
at 37.50% and 38.33%, respectively, while almost 24% were
owners or occupied other roles. The number of respondents
that very highly implemented BIM was 30.69%, followed
by respondents who had a widespread implementation at
25.74%, then low and medium implementation at 23.76%
and 19.80%, respectively. Regarding the duration of imple-
mentation, 33.33% were relatively new, with a duration of 1
to 3years. The respondents who had implemented BIM for
4–5years came in second at 20.59%, followed by respond-
ents who fell out of the stated scale and chose “other,” at
18.63%. Finally, were the respondents who implemented
BIM for 8 to 10years, at 16.67%.
Concerning the distribution of the respondents based on
their firms’ level of experience, the majority of respondents
fell between the moderate and advanced firms, at 30.33%,
while 26.23% belonged to expert firms, and 13.11% were
from beginner firms. Additionally, participants were asked
about the type of projects they tended to implement by
BIM, and the results showed that BIM was mostly used in

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
Page 5 of 13 174
healthcare projects with 17.82%, followed by projects in the
commercial sector with 16.83%.
After analyzing the general survey (question numbers:
10, 16, 25, and 26), we discovered that “stakeholder satisfac-
tion,” “better communication,” “better coordination” in the
design and construction process,” and “increased quality of
the design” were ranked highest among all the factors in the
general survey. This indicates that BIM professionals put
more emphasis on the intangible benefits of BIM to have a
significant impact on project outcomes. The general survey
participants were asked to specify the intangible benefits that
have been generated from the use of BIM, and participants
specified more than 41 intangible benefits.
The second step of this study was the professionals’ inter-
view to focus on how a professional perceived the value of
BIM features, and how it affects their project and overall
businesses. The interviews consisted of 14 questions. These
questions were part of a structured interview containing
multiple-choice questions, direct questions, and open-ended
questions. The interviews were conducted as subject matter
expert interviews (SMEs) by targeting the 45 participants,
including BIM leaders in large or medium-sized companies
that were experienced in BIM projects and had a project with
an advanced BIM level of development.
Data analysis method
General surveys
The analysis of the general survey was conducted in two
ways. First, descriptive analysis was used to show the total
results as the percentage distribution of the participants in
every question. Second, a statistical approach was used to
test the significant relationship between the tested variable,
as discussed in detail in the following section. A Pearson’s
Chi-square test for independence was used to analyze the
relationship between the independent and outcome variables.
The significant relationship between the independent and
outcome variables can be found by calculating the P-value
based on the degree of freedom and the significance level,
which is usually 0.05. The Chi-square analysis was con-
ducted using SPSS software.
Interviews
Each interview took almost one hour, either face-to-face or
over the phone. The results of the interviews were investi-
gated in two ways: first, the direct interpretation from the
transcripts, and second, the interpretive structural modeling
(ISM) analysis which was employed. ISM was proposed to
develop a map of complex relationships among elements
involved in a complex decision situation. This method helps
classify and categorize the variables in complex systems.
The four steps of the ISM analysis are determining the vari-
ables that relate to an issue, finding them as a contextual
relationship between each pair of variables, developing the
self-interaction matrix between the variables, and building
the reachability matrix. ISM was utilized in this study to
analyze the relationship between the intangibles. Ultimately,
the listed intangibles were divided into four clusters utilizing
MICMAC categorization tool.
Results andanalysis
This section provides the results of the surveys and inter-
views. The general survey was designed and created through
a popular survey engine called Survey Monkey. The survey
link was sent to the professionals, and they were able to
access the survey and participate digitally. The survey dis-
tribution began on January 19, 2016. The survey was posted
on their social media websites, and direct emails were sent
to individual professionals whom we were able to contact.
Subsequently, the survey was distributed via professional
social media channels such as LinkedIn to reach BIM pro-
fessionals around the world. The results and analysis of the
general survey are presented in two main sections, namely
descriptive analysis and cross-tabulation analysis.
General survey
Descriptive analysis
The results concerning the definition of BIM demon-
strated that 28.28% chose the Autodesk definition: “BIM
is an intelligent model-based process that provides insight
to help you plan, design, construct and manage buildings
and infrastructure” [3]. Regarding BIM adoption motiva-
tions, the results indicate that the majority of respond-
ents adopt BIM because of better coordination, followed
by improved productivity and then increased the qual-
ity of the design. Previous studies suggested that AEC
companies were predominantly concerned about the cost
and return of BIM. Therefore, we limited the number of
concerns to be studied to three major issues. The results
revealed that 41.41% of participants were concerned
with the direct and indirect cost of BIM. Also, 33.33% of
respondents were concerned about parties’ interference
in adopting BIM. In the general survey, participants were
asked about the investment needed to use BIM, includ-
ing training, software, hardware, and communication
infrastructure that are all associated with adopting new
technology. Therefore, it is essential to understand the
prioritization of investments to enhance productivity in

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
174 Page 6 of 13
the BIM area of knowledge. The results show that the
majority require BIM training, followed by BIM software.
The rest of the respondents required upgraded hardware
and communication software, and the smallest percentage
chose “other.” Concerning the objectives and reasons for
using BIM, users stated that providing higher quality was
their primary objective.
In the general survey, contractors and designers were
asked to weigh seven metrics, including BIM management,
cost, schedule, safety, project delivery, and quality; these
are considered the most common metrics. The results show
that safety was ranked first, followed by scheduling, cost,
BIM management, project delivery, communication, and
quality. Most of the respondents chose integrated project
delivery (IPD) as the best delivery method. Design-build
ranked second, followed by design-bid-build and construc-
tion management at risk. The smallest percentage went to
“other.” Users were then asked about features that were
used by the software. The 26 features were picked from the
Massport BIM Guideline [22]. The uses were categorized
to cover BIM features that are usable from the existing
conditions. Participants were able to select multiple uses,
which indicates the features most used by designers and
contractors. The results indicate that architecture mod-
eling, design MEP, clash detection, construction drawing,
and building model were the most selected features.
Participants pinpointed BIM’s success measures were
first the project finishing on time, followed by stakeholder
satisfaction and the profitability of the project. The fol-
lowing represents a list of the results of the descriptive
analysis of the general survey:
• The direct and indirect costs were still considered as
the primary concern when adopting BIM.
• Companies indicated a need for training as a require-
ment for the adoption of BIM.
• Better communication and better coordination were the
main objectives when establishing a BIM project.
• The majority of AEC agreed that IPD is the best deliv-
ery method for BIM projects.
• 54.62% of the participants indicated that they are using
Autodesk Revit as a BIM software solution.
• 90.68% of the participants considered BIM as a source
for generating business.
• 91.52% of respondents indicated that BIM had a posi-
tive ROI
• Change orders and the number of RFIs was the primary
indication of the project’s ROI.
• The value of prevented clashes was the most valued
benefit of BIM.
• Finishing on time was the most important factor for
measuring the project’s success.
Cross‑tabulation analysis
The analysis in this section was conducted using a Chi-
square test to investigate the relationship between the inde-
pendent and outcome variables considering the following
hypothesis:
• H0: There is no relationship between the tested variables
• Ha: There is a relationship between the tested variables
• Significance level: 0.05
The independent variables were motivation, concerns, the
investment needed, software, valuable benefit, success meas-
ure, and uses (features). The outcome variables included
role, sector, specialty, market level, level of implementa-
tion, years of implementation, and experience. The cross-
tabulation analysis was conducted, checking the P value to
find the variables with a significant relationship.
Motivation x Role (Designer/Contractors). This section
studied the relationship between design quality motivation
and organization role. The results show a significant rela-
tionship, meaning that the designers were strongly moti-
vated by BIM design quality. Designers, comprising 46.2%
of the 52 organization roles, selected design quality as a
motivation.
Motivation x Level of BIM implementation. The relation-
ship between motivation and the level of implementation
was significant in three types of motivations, namely qual-
ity of design, coordination capabilities, and productivity
improvement. First, with a P-value of 0.003, the results
indicate that design quality was a strong motivation for the
companies that implemented BIM in most of their projects,
as 36.5% of the 38 who chose design quality belonged to
firms with high levels of implementation.
Second, the results with a P value of 0.000 suggest that
organizations with a very high implementation were most
motivated by BIM coordination capabilities (motivation).
Ultimately, based on the null hypothesis that was rejected
by a P value of 0.000, there was a significant relationship
between productivity improvement (motivation) and the
level of implementation, so that increasing the productivity
motivated the firms with a very high level of implementation.
Investment needed x Level of BIM implementation. The
relationship between the investment needed and the level of
implementation was significant in four aspects, namely BIM
training, communication infrastructure, BIM software, and
upgraded hardware. First, the null hypothesis was rejected
due to the P-value of 0.000 for BIM training. The firms with
low BIM implementation indicated a need for investment for
BIM training. Firms with a very high level of implementa-
tion came second at 28.4%. Second, in communication infra-
structure, the results show a significant relationship, with a
P-value of 0.005, and the null hypothesis is thus rejected.

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
Page 7 of 13 174
Firms with a very high level of implementation indicated a
need for investment for communication infrastructure. Third,
with a P-value of 0.000, the results show a significant rela-
tionship in the aspect of BIM software. Firms with a very
high level of implementation and firms with a low level of
implementation show a need for BIM software. Ultimately,
in upgraded hardware, the null hypothesis was rejected
based on a P-value of 0.000, which indicates a significant
relationship. Firms with a very high level of implementation
show a need for upgraded hardware. While firms with a low
level of implementation came second.
Uses (features) x Role. A significant relationship was
found between BIM usage (features) and organization role,
namely existing condition, constructability review, site
safety review, shop drawing, as-built model, and facility
management.
The descriptive analysis of the general survey demon-
strated that BIM professionals in all different roles experi-
enced a positive ROI in the BIM project. Most of the survey
participants had not used any method to calculate the ROI
based on real project data. The use of BIM was varied, and
the statistics demonstrate that large companies took more
significant advantage of BIM’s uses and features.
Interviews
Concerning the contribution of BIM’s features to the pro-
ject’s ROI, the results reveal that by detecting problems in
a digital environment, BIM could prevent extra spending,
which led to enhancing the KPIs and increasing project ROI.
Also, BIM alleviated the tasks and helped staff be more pro-
ductive (as it is estimated that one Revit person can do the
work of five computer-aided drafting (CAD) persons). More-
over, BIM features enabled time, money, and resource-sav-
ing (the primary sources of project failure) before construc-
tion begins, as 5–7% savings was expected in BIM projects.
One of the most significant challenges faced by users in
a company using BIM features was unfettered access to the
design models, as architects and engineers were not inclined
to share their models when they made design changes. More-
over, a lack of experience and knowledge in the industry was
reported as another primary challenge during the interviews.
Older and more experienced people resisted the change from
a 2D to 3D design framework. The adoption problem exists
in a culture in which people try to meet only minimum
requirements. In such a culture, resistance is apparent in
understanding what the BIM process is, and how it can ben-
efit the success of a project. Ultimately, finding talented staff
in the BIM-related field was reported to be a complicated
problem [36].
Concerning the advantages of using BIM, the interview-
ees presented various beneficial aspects, namely, enhanced
collaboration among staff, the multi-user environment,
single-file concentration between stakeholders, improved
design availability, the decreased the amount of rework,
improved productivity, reduced cost and time, and finally,
quicker and more accurate mechanical, electrical and plumb-
ing (MEP) trades with structure and architectural features.
Building information modeling facilitated the BIM man-
ager role during the project progress. Sub-contractors found
detecting clashes with other obstacles above the ceilings to
be beneficial, while general contractors stated that improving
the coordination process with design and construction was
a beneficial aspect of using BIM. Detecting potential prob-
lems in a building while integrating all the models from the
consultants was an essential benefit of BIM from the owner’s
perspective. Finally, architects believed that BIM made the
use of various design commands easier.
Concerning the features required to enhance the outcome
of BIM software in different stages, various stakeholders
stated their opinions. Sub-contractors suggested finding
more efficient solutions to clash detections. Owners believed
that enabling BIM software to make quicker models was
required, while architects stated that Autodesk should focus
on how to implement a schematic design. Ultimately, engi-
neers found a gap in the ability of the system in managing
content.
Respecting the intangible benefits of using BIM, the list
of intangibles was derived from BIM professionals through
the general survey. After reviewing all answers, 41 intangi-
ble benefits were identified and are listed in Table1.
Love etal. [19] stated that “the determination of the
intangible benefits that can be derived from the implemen-
tation of BIM is considered to be a nebulous task.” For that
reason, participants were asked to choose three intangibles
that they thought could be measured. Architects chose data
usage of components measured through the model manager,
quality of work measured through reduced change orders,
and reduction of data duplicated while working with design
and construction teams, as measured by the reduced number
of redesigns and eliminated value engineering after design
completion. General contractors selected better coordina-
tion, measured by the reduction of issues in the field. Addi-
tionally, increased understanding of the project, shown by a
reduction in the number of RFI’s and using robotic layout,
gave users the ability to control the tolerance of installed
equipment. Sub-contractors found savings on labor and
material due to clash detection resolutions to be the most
beneficial. Architectures selected better teamwork and gen-
erating business, measured by accessibility to the high coor-
dination project, such as a themed roller coaster. Finally,
owners selected team understanding regarding the fact that
all the parties are exposed to the model, which reduces errors
and increases client confidence. Different AEC parties found
intangibles beneficial to the overall project success in dif-
ferent ways with respect to aspects such as management,

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
174 Page 8 of 13
operations, and procurement. Owners believed that better
visualization of the results of a project can contribute to the
project success. Architects stated that every single intangi-
ble contributed to project success. Engineers indicated that
intangibles increase employee engagement (help them feel
more invested in the project) and increase their productivity.
Sub-contractors asserted that all the intangibles contribute to
the more comfortable and quicker installations.
Furthermore, general contractors believed that these
intangibles promote a better understanding of the over-
all project from design to execution. Moreover, various
stakeholders stated their opinions regarding monetarizing
the benefits of intangibles, including the saving of human
resources and time, reducing rework, business gains, and
minimizing conflicts. General contractors stated that all
the intangible variables should be translated into a form of
monetary benefit. Owners believed that only designs that
could be modeled and coordinated with the computer prop-
erly have the potential to be built. Engineers asserted that
higher employee engagement would result in more produc-
tive outcomes compared to projects not using intangibles.
Participants were asked to compare BIM and the traditional
methods of coordination and collaboration among differ-
ent AEC parties. Engineers believed that improvements in
design enhanced the collaboration between stakeholders.
Architects stated that dealing with a single file among vari-
ous stakeholders promoted problem-solving and teamwork
efficiency. Owners noted that BIM software utilized the
expertise and knowledge of all the stakeholders involved,
compared to traditional methods. Sub-contractors asserted
that, compared to old methods, BIM software enhanced the
accuracy and speed of various design processes. Moreo-
ver, BIM-enabled the entire MEP team to participate in the
coordination of the project. General contractors noted that
BIM simplified the exchange between the owner, architect,
engineer, and contractor silos, which seemed to be sharing-
avoidant and stifling to the construction process.
The structural self-interaction matrix was formed from
the interrelationship among the 41 crucial variables pre-
sented in Table2. Moreover, to test the developed structural
self-interaction matrix (SSIM), the reachability matrix was
obtained from the SSIM and checked for the transitivity rule
(for any factors a, b, and c and set S, given that a R b and
b R c, it certainly follows that a R c). The developed SSIM
in this study successfully passed the transitivity test. For
interpreting the relationship, and to follow the direction of
the relationship amongst the recognized components, the
following four symbols are used:
O: no relation between the factors.
X: factor i and j will help to achieve each other.
V: factor i will help to achieve barrier j.
A: factor j will help to achieve barrier i.
Ultimately, respondents ranked 41 intangibles based
on the seven metrics including BIM management, cost,
schedule, safety, project delivery, and quality. The results
revealed how the participants perceived the effect of intan-
gible benefits based on different metrics. Each intangible
benefit is categorized according to the most affected metric.
Table 1 Selected intangible
benefits from the survey Better teamwork Better illustration of design to the client
Visual communication Improved communication between field and office
Linked information Expedited timecard and daily report submittals
Increased quality Optimization of design cycles
Increased client confidence Increased accountability and cooperation
Better presentation Greater details and accessibility
Increased collaboration Design analysis, finding issues before the field constructs them
Improved project understanding Better visualization of the final product
Better coordination Produces consistent and coordinated design
Better team culture Ability to handle larger data sets and higher resolution surveys
Increase personal satisfaction Allows more iteration in the design process
Increased tolerance control More usable information
Generating business Easier to track issues
Easier data transfer Lower risk with managed outcomes
Understanding the site Automatic document coordination
Easy to manage projects More transparent communication
Smoother workflow Better performing buildings
Change the way of thinking Discrepancies become more understandable and discoverable
Enhanced conflict resolution Fabrication and modular construction
Increased team understanding Reduction of construction and operations risks
Saving on labor and material

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
Page 9 of 13 174
The intangibles identified in the interviews, such as reduc-
ing change order, could be measured by the quality of work,
and the reduction of duplicated work, which could be meas-
ured by eliminated value engineering and the number of
redesigns. Intangibles resulted in a better understanding of
the overall project from design to construction. The inter-
views also showed that the participants had different views
about the effect of these intangibles on the metrics. Sub-
contractors and architects agreed on 7 of the 41 intangibles
categories. The owner and the architect agreed on only 1
intangible. While engineers and owners had five common
categories, engineers, and architects agreed on the same
categories for 16 intangibles. The comparison between the
number of mutually agreed intangible benefits of owners
and architects or engineers, and engineers and architects,
shows a significant difference, confirming the need for fur-
ther investigation to find the cause of this gap. One potential
cause could be the lack of experience and knowledge of the
owner about the BIM, and its benefits are an obstacle to gain
a high BIM penetration rate. If that is the case, engineers and
architects could devise several educational presentations to
enhance the knowledge level of the owners and other con-
struction team members to better understand the benefits
of BIM.
Matrix ofcrossed impact multiplications applied
toaclassification analysis
The matrix of crossed impact multiplications applied to
a classification (MICMAC) analysis aims to “analyze the
driver power and dependency power of each element” [13,
20, 29], and [32]. There are four clusters, namely “autono-
mous variables” (which have weak driving and dependence
power), “dependent variables” (which have a weak driving
power and strong dependence), “linkage variables” (which
have strong driving and dependence power), and “independ-
ent variables” (which have a strong driving and dependence
power) [16], and [29]. The interrelationship between the
intangibles was illustrated using the ISM model and the
MICMAC analysis. The driving and dependency impact
diagram (power matrix) of the intangible benefits is also
presented inFig.1.
Table 2 Structural self-interaction (SSIM) matrix of the intangibles

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
174 Page 10 of 13
The results of the MICMAC analysis demonstrate that all
the intangibles fall into three clusters. Among 41 intangi-
bles, 33 are autonomous, while three intangibles considered
dependent and five independent factors. None of the intan-
gibles are considered linkage variables.
The four clusters of intangible benefits are:
Cluster I: Cluster I represents autonomous factors and
consists of 33 factors that have weak driving and depend-
ence power. Cluster I factors are relatively disconnected
from the system, which shows that the majority of the
intangible benefits should be considered separately, and
are not affected by driving or other factors. To increase
the benefits of using BIM, the project manager should
precisely include these factors to be investigated by the
project management and design team.
Cluster II: Dependence factors have a strong depend-
ence on power and weak driving power. This dependence
cluster has three factors, including “increased” quality,
“easy to manage projects,” and “increased team under-
standing.” In order to increase the benefits of the depend-
ent intangible benefits, the project management team
Fig. 1 The driving and dependence power diagram of intangible benefits

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
Page 11 of 13 174
should precisely monitor the drivers of these variables to
be aligned with the project’s objectives.
Cluster III: Linkage factors have a strong driving power
as well as strong dependence power. None of the 41 iden-
tified intangible factors fell in this cluster, showing that
there is no intangible benefit that both drives and is affected
by other variables at the same time. Since the driving and
dependence powers of the autonomous cluster (cluster I)
are directly opposite of the linkage cluster’s features, and
most of the factors of the identified intangibles are in the
autonomous cluster, the number of linkage factors should
be the least (which is none in this study).
Cluster IV: Cluster IV consists of driving factors that
have strong driving power but weak dependence power.
This cluster has five factors, including “greater details and
accessibility,” “produces consistent and coordinated design,”
“transparent communication,” “streamlined information/
data management,” and “conflict resolution.” These factors
require critical attention as they not only affect the project
themselves, but they also drive other variables. Figure1
shows that “transparent communication,” and “streamlined
information/data management,” has the highest driving
rates among the identified intangibles. The design and man-
agement team should meticulously monitor the 15 factors
that drive “transparent communication,” and “streamlined
information/ data management,” since each affects 31 other
factors.
Conclusion
The emergence of BIM and the evolution of VDC in the
AEC industry are one of the tools that have been fundamen-
tally changing the process by which buildings are designed
and constructed. This study focuses on the effects of BIM
on the design and construction industry, highlighting the
significant aspects that differentiate BIM from traditional
methods by conducting a general survey questionnaire and
expert interviews. By utilizing the results of the general sur-
vey, a better understanding about the system dynamics of
the BIM market, the relationship between firms’ roles, the
market level, experience, the level of BIM implementation,
the level of investment required for BIM, and BIM’s metrics,
adoption motivations, and concerns, were then investigated.
Furthermore, the expert interview questions were designed
based on the results of the general survey to investigate the
intangibles benefits of BIM, targeting BIM managers.
Although many other studies have investigated the vari-
ous aspects of BIM’s application and tangible benefits,
this research tackles the effect of the intangibles in BIM
projects by employing both survey and interview methods
to elicit the information required for this study. The study
demonstrated that many of these intangibles are measurable.
Also, regarding the theoretical contribution of the study, the
research showed how BIM professionals occupying various
roles measured intangible benefits. Owners, architects, and
contractors have seen the effects of intangibles on real-life
projects and use measurement derived from their experi-
ence. This step was significant, because most BIM users
misunderstand how to measure the benefits of BIM, assum-
ing that change orders and the number of RFIs are the only
benefits. However, in the interviews conducted, this study
discovered a different set of measurements associated with
these benefits. The interrelationships among them have been
determined based on ISM analysis.
Moreover, regarding the empirical contribution of the
study, the listed intangibles were divided into four different
clusters utilizing the MICMAC categorization tool. Among
41 identified intangibles, 33 are autonomous, while three
intangibles considered dependent, and five were independ-
ent. None of the intangibles are considered linkage variables.
Cluster 1 (autonomous factors’ cluster) factors are relatively
disconnected from the system, which shows that most of
the intangible benefits should be considered separately, not
affected by or driving other factors. Cluster 2 (dependence
factors’ cluster) has three factors. In order to increase the
advantages of the dependent intangible benefits, the project
management team should meticulously monitor the drivers
of these variables to be aligned with the project’s objectives.
The analysis also identified five dependent (Cluster 3) fac-
tors that require more attention by the management team, as
they not only affect the project themselves, they also drive
other variables. This article aimed to highlight the connec-
tion between the perceived benefits of BIM in the construc-
tion industry and BIM proficiency to increase awareness of
the benefits of its adoption and implementation. The results
of this study equip stakeholders with a visual method of
quantifying perceived BIM values in order to plan for and
implement BIM technology adequately. At the policy level,
this research highlights the complexity of BIM implementa-
tion and the need for a widescale coordinated effort among
businesses to achieve the full benefits provided adequately.
BIM policymakers can therefore utilize the critical value
cycles discussed in this study to improve the success and
pace of BIM adoption on a firm-wide level.
It is also vital to notice that the path for developing
countries to adopt BIM appears different from that of
developed countries. As a limitation of the research, this
study only considered information from a developed coun-
try. It is vital to compare the analysis of various coun-
tries to identify the similarities and variances between the
impacts of employing BIM on the construction industry.
Moreover, a limitation of this study was the restriction
to primary categories of stakeholders related to project
design and construction phrases. On the design side, future
research could focus on teamwork and the productivity of

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
174 Page 12 of 13
BIM compared to a 2D drafting software. Two teams could
work in the same design, and the comparison between
them would be evident in all aspects of the field of con-
struction. Another of the possible directions for future
work is to measure the productivity of the site workers
when they use the digital model instead of printed draw-
ings. Future research is needed to consider additional sub-
classifications of stakeholders among each category. Addi-
tional studies that account for a more significant number
of stakeholder categories may improve value network reli-
ability across the entirety of a project’s timeline. Utilizing
a dynamic analysis method should also be considered to
recognize further the long-term effect of complex systems
on reciprocal responses and behaviors. While valuable, the
multiplicative rule used by this study may provide an over-
simplified analysis of value path quantification through
the project cost and benefits. As more resources become
available with greater computational power, additional
parameters may be applied to provide a more comprehen-
sive model. To achieve more detailed results, future efforts
should consider the impact of different project delivery
methods, construction markets, project location and own-
ership, and project type. Ultimately, investigation of the
tangible and intangible benefits of BIM integration with
data science tools is a very critical topic that scholars need
to consider.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s41062- 021- 00527-8.
Acknowledgements All authors certify that they have no affiliations
with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial
interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials dis-
cussed in this manuscript.
Declaration
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Abazid M, Gökçekuş H, Çelik T (2019) Study of the quality
concepts implementation in the construction of projects in saudi
arabia by using building information modelling (BIM). Int J
Innov Technol Explor Eng 8(3):84–87
2. Ahankoob A, Manley K, Abbasnejad B (2019) The role of
contractors’ building information modelling (BIM) experience
in realizing the potential values of BIM. Int J Constr Manag.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15623 599. 2019. 16391 26
3. Autodesk (2015) Building Information Modeling- What is BIM.
4. Barlish K, Sullivan K (2012) How to measure the benefits of
BIM; a case study approach. Autom Constr 24:149–159. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. autcon. 2012. 02. 008
5. Bureau UC (2015) Total Construction Spending. From ASCE
Journal Form https:// www. census. gov/ const ructi on/ c30/ c30in
dex. html.
6. Crotty R (2013) The impact of building information modelling:
transforming construction. Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97802 03836 019
7. Doumbouya L, Gao G, Guan C (2016) Adoption of the build-
ing information Modeling (BIM) for construction project
effectiveness: the review of BIM benefits. Am J Civ Eng Arch
4(3):74–79
8. Eastman C, Teicholz P, Sacks R, Liston K (2011) BIM handbook:
a guide to building information modeling for owners, managers,
designers. Wiley, Engineers and Contractors
9. Elhendawi A, Omar H, Elbeltagi E, Smith A (2019) A practical
approach for paving the way to motivate BIM non-users to adopt
BIM. Int J BIM Eng Sci 2(2):01–22
10. Giel BK, Issa RRA (2013) Return on investment analysis of using
building information modeling in construction. J Comput Civ Eng
27(5):511–521. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1061/ (ASCE) CP. 1943- 5487.
00001 64
11. Guo X, Chen Y (2020) Perceived trust of contractors in building
information modeling assisted projects. Construction Research
Congress 2020.
12. Holness GVR (2006) Building information modeling. ASHRAE
J 48(8):38–46
13. Iyer KC, Sagheer M (2009) Hierarchical structuring of PPP risks
using interpretative structural modeling. J Constr Eng Manag
136(2):151–159. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1061/ (ASCE) CO. 1943- 7862.
00001 27
14. Kang T (2020) Rule-based LEED evaluation method considering
BIM linkage and variability. KSCE J Civ Eng 24:110–121. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12205- 020- 1026-x
15. Khanzode A, Fischer MA, Reed D (2007) Challenges and benefits
of implementing virtual design and construction technologies for
coordination of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems on
large healthcare project. In: Proceeding CIB 24th W78 Confer-
ence, pp 205–212
16. Kumar S, Luthra S, Haleem A (2013) Customer involvement in
greening the supply chain: an interpretive structural modeling
methodology. J Ind Eng Int 9(1):1–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/
2251- 712X-9-6
17. Lee S, Yu J (2017) Discriminant model of BIM acceptance readi-
ness in a construction organization. KSCE J Civ Eng 21:555–564.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12205- 016- 0555-9
18. Lee J, Kim B, Yonghan AHN (2019) Building information mod-
eling (BIM) technology education for the needs of industry in
developing countries. Int J Eng Educ 35(1):126–141
19. Love PED, Matthews J, Simpson I, Hill A, Olatunji OA (2014) A
benefits realization management building information modeling
framework for asset owners. Autom Constr 37:1–10. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. autcon. 2013. 09. 007
20. Mandal A, Deshmukh SG (1994) Vendor selection using interpre-
tive structural modelling (ISM). Int J Oper Prod Manag 14(6):52–
59. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 01443 57941 00620 86
21. Martinez-Aires MD, López-Alonso M, Martínez-Rojas M (2018)
Building information modeling and safety management: a system-
atic review. J Saf Sci 101:11–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ssci.
2017. 08. 015
22. Massport (2015) BIM- Guideline for Vertical and Horizontal Con-
struction. Appendix A MPA BIM Guideline.
23. McGrawHill Construction (2014) Smart market report the busi-
ness value of BIM for construction in major global markets.
McGraw Hill Construction, New York
24. NBS (2014) NBS National BIM Report

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:174
1 3
Page 13 of 13 174
25. Olatunji OA (2011) A preliminary review on the legal implica-
tions of BIM and model ownership. ITcon 16:687–696
26. Park E, Kwon SJ, Han J (2019) Antecedents of the adoption of
building information modeling technology in Korea. Eng Constr
Archit Manag 26:1735–1749
27. Porwal A (2013) Construction waste management at source: a
Building Information Modeling based system dynamic approach.
PhD Dissertation at University of British Columbia.
28. Porwal A, Hewage KN (2013) Building Information Modeling
(BIM) partnering framework for public construction projects.
Autom Constr 31:204–214. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. autcon. 2012.
12. 004
29. Rajaprasad SVS, Chalapathi PV (2015) Factors influencing imple-
mentation of OHSAS 18001 in Indian construction organizations:
interpretive structural modeling approach. Saf Health Work
6(3):200–205. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. shaw. 2015. 04. 001
30. Schwartzkopf W (2004) Calculating lost labor productivity in
construction claims. Aspen Publishers, New York
31. Serag E (2006) Change orders and productivity loss quantifica-
tion using verifiable site data. PhD Dissertation at University of
Central Florida.
32. Talib F, Rahman Z, Qureshi MN (2011) Analysis of interaction
among the barriers to total quality management implementation
using interpretive structural modeling approach. Benchmark Int J
18(4):563–587. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 14635 77111 11476 41
33. Tan T, Chen K, Xue F, Lu W (2019) Barriers to building infor-
mation modeling (BIM) implementation in China’s prefabricated
construction: an interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach.
J Clean Prod 219:949–959. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2019.
02. 141
34. Young NW, Jones SA, Bernstein HM, Gudgel JE (2009) The busi-
ness value of BIM-getting building information modeling to the
bottom line. McGraw-Hill Construction, New York
35. Zheng X, Lu Y, Li Y, Le Y, Xiao J (2019) Quantifying and visu-
alizing value exchanges in building information modeling (BIM)
projects. Autom Constr 99:91–108. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. aut-
con. 2018. 12. 001
36. Zou Y, Kiviniemi A, Jones SW (2019) Risk information man-
agement for bridges by integrating risk breakdown structure into
3D/4D BIM. KSCE J Civ Eng 23:467–480. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s12205- 018- 1924-3