Content uploaded by Vijayeta Malla
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vijayeta Malla on Aug 06, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
"Framework for BIM Maturity Model for Water
Infrastructure Firms"
<Global Reach>
<Abstract ID>: PMIBC-19-3-011
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 2
CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Details of the paper...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 12
References ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 3
ABSTRACT
Performance Assessment of firms considering the digital disruptions like BIM, Lean, Augmented Reality, and
Virtual Reality has been quite limited in AECO (Architecture Engineering Construction & Operation) industry. The
current study discusses on the methodology for developing a framework for Capability & Capacity building for
Water Sector firms. This study emphasis specifically on determining the performance evaluation for Water firms on
incorporating BIM (Building Information Modelling). The author attempts to develop the framework from the semi-
structured interviews from the focus group consisting of experienced professional in BIM domain and from the
literature review studies. Consequently, the author analyses the respondent’s opinion poll on the developed
framework through a regression analysis. The author summarizes the pros and cons of the developed BIM
Maturity Model based on the perspectives of the respondents and recommends to implement such framework in
other construction domains too.
INTRODUCTION
The AECO (Architecture Engineering Construction and Operation) industry has been reeling under issues like
schedule delays, cost overruns, delayed contractual claims (Liberda et. al., 2003), disputes (Musonda, 2011) and
decline of productivity (Teicholz, 2004), which resulted in low efficiency and performance. Moreover, the
uniqueness of project in construction industry(Wegelius-Lehtonen, 2001), inter-disciplinary, and cross functional
mode of working among the project teams (Liston, 2009) in a silos manner (Cox and Ireland, 2002) increases the
sophistication of implementation of large scale construction projects. In order to amplify and address the
aforementioned issues of the AECO industry, varied solutions, such as digital construction, are perceived. Digital
construction intents to address the ever mounting fragmentation issues and enhances the productivity by using
technologies like Building Information Modeling (BIM) for incorporating processes throughout the Project lifecycle
of a construction facility. Many construction projects have testified the benefits accrued by the usage of BIM and
recommended it as a panacea to productivity problems (Mihindu and Arayici, 2008). As per McGraw-Hill (2009) the
BIM benefits of notable aspects were decreased interferences during execution, enhanced collaborative
apprehension of design commitment, enhanced quality of the project, lesser changes during execution, lownumber
of RFIs (Requests for Information), and effective control of project cost. Building information modelling (BIM) has
been coined as a ‘disruptor’ for the AECO (Architecture Engineering Construction and Operation) industry. There
has been drastic inclination among the researchers to evaluate the rating system of building information modelling
maturity (BIMM) which apprehend the effectiveness of modelling process in building projects.
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 4
Research Problem:
Plenty of research studies has been made on assessing building information modelling maturity (BIMM) in the
domain like Buildings, Real estate & Commercial projects. However, there has been no study on developing a
framework or evaluating the building information modelling maturity (BIMM) for Water Distribution & Effluent
Treatment Infrastructure Projects. Validation of BIM capabilities should be conducted by the BIM users in order to
execute BIM successfully in their projects and relish the benefits. Nevertheless, there is no tool or framework to
measure the minimum BIM capabilities (i.e. BIM competent resources, policies, procedures and infrastructure) of
the vital vendors to engage in the design, construction and delivery phases of the project utilising BIM ideologies.
Inconsistent BIM maturity level of project members lead to cost over runs for the owner and the most mature
stakeholders of the supply chain. High variability of BIM maturity level of project members may result in high cost
for the client and the most mature members of the supply chain. Hence, the presence of independent BIM maturity
framework in the initial stages itself would resolve this issue. Current paper discusses on the existing BIM maturity
models at various levels like project, organization and individual for the purpose of BIM qualification assessment in
the project team selection. Since there is a lack of development of maturity levels of BIM uses in the current BIM
maturity models, the author proposes a framework of BIM Maturity model in the context of Water Infrastructure
Projects which are developed for the purpose of BIM qualification assessment in project team selection.
DETAILS OF THE PAPER
Methodology/Process:
The author recommends a framework that focuses on capability of Water firms in specific BIM uses, while
measuring their general BIM capabilities. The methodology adopted is based on an iterative literature review
followed by focus group discussions. Through literature review, the researchers propose BIM platform maturity
model considering the BM uses of Water/Waste Water projects and discuss on possible improvements. With the
proposed BIMM, the client is expected to achieve more BIM paybacks, i.e. lowered cost, schedule and enhanced
quality of project, with BIM-proficient team members.
Literature Review:
Globally, AECO Industry is delivering BIM projects with different maturity levels of BIM adoption. And, it is
necessary for the AECO organizations and its stakeholders to understand the BIM maturity level of their projects.
Several BIM field players had established a methodology to measure BIM maturity within AECO industry at five
different maturity scales (CPI 2011; Change Agents AEC 2013; BIS 2011; Succar 2009; Sebastian & Vanberlo
2010; VICO 2011; IU 2009; CIC 2013; Giel 2013; NIBS 2007; Gao 2011;Kam et al. 2013; Jayasena & Weddikkara
2013; Kassem et al. 2013; Bernstein et al. 2014 and Jung & Lee 2015), i.e. 1) individual stakeholder, 2) work,
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 5
organizational & project teams, 3)Organization, 4) Project, and 5) Industry/market scales. Over the past nine years,
i.e. from 2007, at least 29 BIM-AMs have been developed in academia and industry combined. Each of these BIM-
Assessment Models offers a unique perspective on BIM performance. These BIM-AMs are the research efforts of
BIM fields players in several countries, i.e. the U.S. (9 AMs), the UK (7 AMs), Australia (6 AMs), South Korea (2
AMs), The Netherlands, Canada, Taiwan and Sri Lanka, with 1 AM each. Efforts towards development of BIM-AMs
had reached its peak between 2013 & 2015, with 15 BIM-AMs newly added to the list. It is essential to identify the
features of these AMs, including their simplicity, complexity and most evaluated measures. However, from the
literature study, we realize that each of these BIM-AMs has different strengths, weaknesses, roles and emphasis.
To support an understanding of the generic development of BIM-AMs, critical analysis of the literature on BIM-AMs
has been carried out and their diverse properties is compared. Some of the distinguishing properties addressed
were: assessment type, measurement categories & maturity levels, country of origin of the BIM-AMs and year of
development.
Current BIM-Assessment Models:
First is the competency measurement of individual stakeholders with: (1) CPIx BIM assessment form (CPI 2011);
(2) BIMe Individual assessment (Change Agents AEC 2013); (3) iBIM-BIM capability self- assessment tool (BIS
2011); and (4) BIM level 2 BRE certification (BRE 2015). Second is the capability and compatibility measurement
of stakeholder teams with: (1) BIMe project team assessment (Change Agents AEC 2013).Third is the capability
and maturity measurements of AECO organizations with: (1) Bew-Richards BIM maturity model; (2) BIM maturity
Index; (3) BIM3 (Succar 2009); (4) BIM Quick Scan (Sebastian & Vanberlo 2010); (5) VICO BIM Score (VICO
2011); (6) BIM performance assessment framework (Mom & Hsieh 2012); (7) BIM cloud score (IU 2009); (8)
Owner’s BIM maturity matrix (CIC 2013); (9) Owner’s BIMCAT (Giel 2013);
Implementation Maturity Model Assessment:
AECO industry took a cue from software industry in embracing capability maturity model from quality management
field to software industry processes (i.e. Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)). The process in AECO
industry and software are incomparable, however the idea of process maturity remains same. The author develops
a proposed framework in this study, on considering a maturity model from the software industry, namely
Implementation Maturity Model which assesses and determines the organization’s degree of maturity of its
implementation processes. The two important components of the model are, namely the:
1. The five levels of maturity, embraced from capability maturity model (CMM) of the Software Engineering
Institute (SEI). On assessing the implementation processes with these maturity levels, the SWOT analysis
can be arrived and measures of improvement.
2. A modified version of the test maturity matrix i.e. Implementation Maturity Model found in the test process
improvement (TPI) model developed by Sogeti.
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 6
Maturity Levels of IMM and its Assessment:
As per SEI(1995), “ Maturity in this scenario indicates a probable growth in capacity building and capability of the
richness of an organization’s implementation process and the uniformity with which it is implemented in the life
cycle of the projects The five maturity levels of IMM as adopted from the CMM are :
Level 0 – Initial: The processes within the organisation are ‘ad-hoc’ at this level and the organization’s unstable
environment is the prime reason for the lack of implementation. The implementation of the processes is
substandard and deficient of controlling mechanism, hence the productivity depends on individual skills, knowledge
and motivation. Level A – Repeatable: Based on the historical lessons learnt aspects and existing demands, the
current activities are planned. As per the project’s requirement certain standards and documentations are
maintained within the organization. Owing to the consistent planning and controlling mechanism, previous
successes can be repeated. Level B – Defined: Standardization of processes and documentation occurs across
the organisation under the compliance of documented procedures the activities are conducted for the activities in
the project. Conformance of the processes and goals within the organization are implemented by individual
projects. Level C – Managed: Change Management and Process driven are the key focus areas of the
organisation. Executing foreseeable outcomes and the organisation is capable of framing protocols with reference
to products and processes. Non-conformed or deviant performances are rectified with affirmative actions. Level D
– Optimizing: Continuous Improvement is the thrust area of the implementation processes. Root cause analysis of
the errors and the organisation acquires the means to detect weaknesses and strengthens the implementation
processes proactively.
On implementation of the IMM assessment, the assessment with respect to overall maturity for the
implementation processes can be determined. As per the IMM assessment while conducting the
implementation process, the Implementation factors are taken and they are categorised as below:
Process
Human resource
Information
Means
Control
For the ideal state, a balance and alignment between the five factors are implemented in a project. In other
words, the focus on these five aspects have to be considered by an organization when planning and
executing implementation projects. After the determination of maturity of the implementation factors has been
determined, the overall maturity of the implementation processes can be arrived. However, prior to this the
.analysis of the constituents of the Implementation factors-‘IMM-elements’ has to be determined.
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 7
Process data diagram shown below (Figure 1) portrays the process of evaluation of implementation process
under the determining the maturity level of the implementation process under the direction of IMM. However,
it does not recommends the improvement measures of an organization’s working culture.
Figure 1: Process-data diagram – IMM assessment
Identification of Critical Success Factors & mapping with IMM elements:
Although the DCO organizations and projects have their strategies, teams are often working in unintended
direction. Consequently this leads to less or no alignment of DCO stakeholders with the organizational and
project strategies. Orientation of stakeholders towards the organizational and project strategies is a key
step towards delivering successful projects. Hence defining the performance metrics ( like CSFs(Critical
Success Factors, KPI (Key performance indices), KRS (Key result areas) etc.,) is a one of the pre-
requisite for measuring the quality of the processes and enables for formulation of strategies in intended
direction. Critical Success Factors (CSF) are the activities that are undertaken to ensure the success of a
company or an organization. And BIM maturity model is visual tool that determines the measurement of
organizational BIM maturity.
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 8
Maturity level Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Description maturity
levels of subcriterion
BIM vision and goals
(part of strategy
criterion)
No vision or
goals for BIM
formulated
A basic vision for
BIM is defined, but
there are no
concrete goals
associated with it
There are general
BIM goals, but a
BIM vision is
lacking or not kept
in line with the
broader
strategy.
The BIM vision
fits within the
broader
organizational
vision/ strategy
and is aligned
with
partners
SMART BIM
goals are
defined
The BIM vision
and goals are
actively
monitored (e.g.,
by means of
periodic
reporting) and,
if necessary,
updated.
T
Table 1 : Illustrative example of maturity model with BIM vision and goals
The table 1: presents an illustrative example of the maturity matrix and consequently, an interview format
considering this matrix was developed to enable data collection through semi-structured interviews
More than 30 interviews were conducted in a span of 3 months. Varied representatives of organizations
have been interviewed like : clients and owners; architectural firms; engineering firms; consultants,
suppliers, fabricators, operations commercial and industrial building contractors; civil structure contractors;
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) contractors; and suppliers. From the semi-structured interviews
relevant CSFs have been identified with reference to IMM (Implementation Maturity Model) by mapping
process and regression analysis which is depicted in Table 2.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Valuation Aspe cts Total sales of BIM Project/Total sales of firm (%) 1 2 3
Process Phasing Utilization of BIM level 1 2 3
I-strategy Business Contributi on 1 2 3
Integration BIM Collaboration system 1 2 3 4
Change Management BIM education 1 2 3 4
Process Management BIM supporting organization 1 2 3 4
Human Resource People type Proficiency of BIM user 1 2 3
Involve ment Degree
No of Qualifi ed BIM project/ Total number of BIM project(%) 1 2 3 4
Acceptance degree
Average of compliance of BIM Project’s schedule over
previous year
1 2 3 4
Means Process tools
Quality assurance rate of BIM 1 2 3
Impleme ntation Tools
BIM-S/W retention Level 1 2 3
Control Estimati on & Planning
BIM manager’s capability 1 2 3
Scope of Methodology
BIM Execution Plan 1 2 3 4
I-functions
BIM based design process 1 2 3 4
Communication Channels
BIM information framework 1 2 3
Balance & Integration
Data Compatibility 1 2 3 4
Information Meterics
The number of BIM reward results in a year 1 2 3 4
Reporting
Average of compliance of BIM Project’s schedule over
previous year
1 2 3 4
Management BIM knowledge Management System 1 2 3 4
Timeline(months)
IMM-Element
BIM-CSFs
I-Factor
Table 2: Optimal Framework of BIM Maturity Model-through Mapping of CSFs with iterative literature
review and semi-structured interviews.
The developed framework tool uses dependencies and checkpoints principle, so when evaluating the
maturity level of each criterion, i.e., all the implementation elements and its corresponding CSFs of a
certain maturity level description must be met before moving on to the subsequent level. For instance, a
firm will be appraised as possessing a maturity of Level 2 on a given hypothesis if not every aspect of Level
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 9
3 is met, even if all the criteria for Levels 4 and 5 are met. This method stresses to a firm those actions that
should be engaged which leads to a gradual path to growth. This study included a managerial group,
consisting of representatives from varied domains, which provided a list of firms that were appropriate and
approachable for participation in the research. There is no specific criteria used for selection of the firms or
age, experience, discipline of the respondents apart from the willingness to participate. Aspects like age,
experience and organizational size of the firm of the respondent have not been assessed in the shortlisting,
nor in the determination of the outcomes. Nevertheless, the organizations with nascent BIM experience
were often unwilling to participate in the initial approaches. Hence, the interviews that were conducted were
probably to provide insight into the BIM maturity of those Water /Waste Water firms companies that are
frontrunners in the industry. Therefore, the outcomes of the study should not be perceived as the generic
representation of the construction industry as a whole. Table 3 & Figure 2 provides an overview of the
number of companies interviewed in each domains. Both small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and
conglomerate firms have been included to reflect the wide range.
Domains Interviews
Clients and Owners 6
Architectural firms 2
Engineering firms 5
Contractors (Civil, MEP, Mechanical) 8
Suppliers 7
Consutant 2
Facility Management firms 3
Total 33
Table 3: Number of interviewed representatives of organizations of different domains
Figure 2: Radar Chart of interviewed representatives of organizations of different domains
A total of 33 interviews were conducted utilizing a typical interview format. The interviews were conducted
with a mix of face to face (50%), through Video Call (20%), or by phone (30%) from the participating
organizations with respondents being employees and executives who had BIM foothold. Partly open-ended
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 10
interview format was used for assessing the BIM maturity level for the various criteria. Finally, when all 33
assessments were completed, the outcomes were analyzed and the results are presented in the next
section with a case study.
Case Study:
A case study has been validated, to illustrate the application of the BIM - IMM assessment. It involves an
organization Water & Effluent Treatment Consulting firm which focuses on companies with implementation
projects. Owing to the growing competition between Water & Effluent Treatment Consulting firm and other
similar firms, the CEO of Water & Effluent Treatment Consulting firm has decided to establish a group
consisting of 4 managers to enable him to assess the organization’s current way of implementation. They
have decided to use this BIM –IMM implementation matrix to find out on which maturity level they are with
their implementation processes. They require five implementation factors, nineteen IMM-elements & BIM
CSFs to evaluate their implementation processes. On conducting interviews with employees and project
managers and investigating documents of previous projects or those in progress, they had to evaluate the
properties of all nineteen elements of IMM and CSFs that are applicable to Water & Effluent Treatment
Consulting firm. From the analysis, the following things were found:
Sl.No. Description of values to be inserted into the matrix
1 most, if not all, projects comprised two phases: planning and execution
2 there was no standardized way of writing reports after each project
3 the tools used to support project activities vary per project
4 developing implementation strategies involves the project itself closely
5
the management of the implementation projects remain within each project and are not applicable to other
projects
6
the management of the implementation projects remain within each project and are not applicable to other
projects
7 the stakeholders are only involved with the implementation during the actual usage of the software implemented
8
when project teams are needed, people are simple selected based on their availability and not on their specific
knowledge and skills
9 statistical data (metrics) are calculated for individual projects for each deliverable
10 communication often only takes place within the project teams
11 applied methods vary per project
12 implementation factors are valuated separately
13 to guide the projects, formal roles are appointed to employees
14 people of the organization are very reluctant to adapt to changes within the organization
15 estimations are supported with statistical data per project
Table 4: Tabulated description of Values of IMM & BIM CSFs the Case Study
On applying the dependencies and checkpoints that might affect the maturity levels of the following Table 5.
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 11
Maturity Levels Depends on Requires
Valuating aspects (1)
Involvement degree (1)
People type (2)
Involvement degree (1)
Metrics (1)
Reporting (1)
Metrics (2)
Reporting (2)
Estimating and planning (2)
Each project needs to be supported
by statistical data and estimations
Implementation strategy (1)
All risks have to be taken into account
and the people involved have to at
least accept the technical changes in
the organization.
Communication channels (1)
Extensive communication between
project team members.
Estimating and planning (1)
Estimations and planning are
supported.
Table 5: Dependencies & Checkpoints of Water & Effluent Treatment Consulting firm
From the above described values when transposed into the matrix, the resulting BIM-IMM is depicted in Figure 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Valuation Aspe cts Total sales of BIM Project/Total sales of firm (%) 1 2 3
Process Phasing Utilization of BIM level 12 3
I-strategy Business Contributi on 1 2 3
Integration BIM Collaboration system 1 2 3 4
Change Management BIM education 1 2 3 4
Process Management BIM supporting organization 1 2 3 4
Human Resource People type Proficiency of BIM user 12 3
Involvement Degree
No of Qualified BIM project/ Total number of BIM project(%) 12 3 4
Acceptance degree
Average of compliance of BIM Project’s schedule over
previous year
12 3 4
Means Process tools
Quality assurance rate of BIM 12 3
Implementation Tools
BIM-S/W retention Level 12 3
Control Estimation & Planning
BIM manager’s capability 12 3
Scope of Methodology
BIM Execution Plan 1 2 3 4
I-functions
BIM based design process 1 2 3 4
Communication Channels
BIM information framework 1 2 3
Balance & Integration
Data Compatibility 1 2 3 4
Information Meterics
The number of BIM reward results in a year 12 3 4
Reporting
Average of compliance of BIM Project’s schedule over
previous year
12 3 4
Management BIM knowledge Management System 12 3 4
I-Factor
IMM-Element
BIM-CSFs
Timeline(months)
Figure 2: Framework of BIM-IMM-CSFs of the case study
Analysis of the Case Study:
a) On glancing at this BIM-IMM-CSFs framework, the CEO of the Water & Effluent Treatment Consulting firm
comprehended that the improvements needed to be taken in order to enhance the competitive advantage of the
firm. Firstly, IMM & corresponding CSFs elements needs to be grayed and analyzed.
b) Secondly, the elements like ‘implementation strategy’ and ‘communication channels’ has to be improved so that
they achieve at least level 1. The dependencies and checkpoints serve as the decision enablers to conduct
improvement actions. For ‘implementation strategy’ to achieve level 1, ‘valuating aspects’ needs to be analyzed
first. For ‘communication channels’ to achieve level 1, the way with which Water & Effluent Treatment Consulting
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 12
firm selects people to from project teams has to be improved first. Also engaging the employees of specific skills
and knowledge aids in grouping right people with right combination of skills for an organization.
CONCLUSION
Research studies on existing Performance assessments on utilising BIM Maturity Models in Water & Effluent
Treatment firms have been limited and the author understands the need of the hour for the assessment of maturity
models and its implementation in Water Infrastructure firms. The author considers the application of IMM
(Implementation Maturity Matrix/ Model) of the Software industry to be implemented in this study. A semi-
structured interviews and iterative literature review was conducted from thirty three respondents of different firms in
the Water sector. Also, the CSFs have been identified from the data of the interviews and are mapped with the
nineteen IMM-elements and 5 five implementation factors. Consequently the framework of BIM-IMM-CSFs have
been developed with matrix of different maturity levels and the author validated this framework with an existing
Water & Effluent Treatment Consulting firm. The CEO of Water & Effluent Treatment firm on validation of this
framework expressed the appreciation on qualitative enhancement of decision making in conducting improvements
with this developed framework through dependencies and checkpoints. However, as this proposed framework is
conducted on a qualitative mode with CSFs and applied with lesser respondents, further studies is recommended
on using KPIs( Key Performance Indicators) and grouping of KPIs by Principal Component Analysis of factor
analysis.
REFERENCES
Abdirad, H. (2016). Metric-based BIM implementation assessment: a review of research and practice. Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, 1-27.
Alaghbandrad, A., April, A., Forgues, D., & Leonard, M. (2015). BIM maturity assessment and certification in
construction project team selection. In proceedings of 5th international/11th construction specialty conference,
June 8-10th, 2015, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Arup, 2014. The BIM Maturity Measure model [Online]. Arup. Available from:
http://www.arup.com/Services/Building_Modelling.aspx [Accessed 26.02.2018].
Azzouz, A, Copping, A, Shepherd, P and Duncan, A. (2016b) Using the ARUP BIM Maturity Measure to
Demonstrate BIM Implementation in Practice. In: P W Chan and C J Neilson (Eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd
Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction
Management, Vol. 1, 25-34.
Azzouz, A., Shepherd, P. and Copping, A. (2016a). The emergence of Building Information Modelling Assessment
Methods (BIMAMs).
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 13
Proceedings of Integrated Design International Conference (ID@50), 29th June – 1st July, Bath, UK. Badrinath, A.
C., Chang, Y. T., & Hsieh, S. H. (2016a). An Overview of Global Research Trends in BIM from Analysis of BIM
Publications. In proceedings of 16th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering
(ICCCBE 2016), July 6-8th, Osaka, Japan.
Badrinath, A. C., Kumar, N & Hsieh, S. H. (2016b). BIM performance measurements and its application in Indian
AECO Industry. In proceedings of 16th international conference on construction applications of virtual reality,
CONVR2016, 12th-13th, December 2016, Hong Kong (submitted).
BIS. (2011). A report for the Government Construction Client Group, Building Information Modelling (BIM) working
party strategy. Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS). Retrieved from http://www.cita.ie/
images/assets/uk%20bim%20strategy%20(summary).pdf
BIM ThinkSpace. (2015). Episode 24: Understanding Model Uses. Retrieved from BIM Think Space website:
http://www.bimthinkspace.com/, accessed on September 10, 2018.
BRE, 2015. BIM Level 2 Business Systems Certification [Online]. Available from:
http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=3389 [Accessed 26.02.2018].
Change Agents AEC. (2013). BIM Excellence Performance Measurement Corporate Services
CIC. (2013). BIM Planning Guide for Facility Owners. Version 2.0. [WWW document]. URL http://bim.psu.edu/ CIC.
2011. Computer Integrated Construction Research Program. ―BIM Project Execution Planning Guide – Version
2.1.‖ May, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. Retrieved from http://bim.psu.edu on April
1, 2019.
CPI. (2011). CPIx-BIM Assessment Form [WWW document]. URL: http://www.cpic.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/cpix_-_bim_assessment_form_ver_1.0.pdf
Dakhil, A., & Alshawi, M. (2014). Building Information Modelling Benefits-Maturity Relationship from Client
Perspective. Information and knowledge management. 4 (9), 8-16.
Eastman, C. M., Teicholz, P., & Sacks, R. (2011). BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for
owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors. John Wiley & Sons.
Gao, J. (2011). A Characterization Framework to Document and Compare BIM Implementations on Construction
Projects. Stanford University.
Giel, B. (2013). A Comparison of Existing BIM Assessment Tools [WWW document].
IU. (2009). IU BIM Proficiency Matrix (Multi-tab Excel Workbook). 9 tabs. The Indiana University Architect’s Office.
Retrieved from http://www. indiana.edu/~uao/IU%20BIM%20Proficiency%20Matrix.xls.
Kam, C., Senaratna, D., Xiao, Y., & McKinney, B. (2013a). The VDC Scorecard: Evaluation of AEC Projects and
Industry Trends.
Kassem, M., Succar, B. and Dawood N. (2013). 'A proposed approach to comparing the BIM maturity of countries',
Proceedings of the CIB W78 2013: 30th International Conference, Beijing, China, 9-12 October.
Project Management Practitioners’ Conference 2019
www.pmiba ngalorech apter.org
Page 14
Kreider, R. G. (2013). An Ontology of the Uses of Building Information Modeling. The Pennsylvania State
University.
Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2007). Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational
Psychology.Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Kreider, R. & Messner, J. (2015). A Model Use Ontology. Proceedings of CIB 2015 World Building Congress.
Lee, G. & Won, J., 2014. Goal-driven method for sustainable evaluation of BIM project. In: A. Mahdavi & B.
Martens, eds.European Conference on Product and Process Modelling (ECPPM). Vienna, Austria, Taylor &
Francis
Li, J., Wang, Y., Wang, X., Luo, H., Kang, S. C., Wang, J., ... & Jiao, Y. (2014). Benefits of building information
modelling in the project lifecycle: construction projects in Asia. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems,
11.
Mihindu, S., & Arayici, Y. (2008). Digital construction through BIM systems will drive the re-engineering of
construction business practices. In Visualization, 2008 International Conference (pp. 29-34). IEEE.
Mom, M., Tsai, M. H., & Hsieh, S. H. (2014). Developing critical success factors for the assessment of BIM
technology adoption: Part II. Analysis and results. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 37(7), 859-868.
Nepal, M.P., Jupp, J.R. & Aibinu, A.A., 2014. Evaluations of BIM: frameworks and perspectives. Computing in Civil
and Building Engineering (2014), pp. 769-776.
NIBS (National Institute of Building Sciences). (2007). National building information modeling standard—Version
1.0—Part 1: Overview, principles and methodologies, Washington, DC.
Sebastian, R., & Berlo, L. (2010). Tool for benchmarking BIM performance of design, engineering and construction
firms in the Netherlands. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 6(4), 254-263.
Succar, B. (2009) Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix. IN Underwood, J. & Isikdag, U. (Eds.) Handbook
of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies,
Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing.
VICO. (2011). Calculation your BIM score [WWW document]. URL
http://www.vicosoftware.com/resources/calculating-bimscore/tabid/273811/Default.aspx
