T-10 Comparación de Implementación BIM

A CHARACTERIZATION FRAMEWORK TO DOCUMENT AND COMPARE BIM
IMPLEMENTATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Ju Gao
September 2011
2011 by Ju Gao. All Rights Reserved.
Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/
This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/yj761rc6510
ii
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate
in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Martin Fischer, Primary Adviser
John Haymaker
John Kunz
Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies.

Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education
This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in
electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in
University Archives.
iii
ABSTRACT
Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a new way of working and AEC professionals
and researchers are trying to understand its implementation and impacts. To develop this
understanding, one of the approaches is to study what happened on past projects that have
implemented BIM and to synthesize the differences and commonalities. However, the
current BIM stories typically present fragmented project data that cannot capture BIM
implementations in a structured, sufficient, and consistent way. In addition, the currently
available BIM guidelines lack validation by a large number of projects. Given these
shortcomings, AEC professionals and researchers cannot achieve knowledge that guides
them towards well-defined, measurable, and monitored BIM implementations. A
framework to characterize BIM implementations is needed to link the broken chain from
data to knowledge.
Through case studies on 40 construction projects, this research provides a framework to

characterize why, when, for whom, in what level of detail, with which tools, how, for
how much, and how well BIM implementations are done on projects. With the
characterization framework, past projects can be documented sufficiently and
consistently so that BIM managers or BIM researchers can compare a group of BIM
projects to gain insight into how to maximize the benefits of BIM.
The contribution of this research is a characterization framework that:
Organizes project data of BIM implementations into categories, factors, and

measures with an increasing levels of detail;
Sufficiently and consistently captures why, when, for whom, at what level of
detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM implementations
were done on the 40 case projects; and
Supports cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations to gain insights into
implementation patterns (i.e., how to plan a BIM implementation to maximize
benefits).
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I dedicate this dissertation to my family my mom and dad who have been giving me so
much love and support and have always encouraged me to follow my passion and live a
fulfilling life.
My deepest gratitude goes to my advisor Professor Martin Fischer. Martin has guided
me on the path of scholarship with patience, conscientiousness, and a sense of humor. His
advice, from research strategy to writing styles, has always been thoughtful and sharp.
I thank my Ph.D. committee members Dr. John Kunz (Executive Director of CIFE), Dr.
John Haymaker (Founder at DPI), and Dr. Calvin Kam (Director of Industry Programs,
CIFE) for their insightful comments on my research.
At Stanford Universitys Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), I enjoyed the
challenges and collaborations with my colleagues, including Tony Dong, Dr. Victor
Gane, Wendy Li, Dr. Reid Senescu, and many other wonderful colleagues. Special thanks
also go to Teddie Guenzer for all her administrative support.
I thank CIFE and its member companies for the funding support in the Academic Years
2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2008-2009.
I acknowledge the Technology Agency of Finland (Tekes) and Prof. Arto Kiviniemi for
supporting my case studies on the BIM implementations on projects in Finland.
I wish to thank Tongji University and Prof. Guangbin Wang for supporting my case
studies on the BIM implementations on projects in China.
In particular, I wish to thank those AEC professionals, researchers, and organizations

who participated in the case studies. Without their sharing of time and expertise, this
study would not have been possible. The list includes but is not limited to these people.
Dr. Airaksine, Miimu (OptiPlan)

Dr. Akbas, Ragip (Autodesk)
v
Dr. Fox, Stephan (VTT)
Mr. Hahl, Tuomo (Senate Properties)
Dr. Hartmann, Timo (Twente University)
Mr. Heikkil, Sami (Skanska)
Mr. Hietanen, Jiri (TUT)
Mr. Hrkk, Jukka (Skanska)
Mr. Iso-Aho, Jyrki (A-KONSULTIT)
Mr. Jrvinen, Tero (Olof Granlund)
Dr. Jongeling, Rogier (Lule University of Technology)
Ms. Karjalainen, Auli (Senate Properties)
Dr. Khanzode, Atul (DPR Construction)
Dr. Kim, Jonghoon (DPR Construction)
Dr. Koo, Bonsang (then at Strategic Project Solutions)
Mr. Kunz, Alex (then at Strategic Project Solutions)
Mr. Laine, Tuomas (Olof Granlund)
Dr. Laitinen, Jarmo (TUT)
Ms. Liston, Kathleen (Liston Consulting)
Mr. Lyu, Seungkoon (then at CIFE, Stanford University)
Mr. Niemioja, Seppo (Innovarch)
Dr. Staub-French, Sheryl (University of British Columbia)
Ms. Suojoki, Anne (Skanska),
Mr. Toivio, Teemu (JKMM)
Mr. Tollefsen, Terje (Norwegian University of Science and Technology)
Mr. Trrnen, Ari (NCC)
Mr. Valjus, Juha (Finnmap Consulting)
Mr. Zhou, Kai (China Steel Group - Central Southern China Design Institute)
A final thanks is given to anyone that I may have missed in these acknowledgements.
Your omission was purely unintentional.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii
TABLE OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... x
TABLE OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH MOTIVATION AND READERS

GUIDE ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research Motivation .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Readers Guide Key Points of the Thesis ............................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 PRACTICAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE, INTUITION, AND

RESEARCH QUESTION ............................................................................................... 7
2.1 Observed Problems .................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Intuition ................................................................................................................... 19
2.3 Research Question and Scope Definition ................................................................ 21
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE ........................................ 24
3.1 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Demonstrate Why a Framework is Needed ...................... 24
3.2 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Demonstrate the Observed Problems in Practice .............. 26
3.3 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Illustrate BIM-related Frameworks and Guidelines ......... 29
3.4 Theoretical P.O.Ds for Developing the Characterization Framework .................... 37

vii
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHOEDS...................................................................... 44
4.1 Criteria for Research Methods................................................................................. 44
4.2 Multiple Case Studies .............................................................................................. 44
4.3 Grounded Theory..................................................................................................... 45
4.4 Techniques to Improve the Methodological Rigor .................................................. 46
CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH TASKS ............................................................................... 50
5.1 Three Phases of Case Studies .................................................................................. 50
5.2 Data Collection, Analysis, and Framework Development ...................................... 56
CHAPTER 6 RESEARCH RESULTS .......................................................................... 95
CHAPTER 7 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION AND VALIDATION .......................... 98
7.1 Requirements of a Good Characterization Framework for BIM Implementations

and an Overview of Validation Metrics and Methods............................................. 98
7.2 Validation Results ................................................................................................. 102
7.2.1 Validating the documentation power of the characterization framework for

BIM implementations................................................................................... 102
7.2.2 Validating the capability of the characterization framework for BIM

implementations to support the comparison of BIM implementations across
projects and gain insights on implementation patterns ................................ 108
7.2.3 Validating the methodological rigor of the characterization framework for

BIM implementations................................................................................... 135
CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ........................................................ 139
viii
8.1 Practical Significance of the Framework............................................................... 139
8.2 Intellectual Merits of the Framework .................................................................... 140
8.3 Future Work........................................................................................................... 141
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 144
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY.......................................................................................... 157
ix
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Examples of decisions to be made in setting up a BIM implementation .......... 7
Table 2-2: Examples of decisions in planning a BIM implementation that maximizes the
benefits on a project ............................................................................................. 8
Table 2-3: By learning BIM implementations on individual projects, AEC professionals

obtain bits and pieces of unstructured and fragmented information that captures
the ad-hoc experience pertinent to one or a few factors in setting up a BIM
implementation. ................................................................................................... 9
Table 2-4: It is difficult to compare BIM implementations across the 12 cases presented
at the IAI conference because presented project data are neither sufficient nor
consistent in capturing the factors professionals need to know to set up an
implementation and understand the benefits realized from the implementation.
............................................................................................................................ 13
Table 2-5: A list of guidelines for BIM implementations................................................. 18
Table 2-6: The research scope of the characterization framework for BIM ..................... 23
Table 3-1: Theoretical points of departure (P.O.Ds) that demonstrate why a framework is
needed ................................................................................................................ 25
Table 3-2: An overview of twenty-two papers that document BIM implementations on

individual projects .............................................................................................. 27
Table 3-3: It is difficult to compare the 12 individual cases on using 4D models for
construction sequencing because these cases are neither sufficient nor consistent
in capturing the factors in setting up an implementation and benefits realized
from it................................................................................................................. 28
Table 3-4: An overview of BIM related guidelines and frameworks ............................... 32
x
Table 3-5: A comparative analysis of BIM related frameworks and guidelines that are
targeted at the industry level .............................................................................. 34
targeted at the enterprise level ........................................................................... 35
targeted at the project level ................................................................................ 36
Table 3-8: Theoretical points of departure (P.O.Ds) that are stepping stones towards
developing the characterization framework for BIM implementation .............. 37
Table 3-9: Labeling the measures in Framework-1 .......................................................... 41
Table 4-1: Five techniques the researcher used to improve the methodological rigor in
developing the characterization framework for BIM implementations ............. 47
Table 5-1: An overview of the 21 projects in the first phase of case studies ................... 52
Table 5-2: An overview of the 11 projects in the second phase of case studies ............... 55
Table 5-3: An overview of the 8 projects in the third phase of case studies .................... 56
Table 5-4: The question list for the first phase of case study interviews .......................... 59
Table 5-5: The additional questions in the revised interview questionnaire for the second
and third phase of case study interviews............................................................ 60
Table 5-6: An example of case narrative for Case 6 (Baystreet Retail Complex)........... 63
Table 5-7: An example showing how the measures are replicated across cases in
Framework-3 ...................................................................................................... 65
Table 5-8: An example showing the process of discovering new measures and factors .. 69
xi
Table 5-9: Factors and measures found or revised after using Framework-1 to document
21 case projects .................................................................................................. 70
Table 5-10: Framework-2 (The text in blue indicates the factors and measures that are
newly found or revised. The bullets are the descriptive features for a particular
measure.) ............................................................................................................ 76
11 case projects .................................................................................................. 84
newly found or revised for Framework-1; and the text in red indicates the
factors and measures that are newly found or revised for Framework-2. The
bullets are the descriptive features for a particular measure.) ........................... 86
8 case projects .................................................................................................... 94
Table 6-1: A characterization framework to document BIM implementations on

construction projects .......................................................................................... 96
Table 7-1: Validation metrics and methods for the characterization framework for BIM
implementations ............................................................................................... 101
Table 7-2: Calculating the sufficiency of the three versions of the characterization
framework for BIM implementations .............................................................. 104
Table 7-3: Examples of calculating the consistency (occurrence) of measures across the
40 cases ............................................................................................................ 105
Table 7-4: Calculating the consistency of the characterization framework for BIM
Table 7-5: Factors and measures used to develop crosswalk 1 ...................................... 109
xii
Table 7-6: Crosswalk 1 links BIM uses to the corresponding impacts on product, process,
and organization and the related benefits to project stakeholders. (The text in
italic indicates case examples which are listed in Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and
Table 5-3.) ........................................................................................................ 111
Table 7-8: Crosswalk 2 links BIM uses with the impacts on product, organization, and
process along the project timeline.................................................................... 118
Table 7-10: Crosswalk 3 links the key stakeholders roles in the BIM process with the
benefits to them as individual stakeholders ..................................................... 125
Table 7-11: Factors and measures used to develop crosswalk 2 .................................... 130
Table 7-12: Crosswalk 4 (part II) links the timing of developing the level of detail in BIM
with the corresponding benefits. ...................................................................... 134
Table 7-13: A summary of the validation results............................................................ 138
Table 8-1: Implementation patterns confirm or adjust the general beliefs about BIM
xiii
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Individual BIM stories only provide unstructured and fragmented capture of
BIM implementations and cannot help AEC professionals how to set up a BIM
implementation consistently. ............................................................................. 12
Figure 2-2: Comparing BIM stories with insufficient and inconsistent project data to
capture BIM implementations cannot help AEC professionals understand the
implementation patterns (i.e., how to set up a BIM implementation to maximize
benefits).............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2-3: The data to knowledge chain is broken without a formalized framework. 16
Figure 2-4: A formalized framework is an indispensable step in linking the broken chain
of data to knowledge. ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 3-1: The structure of Framework-1 ....................................................................... 38
Figure 3-2: Labeling the categories in Framework-1 ....................................................... 39
Figure 3-3: Labeling the factors in Framework-1 ............................................................. 40
Figure 5-1: Three phases of case studies for the development of the characterization
framework for BIM implementations ................................................................ 50
Figure 5-2: Research activities and deliverables involved in data collection, analysis, and
framework development .................................................................................... 58
Figure 7-1: Requirements of a good characterization framework for BIM

implementations ................................................................................................. 99
Figure 7-2: Overview map of the characterization framework for BIM implementations
.......................................................................................................................... 103
xiv
Figure 7-3: Three levels (high, medium, and low) of occurrence of the measures in the
framework ........................................................................................................ 107
Figure 7-4: The trend line correlates the number of model uses to the number of benefits
for the 40 cases (each case is represented by a dot). ........................................ 116
Figure 7-5: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the owner
leading situations ............................................................................................ 127
Figure 7-6: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the GC
leading situations ............................................................................................ 128
Figure 7-7: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the
designer leading situations ........................................................................... 129
Figure 7-8: Crosswalk 4 (part I) links the level of detail in BIM with the timing of BIM.
.......................................................................................................................... 131
Figure 7-9: Framework applied to different project types, delivery methods, and sizes 135
xv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH MOTIVATION AND READERS
GUIDE
Teicholz (2004) suggests that the introduction of 3D object-based CAD is one of the most
important new approaches to construction productivity improvement to allow improved
design, team collaboration, construction bidding, planning and execution, and real owner
value at all stages of a projects life cycle. Despite this vision, few project teams avail
themselves of the continued and widespread use of building information modeling1
(BIM) to the extent possible and economical. One challenge of crossing the chasm
(Moore 1999) from early adopters (a few visionaries) to early majority (most
pragmatists) lies in the lack of concrete and formal understanding of implementations and
impacts of BIM on projects. To develop this understanding, one of the approaches is to
study what happened on past projects that have implemented BIM and to synthesize the
differences and commonalities.
The objective of the research is to provide a framework to characterize why, when, for
whom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM
implementations are done on projects. With the characterization framework, past projects
can be documented sufficiently and consistently so that BIM managers or BIM
researchers can compare a group of BIM projects to gain insight into how to maximize
the benefits of BIM.
1.1 Research Motivation
The idea of this research started from the researchers experience visiting Finland,
Norway, the Netherlands, India, and China. The researcher talked to many AEC
professionals and learned their stories in the world of virtual design and construction. The
researcher also attended conferences and workshops where AEC practitioners presented
1
The definitions of the terms underlined and formatted in bold and italic are in Appendix A.
1
their visions, experiences, and beliefs. While it was fascinating to learn about these
stories, it quickly became overwhelming. Can BIM professionals and researchers put
together these anecdotes, compare BIM implementations across different projects, and
understand them collectively? This frustration provided the motivation for the research
efforts presented here.
1.2 Readers Guide Key Points of the Thesis
The contribution of the research is a characterization framework (as shown in Chapter 6

Research Result) that:
Organizes project data of BIM implementations into a classification scheme of 3

categories, 14 factors, and 74 measures with an elaborating level of detail.
Sufficiently and consistently captures:
o why (building information models (BIM) uses),
o when (timing of BIM),
o for whom (stakeholders involvement),
o at what level of detail (modeled data),
o with which tools (BIM software),
o how (BIM work flow),
o for how much (effort and cost), and
o how well (benefits) BIM implementations were done in 40 case projects.
Supports cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations to gain insights into
implementation patterns).
The current BIM stories (as discussed in Chapter 2 Practical Points of Departure) often
present fragmented project data that cannot capture BIM implementations in a structured,
sufficient, and consistent way. In addition, the currently available BIM frameworks and
guidelines (as discussed in Chapter 3 Theoretical Points of Departure) lack validation
by a large number of real projects. From these two points, AEC professionals cannot
achieve knowledge that guides them towards well-defined, measurable, and monitored
BIM implementations. To link the broken chain from data to knowledge (Ackoff
2
1989), a framework (which characterizes BIM implementations sufficiently, consistently,
and in a structured way) is needed to compare BIM implementations across projects and
to facilitate the understanding of how to plan a BIM implementation to maximize
benefits.
The quality of the characterization framework manifests itself in three aspects.
1. A good framework has documentation power.
Structured organization: The framework organizes the project data of BIM

implementations in a structured way;
Sufficient and consistent capture: The framework captures the project data of
BIM implementations as sufficiently and consistently as needed for
comparing why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools,
how, for how much, and how well BIM is implemented across different
projects.
2. A good framework supports the comparison of BIM implementations across

projects to gain insights on implementation patterns.
3. A good framework has the methodological rigor that is embedded in research
design and data analysis.
Generality: The framework should be applicable to a number of case projects

with variations in project type, size, delivery method, time period of design
and construction, and project location.
Validity: The validity of the framework depends on how well the framework
reflects the BIM implementations which it intends to document.
Validation studies (as discussed in Chapter 7 Research Validation) show that the
characterization framework for BIM implementations presented in this thesis:
Enables the organization of a BIM implementation in a structured way.

Facilitates the capture of a BIM implementation sufficiently and consistently.
3
o Sufficient capture: The fewer new measures that have to be added to the
framework as more case are carried out, the more confidence the
researcher can have that the framework is sufficiently developed. After
the study of BIM on 40 cases, the degree of saturation of the framework is
100%. That is to say, within the scope of 40 case projects, the framework
captures all the major characteristics related to why, when, for whom, at
what level of detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how well
BIM implementations are done.
o Consistent capture: The more measures (related to factors, e.g., model
uses, etc.) occurred in 40 cases, the more confidence the researcher has
that this framework is consistent. After applying the framework to 40 case
projects, I found that:
1) 56% of the 74 measures are observed in more than 75% of the
40 case projects;
2) 20% of the 74 measures are observed in 25% - 75% of the 40
case projects; and
3) 24% of the 74 measures are observed in fewer than 25% of the
case projects.
Supports the comparison of BIM implementations across projects to gain
insights on implementation patterns. The researcher found four significant
implementation patterns from documenting and comparing 40 case projects with
the framework.
o The higher the number of BIM uses on a project, the higher the number
of benefits.
o The earlier BIM is created and used, the more lasting the benefits of
BIM.
o The benefits to each individual stakeholder and to the whole project team
are maximized when the key stakeholders are all involved in creating and
using BIM.
4
o Projects that maximized benefits have created BIMs at the appropriate
level of detail that matches a particular model use and is just in time with
the information available at different design and construction stages.
In addition, the generality of the framework is demonstrated by being applied to a wide

spectrum of projects (40 cases) with variations in project type, size, delivery method and
contract, time period of design and construction, and project location.
The validity of the framework is demonstrated by the use of four techniques in research
design (as discussed in Chapter 4 Research Methods and Chapter 5 Research Tasks).
Ethnographic interviews: The interview questions became refined and more

specific over the course of data collection and analysis.
Triangulation: The researcher used multiple data sources (i.e., primary data from
face-to-face interviews and secondary data from available project documents) as
opposed to relying solely on one avenue of collecting data.
Selection of interviewees: To collect accurate and concrete project data, the
researcher selected key persons who were directly responsible for BIM practices
on projects.
Interviewee validation: The researcher requested the interviewees to double-
check the project data documented in the framework.
Based on the evidence shown in the validation, the researcher claims that the contribution
to knowledge in the fields of AEC is a characterization framework which enables
structured documentation as well as sufficient and consistent capture of BIM
implementations.
The practical significance of the framework (as discussed in Chapter 8) includes:
A framework that organizes BIM implementations in a structured way can help

AEC professionals decide upon how to implement BIM on their projects.
A framework that captures BIM implementations sufficiently and consistently as
well as supports cross-project comparisons can help AEC professionals examine
5
the implementation patterns (i.e., how to plan a BIM implementation to maximize
benefits).
These implementation patterns, in turn, can guide AEC professionals to set up
goals and plans of BIM implementations and guide management of ongoing
implementations.
The intellectual merits of the framework (as discussed in Chapter 8) include:
Compared to BIM guidelines, the characterization framework for BIM

implementations focuses on project-level implementation of BIM and is validated
through 40 case studies.
Implementation patterns discerned from applying the framework to compare BIM
across projects confirm or adjust general beliefs, hypotheses, and anecdotes of
BIM implementations and impacts.
The framework provides a foundation for identifying new knowledge, such as
additional implementation patterns and effects of certain conditions.
6
CHAPTER 2 PRACTICAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE, INTUITION, AND
RESEARCH QUESTION
This chapter presents the practical points of departure, the researchers intuition, and the
research question.
2.1 Observed Problems
When AEC professionals start to design and model their projects in BIM, they have to
decide how to set up a BIM implementation, e.g., why, when, for whom, at what level of
detail, with which tools, how, and for how much a BIM implementation will be done on a
project (Table 2-1). Besides, researchers and practitioners are also looking for how to
plan a BIM implementation that maximizes the benefits on their projects (Table 2-2). For
example, whether there are particularly beneficial BIM uses and whether more BIM uses
equate to more benefits or whether a plateau of benefits is reached with a certain number
of uses. They also wonder whether there are particularly critical windows of time or
organizational configurations that lead to provide the most benefits for the required level
of investment.
Table 2-1: Examples of decisions to be made in setting up a BIM implementation
Decisions in Setting up a BIM Implementation on a Project

Why will BIM be used?
When will BIM be created and used?
Who will be involved in a BIM implementation?
At what level of detail will a project be modeled in BIM?
With which software tools will BIM be created and analyzed?
How will BIM implementations be carried out?
For how much effort/cost will BIM be needed to implement?
7
Table 2-2: Examples of decisions in planning a BIM implementation that maximizes the
benefits on a project
Some Decisions to Plan a BIM Implementation that Maximizes the Benefits on a

Project
How will BIM uses impact project design, processes, and organization?
Model uses refer to the purposes of implementing BIM. Each model use plays a part in
supporting the project team to accomplish a particular professional task the team is
expected to do. With a better understanding of the relationship between model uses and
their benefits to a project, AEC professionals can identify the appropriate BIM uses
based on project and team goals.
How will the timing of creating and using BIM affect the timing of reaping
benefits?
With a better understanding of the relationship between the timing of BIM and the
timing of benefits, AEC professionals can look at each phase and determine whether
and how BIM improves the existing processes, and what investments to make for
future phases.
How will different situations of stakeholder involvement impact the benefits
to them?
Key stakeholders on a project include the owner/developer and AEC service providers,
i.e., the designers, general contractors, and subcontractors. With a better understanding
of key stakeholders roles in the BIM process and the benefits to individual
stakeholders and the whole project team, AEC professionals can determine which key
stakeholder to get involved and how to assign the roles and responsibilities according
to different model uses and business objectives of each key stakeholder.
How will the timing of developing levels of details in BIM correlate to the
benefits reaped on a project?
AEC professionals have to decide the level of detail of the 3D/4D models. There are
two common issues in developing the appropriate level of detail: 1) how to define the
level of detail; 2) how to determine whether the level of detail is appropriate. With a
better understanding of the relationship between the levels of detail and the benefits,
AEC professionals can identify the situations when a particular level of detail in BIM
is created too early or too late and thus analyze the corresponding reasons.
In an attempt to determine how to set up a BIM implementation, AEC professionals often

look to stories of BIM implementations on past projects and try to learn about best
practice from these stories. Many researchers and practitioners have reported on the use
of BIM on single projects (e.g., Collier and Fischer 1995; Griffis et al. 1995; Fischer et
1998; Koo and Fischer 2000; Coble et al. 2000; Riley 2000; Schwegler et al. 2000;
8
Bergsten and Knutsson 2001; Whyte 2001; Rischmoller et al. 2001; Messner and Lynch
2002; Roe 2002; de Vries and Broekmaat 2003; Kam et al. 2003; Hastings et al. 2003;
OBrien 2003; Staub et al. 2003; Haymaker et al. 2004; McQuary 2004; Webb and Haupt
2004; Sersy 2004; Cunz and Knutson 2005; Bedrick and Davis 2005; Eberhard 2005;
Gonzales 2005; Hagan and Graves 2005; Hamblen 2005; Holm et al. 2005; Joch 2005;
Jongeling et al. 2005; Khanzode et al. 2005; Koerckel 2005; Sampaio et al. 2005; Sawyer
2005; Majumdar and Fischer 2006).
Some of these stories might inform AEC professionals about the purpose of BIM, the
timing of BIM model creation and use, or the level of detail in BIM. Some stories might
tell AEC professionals some specifics such as the software tools for creating and
analyzing BIM or the workflow to implement BIM. Other stories might explain the
benefits realized and lessons learned on individual projects. These stories create a
repository of unstructured and fragmented information that captures the ad-hoc
experience of implementing BIM on projects (Table 2-3).
Table 2-3: By learning BIM implementations on individual projects, AEC professionals

obtain bits and pieces of unstructured and fragmented information that captures the ad-
hoc experience pertinent to one or a few factors in setting up a BIM implementation.
Bits and Pieces of Fragmented Information Obtained from Learning Factors

about BIM Implementations on Individual Projects Captured
Sequus Pharmaceuticals Pilot Plant (Staub et al. 2003) Model uses
3D models were used to leverage design information and support a variety
of project management functions, e.g., MEP design coordination,
automated quantity takeoffs for cost estimation, and 4D modeling.
A detailed 4D model was used in this project to coordinate the
mechanical, electrical, and piping work with the equipment installation on
the mechanical platform.
Disney Concert Hall (Haymaker et al. 2004) Timing of
3D models were generated by the architect during the schematic design BIM
phase and used throughout the design phases.
The general contractor built 4D models prior to construction, and updated
them throughout the construction phase.
9
Table 2-3 (contd): By learning BIM implementations on individual projects, AEC
professionals obtain bits and pieces of unstructured and fragmented information that
captures the ad-hoc experience pertinent to one or a few factors in setting up a BIM
implementation.
Bits and Pieces of Fragmented Information Obtained from Learning BIM Factors
Implementations on Individual Projects Captured
GSA Jackson Courthouse (Majumdar and Fischer 2006) Stakeholder
GSA collected requirements from court representatives. involvement
GSA conveyed the requirements to the architect.
The architect provided 2D CAD drawings to CIFE.
CIFE provided the 3D CAD model to WDI.
GSA reviewed the 3D CAD model with CIFE.
GSA reviewed the VR model with WDI.
Experience Music Project (Fischer et al. 1998) Modeled
The product model contains objects for each of the steel ribs (e.g., Rib_A_1 data
and Rib_A_2) and the skin. The designers have specified the following
information for each component: what type of component it is, what material
it consists of, where it is, what dimensions it has, and what supports it.
Helsinki University of Technology Auditorium-600 (Kam et al. 2003) Software
ArchiCAD from Graphisoft11 used by the architect;
Progman Oys MagiCAD12 used by the mechanical engineers;
LIGHTSCAPE20 (developed by Autodesk) used by the lighting designer;
Riuska used for thermal simulation;
BS-LCA used for environmental assessment;
COVE used for cost estimate and value engineering;
CPT 4D used for schedule visualization.
Camino Medical Campus (Khanzode et al. 2005) Workflow
Identify the potential uses of the 3D models
Identify the modeling requirements
Establish the drawing protocol
Establish the design coordination process
Develop a protocol for addressing design questions
Develop discipline-specific 3D models
Integrate discipline-specific 3D models
Identify conflicts between components/systems
Develop solutions for the conflicts identified
Document conflicts and solutions
10
Table 2-3 (contd): By learning BIM implementations on individual projects, AEC
professionals obtain bits and pieces of unstructured and fragmented information that
captures the ad-hoc experience pertinent to one or a few factors in setting up a BIM
implementation.
Bits and Pieces of Fragmented Information Obtained from Learning BIM Factors
Implementations on Individual Projects Captured
McWhinney Office Building in Colorado (Koo and Fischer 2000) Effort/cost
Modelers spent 12 man-hours (10% of the total effort) on preparing the
appropriate schedule data, 69 man-hours (58% of the total effort) on
converting the 2D drawings into 3D CAD models, 23 man-hours (19% of the
total effort) on learning to use the Schedule Simulator and establishing
relationships between CAD objects and activities in the master schedule, and
15 man-hours (13% of the total effort) on reviewing the 4D model for the
constructability analysis.
From such chunks of BIM stories AEC professionals can only obtain unstructured,
fragmented and granular information that captures one or a few implementation factors
(i.e., factors in setting up a BIM implementation such as model uses, timing of model
uses, stakeholder involvement, modeled data, software, workflow, and effort/cost).
Without structured documentation, AEC professionals can be overwhelmed in the sea of

project data. They will find it very difficult or even impossible to blend the fragmented
information from one project to another and align it into a structured picture of why,
when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, and for how much a BIM
implementation can best be done (Figure 2-1).
11
Figure 2-1:: Individual BIM stories only provide unstructured and fragmented capture of
BIM implementations and cannot help AEC professionals how to set up a BIM
implementation consistently.
Unstructured and Fragmented

Capture of a BIM Implementation
A structured way to set up a BIM

implementation:
why,
when,
for whom,
at what level of detail,
with which tools,
how,
for how much
much.
Besides reading or listening to individual BIM stories, AEC professionals often attempt
to put together these individual stories and compare BIM implementations across
They wonder, from the cross
cross-project
project comparisons, whether they can gain insights
insight on how
to set up a BIM implementation to maximize benefits. The following example (Table 22-4)
illustrates the difficulty in comparing 12 industry cases presented at the IAIs first
12
Building Smart International Conference for Government and Industry in Oslo, Norway,
in 2005.
Table 2-4: It is difficult to compare BIM implementations across the 12 cases presented
at the IAI conference because presented project data are neither sufficient nor consistent
in capturing the factors professionals need to know to set up an implementation and
understand the benefits realized from the implementation.
Consistent Sufficient
capture Capture
Industry Model Timing Stake- Level of Soft- Work Effort Bene

Cases Uses of BIM holders Detail ware -flow / Cost -fits
Fair Oaks 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Clinic
Aurora 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
DIGI 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Building
TUT 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
Building
Music Hall 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Akershus 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
Hospital
HUT 600 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
Pump Station 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
Aalborg 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Concert Hall
Basin 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Margrethe 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Opera
Pharma- 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
ceutical
Factory
Inconsistent Insufficient
Capture Capture
13
In Table 2-4, the symbol 1 represents the situation where a particular factor in setting
up a BIM implementation or the benefits from carrying out the implementation is
captured by project data. Meanwhile, the symbol 0 represents the situation where
nothing from the case projects is captured for these implementation factors and benefits.
What causes the difficulty to compare the 12 cases presented on the IAI conference?
Insufficient capture: Comparing the 12 cases row by row, not every case has
information to capture all the seven factors in setting up an implementation plus
benefits realized from the implementation. For instance, the Fair Oaks Clinic case
captured all the seven implementation factors as well as benefits, which illustrates an
example of sufficient capture. On the other hand, the Pharmaceutical Factory
case only captured BIM model uses, software, and stakeholders while lacking the
documentation of the timing of BIM, level of detail, and effort/cost. This is an
illustration of insufficient capture.
Inconsistent capture: Comparing the 12 cases column by column, not each
implementation factor or benefit can be captured throughout the 12 cases. For
instance, the implementation factor model uses was captured in all the 12 cases,
which indicates consistent capture. However, the implementation factor level of
detail was captured in merely 3 cases, which demonstrates an example of
inconsistent capture.
Without sufficient and consistent capture of BIM implementation factors and benefits, it
is hard to examine the implementation patterns (i.e., the relationships between
implementation factors and benefits realized on projects) from cross-project comparisons
and understand how to plan a BIM implementation in order to maximize benefits (Figure
2-2).
14
Figure 2-2:: Comparing BIM stories with insufficient
cient and inconsistent project data to
capture BIM implementations cannot help AEC professionals understand the
implementation patterns (i.e., how to set up a BIM implementation to maximize benefits).
Understanding of BIM
Comparison
arison of BIM
implementation patterns
implementations across projects
Figure 2-3 shows that there are three realms that are involved in the research. The first
row, on the top, is the realm of theory in the domain of social science. It is what goes on
inside researchers heads. It is where researchers keep the theories about how the world
operates. The third row, on the bottom, is the realm of observations. It is the real world
into which researchers translate their ideas and observations. When researchers conduct
research in the domain of AEC-BIM
AEC BIM (reflected as the second row), they are continually
moving back and forth between these two realms, between what people think about the
world and what is going on in it.
In the domain of social science, according to Russell Ackoffs

Ackoffs "From Data to
Knowledge" diagram, achieving knowledge is not easy and people must move
successively through the levels of understanding (Ackoff 1989). Information is structured
data and knowledge differs from simple information or data since it conveys the
relationships among the individual pieces of information. A framework allows
15
information to be consistently classified to make it easier for users to know where to look
for types of documents and records. Without formalized information, the chain of
understanding from data to knowledge is broken (Figure 2-3).
In addition, Dave Snowden (an expert on knowledge management) argues that people
often gather fragmented information at the point of need and then blend that information
on the fly to reach conclusions and take action (Snowden 2009). He points out that the
more people structure data, the more they can summarize. Therefore, it is necessary to
organize fragmented granularity into highly structured documents by placing entries in
categories (Snowden 2009).
Figure 2-3: The data to knowledge chain is broken without a formalized framework.
A framework to:
Organize BIM implementations in a
structured way
Capture BIM implementations
sufficiently and consistently
Support cross-project comparisons of
BIM implementations
Capture Compare
In the conceptual domain of implementing BIM on AEC projects, there are three steps of
understanding BIM implementations (Figure 2-3):
16
Understanding the characteristics of BIM implementations (i.e., project data) on
individual projects;
Understanding why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools,
how, and for how much a BIM implementation is done; and
Understanding BIM implementation patterns (i.e., how the factors in setting up an
implementation related to the benefits realized) through cross-project
documentation and comparison.
In the practical domain of implementing BIM on projects (Figure 2-3), AEC

professionals who start to implement BIM on their project often go for stories of BIM
implementations on past projects. However, two problems exist.
Individual BIM stories only provide unstructured and fragmented capture of BIM
implementations.
It is difficult to compare BIM stories across projects because the capture of BIM
implementations on these projects is neither sufficient nor consistent.
Besides BIM stories, AEC professionals sometimes also refer to BIM guidelines for best
practices. There is the accelerating emergence of guidelines dedicated to exploring and
defining the requirements and deliverables of BIM (Table 2-5). These guidelines,
although valuable in their own right, are mostly not project-specific and have not been
validated by a large number of case studies (see further discussion in Chapter 3).
Hence, a framework that organizes BIM implementations in a structured way can help
AEC professionals decide upon what to set up in implementing BIM on their projects. A
framework that captures BIM implementations sufficiently and consistently as well as
supports cross-project comparisons can help AEC professionals look into the
implementation patterns (i.e., how to plan a BIM implementation to maximize benefits).
These implementation patterns, in turn, will help practitioners develop BIM guidelines
that guide their work related to creating and using BIM on projects as well as monitoring
and controlling the impacts of BIM implementations.
17
Table 2-5: A list of guidelines for BIM implementations
Origin Organi- Guidelines Description

zation
BIM guidelines targeted at the industry level
Australia CRC-CI National Guidelines & This guideline highlights open and
Case Studies (2008) consistent processes and tests selected
software compatibility.
Denmark BIPS Digital Construction This guideline includes a 3D CAD
Guidelines (2007) Manual, 3D Working Method, Project
Agreement, and Layer and Object
Structures.
Finland SENATE BIM Requirements This guideline focuses on the design
Properties Guidelines (2007) phase and describes general operational
procedures in BIM projects and detailed
general requirements of BIM.
Nether- E-BOUW E-BOUW BIM This framework consists of seventeen
lands Framework (2008) orthogonal dimensions that describe the
BIM world in general.
Norway STATS- HITOS Documented Pilots This document reports on experiences
BYGG (2006) gained on full-scale IFC test project.
U.S. NIST National BIM Standards This guideline establishes standard
Guidelines (2007) definitions for information exchanges to
support critical business contexts.
BIM guidelines targeted at the enterprise level

U.S. AGC Contractors Guide to BIM This guideline helps contractors
Guidelines (2006) understand how to get started with BIM.
U.S. GSA 3D4D-BIM Program This guideline is intended for GSA
Guidelines (2006) associates and consultants engaging in
BIM practices.
U.S. US Army BIM A Road Map for This guideline focuses on the
Corps of Implementation To implementation of BIM in the U.S.
Engineers Support MILCON Army Corps of Engineers civil works
(USACE) Transformation and Civil and military construction business
Works Projects (2006) processes.
U.S. CIFE & CIFE/CURT survey of The survey investigates BIM uses in
CURT VDC/BIM Use (Kunz AEC firms as well as barriers and
2006 and 2007). opportunities in BIM implementation.
U.S. CURT BIM Implementation: An This guideline serves as a practical
Owners Guide to Getting guide to help owners develop a BIM
Started (2010) implementation process that best suits
each owners situation and needs.
18
Table 2-5 (contd): A list of guidelines for BIM implementations
Origin Organization Guideline Description

BIM guidelines targeted at the project level
U.S. CIFE 3D and 4D Modeling for This guideline presents what is
Design and Construction required to apply 3D/4D modeling
Coordination (Staub- tools on construction projects for
French and Khanzode MEP coordination.
2007)
U.S. The State of The State of Ohio This protocol provides general
Ohio General Building Information guidance that ensures that building
Service Modeling (BIM) owners know what they should
Division Protocol (2010) include in their requests for
qualifications (RFQ) and contracts for
their projects.
U.S. Penn State BIM Project Execution The BIM Project Execution Planning
Planning Guide and Guide and template resources were
Templates Version 2.0 developed to assist in the creation a
(2010) BIM Project Execution Plan.
2.2 Intuition
According to Russell Ackoffs "From Data to Knowledge" diagram, the chain of

understanding BIM implementations is broken (Figure 2-3) due to the lack of a
formalized framework to:
Organize BIM implementations in a structured way,

Capture BIM implementations sufficiently and consistently, and
Support cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations.
The challenge of understanding implementation patterns through cross-comparing BIM

projects lies in three limitations in the current way of documenting BIM projects.
Unstructured organization: The project data of BIM implementations are not

organized into comparable categories and are not presented in a structured way.
Insufficient capture: The main threat to providing a valid description lies in the
incompleteness of the data (Robson 1993). The documentation of a BIM
implementation on a particular project cannot capture the implementations as
19
sufficiently as needed for comparing why, when, for whom, at what level of
with which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM is implemented across
different projects.
Inconsistent capture: The documentation of BIM implementations on different
projects cannot capture the implementation factors and benefits as consistently as
possible and necessary across projects.
In summary, the current BIM stories often present fragmented project data that cannot
capture BIM implementations in a structured, sufficient, and consistent way. In addition,
the currently available BIM guidelines lack validation by a large number of real projects.
Given these two limitations, AEC professionals cannot achieve knowledge that guides
them towards well-defined, measurable, and monitored BIM implementations. To link
the broken chain of data to knowledge, a formalized framework is needed to document
BIM implementations (Figure 2-4). This framework needs to:
Organize BIM implementations in a structured way,

Capture BIM implementations sufficiently and consistently, and
Support cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations so as to understand
how the factors in setting up of a BIM implementations are related to the benefits.
Figure 2-4: A formalized framework is an indispensable step in linking the broken chain
of data to knowledge.
20
2.3 Research Question and Scope Definition
What framework that characterizes BIM implementations on construction projects can:
Organize project data of BIM implementations in a structured way;

Sufficiently and consistently capture why, when, for whom, at what level of
detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM implementations
are done; and
Support cross-project comparisons of BIM implementations so as to gain insights
(i.e., implementation patterns) on how to set up a BIM implementation with
appropriate model uses, timing in project phases, stakeholder involvement, and
modeled level of detail so as to maximize benefits?
The research scope for this thesis (Table 2-6) is:
BIM Practice: The research looks into good practice of BIM implementations.
The researcher selected 40 case projects regardless of the success level of BIM
implementations, although many cases in the research probably represented the
best-proven practice achieved at the time the researcher studied these projects.
Implementation target: Because the AEC industry is a project-based industry, the
research is focused on BIM implementations on building construction projects
during the design and construction phases. Although this research does not
directly address BIM implementations within an AEC company or across
organizations, the researcher regards the company background (such as their BIM
software platform choices, data standardization status, research and development
activities, external and internal organizational alignment) as the company context
of implementing BIM on a project.
BIM perspective: In this research, BIM implementations specifically refer to the
process of creating and using BIM to support project stakeholders in
accomplishing professional tasks. This thesis excludes the discussion on
technologies and policies related to BIM implementations.
21
BIM use level: Projects studied in the research use BIM often for visualization
(3D rendering), documentation (design/construction documents), model-based
analysis (e.g., single-discipline structural analysis, etc.), and integrated analysis
(cross-discipline collaborations, e.g., clash detection, 4D models, etc.). Projects
that use BIM for automation and optimization are not studied in the research.
Implementation phases: The researcher studied projects that implemented BIM
during the design and construction phases, excluding the operation and
maintenance phases.
Potential user of the framework: The characterization framework for BIM
implementations is formalized for BIM researchers and BIM program managers
who wish to synthesize BIM implementation patterns from past project
experiences. While AEC practitioners might find the framework of interest to
them, it is not for AEC professionals looking for operational guidelines to
implement BIM on a project.
Potential application of the framework: The characterization framework for BIM
implementations captures why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with
which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM implementations are done.
These are the factors entailed in BIM implementations at the project management
level. This framework does not capture factors (e.g., personnel skills and
capabilities, staffing and training requirements, and collaboration and
communication procedures, etc.) with regards to BIM implementations at the
company strategy level. In addition, this research does not address factors with
regards to BIM implementations at the project operational level. For example,
Clevengers Framework (2009) characterizes BIM-based energy analysis with
factors such as problem comprehensiveness, solving efficiency, and solution
quality. However, the framework in this research did not attempt to capture
factors related to using BIM for specific design analysis on a project.
Validation of the power of the framework: The framework is validated in terms
of its descriptive (documentation) power and is demonstrated in its explanatory
value in theorizing cross-case implementation patterns that present the
relationships between implementation factors and benefits to a projects product,
22
organization, and process. The framework might have predictive power, but this
potential was not tested within the scope of this research.
Table 2-6: The research scope of the characterization framework for BIM
Characterization Framework for BIM Implementations

: Within the research scope : Outside of the research scope
Best (at the time of the

BIM practice Good
collecting the case data)
Implementation
Project Enterprise
target
Technology
BIM Perspective Process
Policy
Visualization
Documentation Automation and
BIM use level
Model-based analysis Optimization
Integrated analysis
Implementation Operation and

Design and Construction
phases Maintenance
BIM researchers AEC professionals

Potential user of BIM program managers looking for operational

the framework Who wish to synthesize past guidelines to implement
project experiences BIM
Company strategy
Potential
level
application of the Project management level
framework Project operational
level
Validation of the Descriptive power

power of the Predictive power
framework Explanatory power
23
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE
This chapter presents the theoretical points of departure (P.O.Ds) that demonstrate:
Why a framework is needed?

Whether there are other BIM-related frameworks (or guidelines) available?
What are the stepping-stones toward the development of the framework?
3.1 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Demonstrate Why a Framework is Needed
A frame is a data-structure for representing a stereotyped situation. A framework, as a

network of taxonomic nodes and relations among the nodes, will assist in organizing
domain knowledge, elicit tacit expertise and facilitate the creation of new knowledge
(Minsky 1975).
A characterization framework is a descriptive framework comprised of common

vocabulary to describe the concepts of phenomena investigated (Holsapple and Joshi
1999). The creation of a characterization framework requires a more precise and
comprehensive understanding of the nature and characteristics of these activities
(Carzaniga et al. 1998).
In the field of knowledge management, Malafsky (2003) argues that one of the greatest
challenges to effective knowledge management is to organize a large amount of related
but disjointed information into something that is useful, accurate, and trustworthy (Table
3-1). Managing knowledge begins by defining a structure to organize information into
categories of main concepts and then by terms to group like items. To classify
information, a framework must be defined. Information is commonly organized within a
framework. This framework is a hierarchy of descriptive categories that forms a
classification scheme. A classification scheme often has a tree-like structure with nodes
branching into sub-nodes where each node represents a topic with a few descriptive
words.
24
Literature in non-construction research fields, such as production and operations
management (Forze and Di Nuzzo 1998), public policy (Jensen and Rodgers 2001), and
IT management (Mason 1984 and Alavi 1992), suggests the use of a framework to extract
information from case studies and to identify and implement implications for practice
(Table 3-1).
Table 3-1: Theoretical points of departure (P.O.Ds) that demonstrate why a framework is
needed
Literature Why a framework is needed
To organize a large amount of related but

Knowledge Malafsky
disjointed information into something that is
management (2003)
useful, accurate, and trustworthy.
Production and To act as an instrument for meta-analysis and

Forze and Di
operations help build up a relatively comprehensive picture
Nuzzo (1998)
management of the phenomena being considered.
Domain
Jensen and To extract information from a body of case

Public policy
Rodgers (2001) studies.
To permit (1) similar groupings of hardware,

software, data, rules, procedures, and people to
Mason (1984)
cluster together; and (2) different groupings to
be clearly distinguishable from one another.
IT management
To help review the empirical implementation
Alavi (1992) literature as a basis for providing guidelines for
implementation management.
A framework can act as an instrument to extract data for meta-analysis, which is

essentially synthesis of available literature on a topic (Hedges and Olkin 1985). For
example, Forze and Di Nuzzo (1998) show the potential of applying meta-analysis to the
development of both theories and practical indications in the field of production and
operations management. They comment that this approach helps to build up a relatively
comprehensive picture of the phenomena being considered.
Jensen and Rodgers (2001) suggest that the use of a framework to extract information
from a body of case studies is the solution to address the knowledge-accumulation and
25
generalizability problem in the field of public policy. They claim that this method should
be easily useable by those seeking to identify and implement implications for policy and
practice.
In the field of management of information systems (MIS), Mason (1984) who studied IT
impacts argues, The field needs a theory of technology and a classification scheme that
will permit (1) similar groupings of hardware, software, data, rules, procedures, and
people to cluster together; and (2) different groupings to be clearly distinguishable from
one another. Alavi (1992) conducted a rigorous and quantitative review of the empirical
decision support system (DSS) implementation literature as a basis for providing
guidelines for implementation management.
By the same token, a characterization framework for documenting BIM implementations

on construction projects should have two features:
The framework presents a structure to organize and classify the characteristics of

BIM implementations. The structure will permit (1) categorization of the
characteristics into comparable groups; and (2) presentation of the characteristics
at consistent levels of detail.
The framework has a list of descriptive terms which can be used to extract project
data (pertinent to the characteristics of BIM implementations) from a collection of
case studies, group the project data into comparable categories, and analyze these
categories to gain insights about BIM implementation patterns.
3.2 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Demonstrate the Observed Problems in Practice
Twenty-two published papers from 1995 to 2006 focus on specific areas of BIM
implementations on individual projects (Table 3-2).
26
Table 3-2: An overview of twenty-two papers that document BIM implementations on
individual projects
Focus areas of BIM Individual case studies

implementations
Design review in virtual reality Kam et al. 2003; Joch 2005; Majumdar and Fischer
2006
Design coordination Rischmoller et al. 2001; OBrien 2003; Staub et al.
2003; Hamblen 2005; Khanzode et al. 2005
Quantity takeoff and cost estimating Kam et al. 2003; OBrien 2003; Staub et al. 2003
Project master planning Collier and Fischer 1995; Schwegler et al. 2000;
Bergsten and Knutsson 2001
Bidding/proposal presentations Schwegler et al. 2000
Constructability review Collier and Fischer 1995; Fischer et al. 1998; Koo and
Fischer 2000; Riley 2000; Rischmoller et al. 2001;
Staub et al. 2003; Haymaker et al. 2004
Construction sequencing Fischer et al. 1998; Koo and Fischer 2000; Riley
2000; Rischmoller et al. 2001; Messner and Lynch
2002; Roe 2002; Hastings et al. 2003; Haymaker et al.
2004; Webb and Haupt 2004; Jongeling et al. 2005;
Khanzode et al. 2005
Field change documentation Coble et al. 2000
Field meeting to engage foremen de Vries and Broekmaat 2003
Production of design documents and OBrien 2003; Jongeling et al. 2005
shop drawings
Since twelve of the twenty-two cases focus on the use of 4D models for construction
sequencing, Table 3-3 illustrates how well the twelve cases capture the factors in setting
up an implementation (Table 2-3) as well as benefits realized from the implementation. In
Table 3-3, the symbol 1 represents the situation where a particular implementation
factor or the benefits from carrying out the implementation is captured by project data.
Meanwhile, the symbol 0 represents the situation where nothing from a case is captured
for these implementation factors and benefits. Row by row, this table shows the
sufficiency (or lack thereof) of each case. Column by column, this table shows the
consistency of capture across cases. We can see from Table 3-3 that not every single case
can sufficiently capture all the implementation factors and benefits and not each factor
27
can be consistently captured by all the 12 cases. This resonates with the observed
problem (Table 2-4) in Chapter 2.
Table 3-3: It is difficult to compare the 12 individual cases on using 4D models for
construction sequencing because these cases are neither sufficient nor consistent in
capturing the factors in setting up an implementation and benefits realized from it.
Consistent Sufficient
Capture Capture
Case Model Timing Stake- Level of Soft- Work- Effort

Benefits
Studies Uses of BIM holders Detail ware flow / Cost
Fischer et
1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
al. 1998
Koo and
Fischer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2000
Coble et al.
1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
2000
Riley 2000 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
Rischmoller
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
et al. 2001
Messner
and Lynch 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
2002
Roe 2002 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
Hastings et
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
al. 2003
Haymaker
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
et al. 2004
Webb and
1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
Haupt 2004
Jongeling et
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
al. 2005
Khanzode
1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
et al. 2005
Inconsistent Insufficient
Capture Capture
28
3.3 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Illustrate BIM-related Frameworks and Guidelines
Through an extensive literature search of BIM research, the researcher identified 15

guidelines and 8 frameworks as representative of the current state of developing BIM
frameworks and guidelines. Although, these guidelines are not referred to as frameworks
by their authors, such writings may help shape the development of more frameworks in
the future. These frameworks and guidelines are presented in chronological order (Table
3-4).
The researcher compared these frameworks and guidelines on four dimensions.
Target level: Frameworks are targeted at the industry, enterprise, or project level.
Descriptive or prescriptive frameworks:
o Descriptive frameworks attempt to characterize the nature of BIM
phenomena as what it is.
o Prescriptive frameworks prescribe the nature of BIM phenomena as what
should be.
Broad or specific frameworks:
o Broad frameworks aim to characterize the nature of BIM phenomena
comprehensively in their breath.
o Specific frameworks focus on specialized fields of BIM, i.e., Technology,
Process, and Policy (TPP) (Succar 2009).
Technology-specific frameworks address issues of developing
BIM software, hardware, equipment, and networking systems
applied to the design, construction and operation of facilities.
Process-specific frameworks focus on a group of players who
implement BIM to procure, design, construct, manufacture, use,
manage, and maintain AEC projects.
Policy-specific frameworks depict regulatory and contractual
requirements for delivering BIM solutions.
Validation: Frameworks are validated on case projects.
29
A comparative analysis of these frameworks and guidelines reveals that none subsumes
the others:
At the level of industry (Table 3-4 and Table 3-5): there are three broad
frameworks, five technology-specific frameworks, and three process-specific
frameworks. For example, the National Guidelines and Case studies (CRC-CI
2008) is targeted at the Australian construction industry on the collaborative use
of BIM. It is a technology-specific framework that prescribes the common
national standards of BIM software compatibility. This guideline was validated by
six cases.
At the level of enterprise (Table 3-6): there are six process-specific frameworks
and one policy specific framework. For instance, the 3D-4D-BIM program
guidelines (GSA 2006) is targeted at the enterprise level and intended for
GSA employees and consultants engaging in BIM practices for the design of new
construction and major modernization projects for GSA. It is a process-specific
framework that prescribes the operational procedures, such as when to determine
what BIM applications would be appropriate for a specific project and how to use
BIM for spatial program requirements, 3D laser scanning, 4D phasing, energy
performance and operations, and circulation and security validation. Another
example is the CIFE/CURT survey of VDC/BIM Use (Kunz 2007). It is targeted
at the enterprise level and based on responses from 171 professionals in AEC
companies and governmental agencies (most of them are AIA, CIFE, and CURT
members). This report is a process-specific framework that describes the role of
VDC/BIM in organizations and the costs, value, and issues related to using
VDC/BIM. This survey was validated by seven cases.
At the level of project (Table 3-7): there are five process-specific frameworks. For
example, the 3D and 4D Modeling for Design and Construction Coordination
(Staub-French and Khanzode 2007) is targeted at the project level. It is a process-
specific framework that provides guidelines on how to overcome the technical,
procedural, and organizational issues confronted by project teams in coordinating
MEP design and construction. This guideline was validated by two cases.
30
In this research, the characterization framework for BIM implementations is targeted at
the project level. It is a process-specific framework that characterizes why, when, for
implementations are done. In addition, this framework has to be validated on a large
number of case projects. Although five frameworks (including guidelines) fall into the
group of process-specific frameworks targeted at projects, none of them are validated
on a large number of case projects.
31
Table 3-4: An overview of BIM related guidelines and frameworks
Frameworks / Guidelines Target Descriptive / Broad / specific Vali-

Level prescriptive dation
BIM related Guidelines
HITOS Documented Pilots (Statsbygg 2006) Industry Descriptive Specific (Technology): IFC No
Contractors Guide to BIM Guidelines (AGC 2006) Enterprise Prescriptive Specific (Process): process for contractors No
3D4D-BIM Program Guidelines (GSA 2006) Enterprise Prescriptive Specific (Process): operational procedures for Yes: 2
GSA associates and consultants cases
BIM A Road Map for Implementation To Support Enterprise Prescriptive Specific (Process): operational procedures for No
MILCON Transformation and Civil Works Projects U.S. Army Corps of Engineer
(USACE 2006)
Digital Construction Guidelines (BIPS 2007) Industry Prescriptive Specific (Process): a working method to create, No
exchange, and use 3D models
BIM Requirements Guidelines (SENATE Properties Industry Prescriptive Specific (Process): Operational procedures for No
2007) owner in the design phase
National BIM Standards Guidelines (NIST 2007) Industry Prescriptive Specific (Technology): Information exchange No
CIFE/CURT survey of VDC/BIM Use (Kunz 2007) Enterprise Descriptive Specific (Process): BIM barriers and potentials Yes: 7
cases
3D and 4D Modeling for Design and Construction Project Prescriptive Specific (Process): MEP coordination Yes: 2
Coordination (Staub-French and Khanzode 2007) cases
National Guidelines & Case Studies (CRC-CI 2008) Industry Prescriptive Specific (Technology): software compatibility Yes: 7
cases
The State of Ohio Building Information Modeling Enterprise Prescriptive Specific (Policy): Owners RFQ and contractual No
(BIM) Protocol (Ohio GSD 2010) requirements
BIM Project Execution Planning Guide and Project Prescriptive Specific (Process): BIM project execution plan No
Templates Version 2.0 (Penn State 2010)
32
Table 3-4 (contd): An overview of BIM related guidelines and frameworks
Frameworks / Guidelines Target Descriptive / Broad / specific Vali-

Level prescriptive dation
BIM related Frameworks
Building Information Modeling Framework: A Industry Descriptive Broad: a BIM Framework representing concepts No
Research and Delivery Foundation for Industry and relations of BIM fields, BIM stages, and BIM
Stakeholders (Succar 2008) lenses
E-BOUW Framework (E-Bouw 2008) Industry Descriptive Broad: seventeen orthogonal dimensions that No
describe the BIM world in general
Building Information Modeling Project Decision Project Descriptive Specific (Process): a framework to support No
Support Framework (London et al. 2008) organizations selection of BIM usage strategies
that meet their project requirements
BIM for Sustainability Analyses (Azhar and Brown Project Descriptive Specific (Process): a framework for BIM-based No
2009) life-cycle sustainability analyses
A Framework of a BIM-based Multi-disciplinary Industry Descriptive Specific (Technology): technical requirements No
Collaboration Platform (Singh, et al. 2010) for a BIM server-based collaboration
An IDP-BIM Framework for Reshaping Professional Industry Descriptive Specific (Process): a situated learning No
Design Practices (Forgues and Iordanova 2010) environment in which BIM technologies are
structured in an IDP framework
A Multi-standpoint Framework for Technological Industry Descriptive Specific (Technology): a framework for No
Development (Cerovsek 2010) improving BIM tools and schema standardization
Building Information Modeling (BIM) Framework for Industry Descriptive Broad: a framework consisting of three No
Practical Implementation (Jung and Joo 2010) dimensions and six categories to address the
variables for BIM theory and implementation
Autodesk BIM Deployment Plan: A Practical Enterprise Prescriptive Specific (Process): BIM deployment plan No
Framework for Implementing BIM (Autodesk 2010) & Project
33
Table 3-5: A comparative analysis of BIM related frameworks and guidelines that are targeted at the industry level
Legends: Descriptive framework Prescriptive framework Descriptive framework with Prescriptive framework
without validation on without validation on validation on case projects with validation on case
case projects case projects projects
Target Specific Frameworks

Broad Frameworks
Level Technology Process Policy
E-BOUW Framework HITOS Pilots (STATSBYGG Digital Construction Guidelines
(TNO 2008) 2006) (BIPS 2007)
BIM Framework National BIM Standards (NIST BIM Requirements Guidelines
(Succar 2008) 2007) (SENATE Properties 2007)
BIM Framework for National Guidelines & Cases An IDP-BIM Framework for Design
Implementation (Jung (CRC-CI 2008) (Forgues and Iordanova 2010)
Industry
and Joo 2010)
A Framework of a BIM-based
Multi-disciplinary Collaboration
(Singh, et al. 2010)
A Framework for Technological
Development (Cerovsek 2010)
34
Table 3-6: A comparative analysis of BIM related frameworks and guidelines that are targeted at the enterprise level

Broad Frameworks
Contractors Guide to BIM Guidelines The State of Ohio
(AGC 2006) BIM Protocol
(The State of
3D4D-BIM Program Guidelines (GSA
Ohio GSD 2010)
2006)
A Road Map for BIM Implementation
(US Army Corps of Engineers 2006)
Enterprise CIFE/CURT survey of VDC/BIM Use
(Kunz 2007)
BIM Implementation: An Owners
Guide to Getting Started (CURT 2010)
Autodesk BIM Deployment Plan: A
Practical Framework for Implementing
BIM (Autodesk 2010)
35
Table 3-7: A comparative analysis of BIM related frameworks and guidelines that are targeted at the project level

Broad Frameworks
BIM for MEP Coordination (Staub-
French and Khanzode 2007)
BIM Project Execution Planning (Penn
State 2010)
BIM Project Decision Support
Framework (London et al. 2008)
BIM for Sustainability Analyses (Azhar
Project and Brown 2009)
Autodesk BIM Deployment Plan: A
Practical Framework for Implementing
BIM (Autodesk 2010)
A Characterization Framework to
Document and Compare BIM
Implementations on Construction
Projects (the topic for this thesis)
36
3.4 Theoretical P.O.Ds for Developing the Characterization Framework
By definition, a characterization framework is a hierarchical structure of descriptive

labels. The preliminary Framework-1 was grounded in pre-existing literature. To
develop Framework-1, I established four points of theoretical departure (Table 3-8) as
stepping-stones for my preliminary findings of the basic structure and some possible
descriptive labels in the characterization framework for BIM implementations.
Table 3-8: Theoretical points of departure (P.O.Ds) that are stepping stones towards
developing the characterization framework for BIM implementation
P.O.D for determining the basic Contexts-actions-consequences Paradigm

structure of Framework-1 Model (Strauss and Corbin 1998)
P.O.D for labeling the Strategic management approaches
categories in Framework-1 Critical Success Factor (CSF) (Rockart
1986)
Stepping
Key Performance Indicator (KPI) (Fitz-
stones
Gibbon 1990)
P.O.D for labeling the factors in 22 case studies (Table 3-2) that documented
Framework-1 BIM implementations on individual projects
P.O.D for labeling the measures A list of questions originally developed by the
in Framework-1 Virtual Builders Roundtable
Strauss and Corbin (1998) suggest the use of an action paradigm model when looking at
empirical data. They describe this model: In axial coding our focus is on specifying a
category (phenomenon) in terms of the preconditions that give rise to it; the context (its
specific set of properties) in which it is embedded; the action/interactional strategies by
which it is handled, managed, carried out; and the consequences of those strategies. By
reviewing the previous case studies and drawing upon observations at many seminars and
conferences, the researcher found the recurring theme of context-actions-consequences
for implementing BIM on a project. Since the action paradigm model is useful for
building the structure of the framework, the researcher adopted its main features.
A conceptual framework integrates various concepts that serve as an impetus for the
formulation of theory (Seibold 2002). Concepts are the key elements of a framework and
37
are derived from multiple sources of qualitative data, e.g., narrative interviews,
observations, documents, etc. (Somekh and Lewin 2005). In the process of labeling the
concepts in the framework, the researcher distinguished three levels of detail in
conceptualization. Categories are more general concepts; factors are fairly abstract
concepts; and measures are very concrete concepts.
Categories: They are concepts that stand for a given phenomenon. They depict
the matters that are important to the phenomena being studied.
Factors: They specify a category further by denoting information such as when,
where, why, and how a phenomenon is likely to occur.
Measures: They capture a factor in terms of its characteristics (properties).
The action paradigm (contexts-actions-consequences) and the three levels of

conceptualization (categories-factors-measures) constitute the basic building blocks for
my framework (Figure 3-1).
Figure 3-1: The structure of Framework-1
After determining the basic structure of the characterization framework for BIM
implementations, the researcher attempted to find some possible labeling of categories,
factors, and measures as the starting point (Framework-1) for further framework
development.
38
To label the categories (Figure 3-2) in Framework-1, the researcher followed the
contexts-actions-consequences paradigm rooted in the field of social science. To make
the labeling of categories better fit into the domain of project management, the researcher
referred to the literature in strategic management to rename actions and
consequences. Critical success factors (CSF) and key performance indicators (KPI) are
two main concepts widely used in the strategic management literature. Strategic goals
must be broken down into something more concrete and specific so that a tactical plan
can be devised. Critical success factors (CSF) are areas of activity that should receive
constant and careful attention from management (Rockart 1986). The researcher named
these areas of activity related to BIM implementations as implementation factors to
replace the actions labeled in Strauss and Corbins paradigm model. Key performance
indicators (KPI) represent a particular value or characteristic that is measured to assess
whether an organizations strategic goals are being achieved (Fitz-Gibbon 1990). The
consequences of implementing BIM is to assess how the implementation of BIM
affects the design of the product (building), the project organization, and the processes
carried out on a project. In turn, the impacts on product, organization, and process design
affect the overall project performance. Therefore, the researcher changed the label
consequences to performance impacts.
Figure 3-2: Labeling the categories in Framework-1
To label the factors (Figure 3-3) in Framework-1, the researcher reviewed the 22 case
study papers (Table 3-2) that document BIM implementations on individual projects.
39
Figure 3-3: Labeling the factors in Framework-1
By reviewing the 22 BIM case studies in literature, the researcher found that the
motivation and incentive of using BIM on a project is often triggered by project contexts,
i.e., the situations, challenges, requirements and constraints on a project. Therefore, the
context category has one factor, i.e., project context.
The researcher also found from the 22 case study papers that the main areas AEC
professionals need to consider when planning BIM implementations are why, when, for
whom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, and for how much BIM
implementations are done. Therefore, the researcher labeled the seven implementation
factors as follows:
Model uses: why BIM is used on a project;

Timing: when BIM is created and used;
Stakeholder involvement: who is involved in a BIM implementation;
Level of detail: at what level of detail a project is modeled in BIM;
Software tools: with which software tools BIM is created and analyzed;
Work flow: how a BIM implementation is carried out;
40
Effort/cost: for how much effort/cost BIM is implemented.
The 22 case studies show that AEC professionals often have to evaluate and assess the
perceived and quantifiable impacts of BIM implementations during the project run-time
and upon its completion. Therefore, the researcher integrated five factors into the
category of performance impacts and labeled them as follows:
Perceived impacts of BIM on product;

Perceived impacts of BIM on organization;
Perceived impacts of BIM on process;
Quantifiable progress performance during the project;
Quantifiable final performance upon project completion.
The categories and factors in the preliminary Framework-1 were not detailed enough to
describe the characteristics of BIM implementations in the 22 case studies. Therefore,
the researcher needed to extend the Framework-1 by capturing each factor with a few
measures. The researcher used a list of questions originally developed by the Virtual
Builders Roundtable (Fischer 2005) to elaborate factors with measures (Table 3-9).
Table 3-9: Labeling the measures in Framework-1
Factors Measures
Project context Type of project
Contract type and value
Project location
Project start and completion
Project size
Site constraints
Model uses Purpose of creating BIM - project goals and objectives
Aspects of the project analyzed in BIM
Timing Project phase(s) when BIM was built
Project phase(s) when BIM was used
41
Table 3-9 (contd): Labeling the measures in Framework-1
Factors Measures
Stakeholders Stakeholders who built models
involvement Number of people who built models
Stakeholders who used BIM
Number of people who used BIM
Level of detail Modeled scope of project
Number of modeled disciplinary systems
Data structure in BIM (layers, hierarchy)
Number of layers or hierarchical levels in BIM
Levels of detail in BIM
Number of design (or schedule) alternatives modeled
Software tools BIM software used
Useful software functionality
Missing software functionality
Rating of software functions to satisfy the modeling requirements
on a numerical scale 1-5
Work flow Workflow of BIM process
Number of iterations of BIM
Reasons for iterations of BIM
The best aspects of BIM process
Needed improvements in BIM process
Effort/cost Time (man-hours) to creating BIM
Cost of building BIM
Perceived Impacts on Explanation of the impact of BIM on product
Product Rating of the impact of BIM on project product on a numerical
scale 1-5
Perceived Impacts on Explanation of the impact of BIM on organization
Organization Rating of the impact of BIM on project organization on a numerical
scale 1-5
Perceived Impacts on Explanation of the impact of BIM on process
Process Rating of the impact of BIM on project process on a numerical
scale 1-5
42
Table 3-9 lists the factors and measures in Framework-1. In Chapter 4, the researcher
explains the research method and tasks for further development of the factors and
measures in Framework-1.
43
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHOEDS
This chapter presents the criteria for determining the research methods, the primary
research methods used, and the techniques to improve the methodological rigor.
4.1 Criteria for Research Methods
To make certain of the sufficiency, consistency, and methodological rigor of the

characterization framework, the researcher set up two criteria for designing the research
methodology:
The research methods have to ensure that the characterization framework is

developed to capture the characteristics of BIM implementations sufficiently and
consistently.
The research methods have to ensure the research generality and validity in
developing this framework.
The main research method is multiple case studies (Eisenhardt 1989) to ensure sufficient
and consistent capture of factors and measures for the characterization framework for
BIM implementations. The extended research method is grounded theory (Strauss and
Corbin 1998) to conceptualize new factors and measures as they emerge from multiple
case studies.
4.2 Multiple Case Studies
Case study is a strategy for doing research that involves an empirical investigation of a
particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of
evidence (Yin 1994). Since BIM implementations on construction projects are still
emerging phenomena, multiple case studies (rather than a survey or experiment method)
can help collect empirical evidence and understand BIM implementations and their
impacts on a number of projects.
The development of the characterization framework for BIM implementations follows an

inductive approach in which factors and measures emerge from the concrete project data
44
in multiple case studies. The process of capturing factors and measures is the process of
theoretical generalization. Sim (1998) argues that data gained from a particular case study
provide theoretical insights which possess a sufficient degree of generality to allow their
projection to other projects. Yin (1994) also makes the useful analogy that carrying out
multiple case studies is more like doing multiple experiments. These may be attempts at
replication of an initial case study (or an experiment), or they may seek to complement
the first study by focusing on an area not originally covered. This activity to replicate
something known and seeking something unknown is not concerned with statistical
generalization but with theoretical generalization (Yin 2003). Statistical generalization
tends to look for representativeness, while theoretical generalization usually aims to
reflect the diversity within a given population (Kuzel 1992).
Therefore, the main purpose of the multiple case studies is twofold (Eisenhardt 1989):
Exploratory: This is to discover in the subsequent cases newly emerging factors

and measures that were not covered by the prior versions of the framework.
Exploratory case studies ensure sufficient capture of factors and measures.
Confirmatory: This is to replicate in the subsequent cases the existing factors and
measures that were observed in previous cases and included in the prior versions
of the framework. Confirmatory case studies ensure consistent capture of factors
and measures.
The back and forth process of studying cases and developing the framework will only be
completed when new factors and measures cant be found in more case studies (i.e.,
saturation is reached). This is the point of time to decide that the framework is
sufficiently developed.
4.3 Grounded Theory
Grounded theory is used to generate the characterization framework empirically

grounded in multiple case studies on BIM implementations. Grounded theory provides
the explicit procedures for the analysis of data, i.e., how to conceptualize factors and
measures as they emerge from the multiple case studies.
45
A framework developed in line with this research method is inductively derived from the
study of the phenomenon it represents. That is, discovered, developed, and provisionally
verified through systematic data collection and analysis of data pertaining to that
phenomenon. Therefore, data collection, analysis, and theory should stand in reciprocal
relationship with each other. One does not begin with a theory, and then prove it. Rather,
one begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge
(Strauss and Corbin 1998).
The basic idea of the grounded theory approach is to read (and re-read) a textual database
(such as field notes) and discover or label concepts and their interrelationships. By using
the coding method in grounded theory, the researcher can conceptualize new factors and
measures and integrate them into the preliminary framework (Framework-1).
4.4 Techniques to Improve the Methodological Rigor
The most important issue in evaluating the rigor of qualitative research is trustworthiness.
Using techniques such as member checks and triangulation is critical to minimizing
distortion (Rubin and Babbie 2008). Technical fixes (e.g., theoretical sampling,
ethnographic interviews, triangulation, and respondent validation, etc.) can strengthen the
rigor of qualitative research if embedded in the research design and the process of data
collection and analysis (Barbour 2001). The rigor of qualitative research (e.g., case study)
often manifests itself in generality and validity of the study.
Generality refers to the degree to which a theory (i.e., the framework) can be extended to
other situations (Maxwell 1992). Validity refers to whether the concepts (i.e., categories,
factors, and measures) truly measure what they set out to measure (Kerlinger 1973).
Table 4-1 shows five techniques the researcher used to improve the methodological rigor
(generality and validity) in developing the characterization framework for BIM
implementations.
46
Table 4-1: Five techniques the researcher used to improve the methodological rigor in
developing the characterization framework for BIM implementations
1. Ethnographic interviews (Bauman 1992) (used for the development of case

interview questions):
o Identifying interview questions that might need to be refined
o Identifying new questions that need to be probed in subsequent
interviews
2. Triangulation (Bogdan and Biklen 2006) (used for the collection of project
data):
o Primary data from face-to-face interviews with more than one
interviewee per case project
o Secondary data from available project documents
Validity 3. Expert opinions (Glser and Laudel 2004) (used for the selection of
interviewees):
o AEC professionals, BIM program managers, and BIM specialists who
are responsible for creating and using BIM on projects and are
experienced in BIM implementations
4. Respondent validation (Byrne 2001) (used for the accuracy of project data
collected):
o Informal check throughout interviews: interviewers verbally checking
his or her understanding by paraphrasing and summarizing for
clarification
o Formal check after interviews: interviewers request interviewees to
double-check the project data present in case narratives
5. Theoretical sampling (Yin 2003) (used for the selection of case projects):
Generality o A wide range of case projects with different project types, sizes,
delivery methods, time periods of design and construction, and project
locations
Technique 1: Ethnographic interviews (for the development of case interview

questions)
It is good research design to iterate analysis and collection of interview data (Bauman
1992). In ethnographic interviews, some interviews are conducted and examined prior to
additional interviewing. By conducting ethnographic interviews, the researcher can:
Avoid making assumptions about the topic under study;

Identify interview questions that might need to be refined by looking at what kind
of talk or discussion emerges when questions are asked;
47
Identify new questions that are based on the experiences shared by the
interviewees and that need to be probed in subsequent interviews;
Identify whom else researchers may want to interview.
Technique 2: Triangulation (for the collection of project data)
Triangulation is a technique that facilitates validation of data through cross verification

from more than two sources (Bogdan and Biklen 2006). Methodological triangulation
involves using more than one method to gather data, such as interviews, observations,
questionnaires, and documents (Denzin 1978). Triangulation gives a more detailed and
balanced picture of the situation (Altrichter et al. 2008). I collected primary data from
face-to-face interviews as well as secondary data from available project documents.
Technique 3: Expert opinions (for the selection of interviewees)
Experts have an outstanding and sometimes exclusive position in the context under
investigation (Glser and Laudel 2004). Experts are a medium by which researchers want
to obtain opinions (or experiences) about relevant issues. The researcher selected AEC
practitioners, BIM program managers, and BIM specialists as interviewees. The reasons
are that they are 1) responsible for creating and using BIM on projects and/or 2)
experienced in BIM implementations. For each case study, the researcher met with one
(24 out of 40 cases) or a few interviewees (16 out of 40 cases) who were introduced by
the contacts within CIFE and its member companies.
Technique 4: Respondent validation (for the accuracy of project data collected)
In qualitative research, respondent validation (also known as member check or informant

feedback) is a technique used by researchers to help improve the validity of a study.
Without allowing respondents to validate the accuracy of their narratives, one-sidedness
will become a major concern (Byrne 2001). In an informal sense, the researcher carried
out respondent validation verbally throughout the conduct of interviews. The researcher
constantly checked her understanding by paraphrasing and summarizing for clarification.
48
In a formal sense, interviewees double-checked the project data and corrected what could
be perceived as wrong interpretations.
Technique 5: Theoretical sampling (for the selection of case projects)
Theoretical sampling refers to the process of choosing new cases to 1) compare with ones
that have already been studied, 2) gain a deeper understanding of analyzed cases, and 3)
facilitate the development of a framework (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Case projects are
not pre-specified in the first place. Instead the selection of case projects is sequential by a
rolling process. With theoretical sampling, the researcher attempted to cover a wide range
of projects with different project types, sizes, delivery methods, time periods of design
and construction, and project locations. The researcher improved the generality by
applying the characterization framework to document BIM implementations on a broad
range of projects.
49
CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH TASKS
This chapter presents the evolving process of conducting the case studies and the research
tasks involved in data collection, data analysis and framework development.
5.1 Three Phases of Case Studies
The preliminary Framework-1 was grounded in pre-existing literature (Chapter 3). It

provided the point of departure for further developing the framework grounded in
empirical case studies. The development of the framework followed three iterative phases
of multiple case studies (Figure 5-1). Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and Table 5-3 give an
overview of the 40 case projects studied during the three phases. The 40 case projects
range in size from a few million dollars to several hundred million dollars, include public
and private projects in a range of construction sectors (residential, commercial,
institutional, industrial, and transportation), were delivered with several contractual
arrangements (design-bid-build, design/build, and CM/GC), and took place in several
regions on the globe (North America, Europe, Asia).
Figure 5-1: Three phases of case studies for the development of the characterization
framework for BIM implementations
50
Phase 1: 21 case studies towards Framework-2
The 21 case projects (Table 5-1) focused on projects involving researchers at the Center
for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) at Stanford University or practitioners
affiliated with CIFE to support the BIM implementation effort. Grounded in the first
batch of cases, the researcher developed the second version of the framework
(Framework-2) that replicated factors and measures in the preliminary framework as well
as incorporated factors and measures that emerged from the 21 cases.
Overlap exists between the 21 case studies and the 22 papers (Table 3-2) reviewed in
Chapter 3. Some of the 21 case projects were also documented in the published papers (as
noted in the references for the case projects in Table 5-1).
Phase 2: 11 case studies towards Framework-3
Framework-2 in turn guided the subsequent 11 case studies. On the 11 case projects
(Table 5-2), AEC organizations in Finland carried out the 3D/4D BIM implementations.
The case studies on the 11 Finish projects were part of the research on the Virtual
Building Environments (VBE) II project sponsored by the Technology Agency of
Finland (Tekes). These case studies then provided the ground for the conceptualization of
the third version of the framework (Framework-3).
Phase 3: 8 case studies reaching saturation
The researcher applied Framework-3 to 8 case projects (Table 5-3). The case studies on
the 8 projects were part of the Global Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) Studies in
U.S., Finland, and China sponsored by CIFE. The 8 case studies saturated factors and
measures in Framework-3 and the researcher could not find new factors and measures
from the last 8 case studies. That is to say, Framework-3 captured, described, and
organized all the factors and measures found on the last 8 case studies. At this point, the
researcher concluded that development of the characterization framework for BIM
implementations was completed.
51
Table 5-1: An overview of the 21 projects in the first phase of case studies
LEGEND
CF Commercial Facilities (e.g., office & retail complexes, theme parks)
Institutional Facilities (e.g., university facilities, theaters, museums, public administration
ISF
facilities)
IDF Industrial Facilities (e.g., pharmaceutical, biotech, semi-conduct)
TF Transportation Facilities (e.g., airport terminals, subway transit centers)
RF Residential Facilities (e.g., apartment buildings, houses)
DBB Design-Bid-Build
DB Design-Build
CM/GC Construction Managers / General Contractors (CM at Risk)
S Small (=< $ 5 million)
M Medium ($ 5 100 million)
L Large (>= $ 100 million)
Type of Project Delivery Method Size
Case
Case Projects CM/
# CF ISF IDF TF RF DBB DB S M L
GC
McWhinney Office
Building, Colorado
1
(1997-1998) (Koo
and Fischer 2000)
Sequus
Pharmaceuticals Pilot
2 Plant, Menlo Park
(1997- 1999) (Staub
et al. 2003)
Experience Music
Project, Seattle (1998
3
- 2000) (Fischer et al.
1998)
Paradise Pier, Disney
California Adventure,
4 Los Angeles (1998 -
1999) (Schwegler et
al. 2000)
Helsinki University
of Technology
Auditorium-600,
5
Helsinki (2000 -
2002) (Kam et al.
2003)
52
Table 5-1 (contd): An overview of the 21 projects in the first phase of case studies

Case
Case Projects CM/
GC
Baystreet Retail
6 Complex, Emeryville
(2000 - 2002)
Genentech FRCII,
7 South San Francisco
(2001 - 2003)
Walt Disney Concert
Hall, Los Angeles
8 (1999 - 2003)
(Haymaker et al.
2004)
Hong Kong
9 Disneyland, Hong
Kong (2001 - 2005)
Pioneer Courthouse
Rehabilitation
10
Project, Portland
(2003 - 2005)
MIT Ray and Maria
Stata Center, Boston
11
(2000 - 2004)
(Hastings et al. 2003)
Banner Health Good
Samaritan Hospital,
12
Phoenix (2002 -
2004)
California Academy
of Science Project,
13
San Francisco (2003 -
2006)
Terminal 5 of
Heathrow Airport,
14 London (2003 -
2007) (Koerckel
2005)
Residential Building,
Stockholm (2002 -
15
2003) (Jongeling et
al. 2005)
53
Table 5-1 (contd): An overview of the 21 projects in the first phase of case studies

Case
Case Projects CM/
GC
Pilestredet Park
Urban Ecology
16 Project, Oslo (1997-
2005) (Gao et al.
2005)
Regional Office
Building,
17
Washington DC
(2004-2007)
Jackson Courthouse,
18 Jackson, Mississippi
(2004-2007)
Samsung LSI Fab
19 Facility, Kiheung,
Korea (2004-2005)
Camino Medical
Campus, Mountain
20 View (2004-2007)
(Khanzode et al.
2005)
Fulton Street Transit
21 Center, New York
(2002-2007)
54
Table 5-2: An overview of the 11 projects in the second phase of case studies

Case
Case Projects CM/
GC
A Town-planning
22 Project, Finland (2004
- 2005)
Mamselli Low-rise
23 Housing, Finland
(2004 - 2005)
Headquarter Building
24 for NCC-Finland,
Finland (2003 2004)
Tali Apartment
25 Building Project,
Finland (2005 2006)
Office Building
26 Project in Oulu,
Finland (2003 2004)
Semi-detached Houses
27 in Kerava (2003
2004)
Koskelantie 22-24
Residential
28
Renovation Project,
Finland (2004 2005)
Vantaan Silkinkulma
29 Apartment, Finland
(2003 2004)
Vantann Ankkahovi
30 Apartment, Finland
(2004 2005)
Pfizer, Scandinavian
31 Headquarter Building,
Finland (2001 2003)
Aurora 2 University
32 Building in Joensuu,
Finland (2004 2006)
55
Table 5-3: An overview of the 8 projects in the third phase of case studies

Case
Case Projects CM/
GC
AEI Utility Tunnel
33
(20052006)
Telyas Residence at
34
Long Island (2005)
108 N. State Street
35 Project, Chicago
(2005-2007)
Pier View
36 Multifamily Housing
Project (2006-2007)
Helsinki Music Hall,
37
Finland (2004-2009)
Kunming Residential
38 Complex, China
(2006-2007)
Banna Botanical
39 Garden, China (2006-
2007)
Industrial Building in
40 Baogang Steel Mill,
China (2006-2008)
5.2 Data Collection, Analysis, and Framework Development
Each phase of case studies ran through three major research tasks, i.e., data collection,
data analysis, and framework development (
56
Figure 5-2). Orlikowski (1993) emphasizes the advantages of proceeding data collection
and analysis iteratively with the early stages of the research being more open-ended, and
later stages being directed by the emerging concepts, and hence involving more
structured interview protocols.
57
Figure 5-2: Research activities and deliverables involved in data collection, analysis, and
framework development
Research task 1: data collection
1) Refining interview question list
Built on a list of questions developed by the Virtual Builders Roundtable, the interview
questionnaire for the first 21 case studies (Table 5-4) consisted of three parts. The first
part of the list of questions was designed to collect general information about a case
project, such as its size, type, location, and delivery methods, etc. The second part was
designed to collect specific data regarding the characteristics of creating and using BIM,
such as the purpose of BIM, project phases when BIM was built, stakeholders involved in
BIM, the level of details in BIM, and software functionality used, etc. The third part of
the list helped identify the realized BIM benefits as perceived by project stakeholders and
the quantifiable benefits of BIM on projects.
The researcher used open-ended questions so as to allow more flexibility in responses

and avoid leading questions. After completing the first 21 case studies, the researcher
modified the interview questionnaire for the following 11 case studies and 8 case studies.
The revised interview questionnaire incorporates two additional groups of questions
58
(indicated as in red in Table 5-5) to collect information about the company context of
BIM implementations and sharing BIM across-disciplines.
Table 5-4: The question list for the first phase of case study interviews
Project Context
1 Who are the project owner, architect, and contractor?
2 What are the project type, delivery method, contract value, and project location?
3 What are the project challenges that call for BIM?
Implementing BIM on a Project
Creating and using BIM
1 What was the purpose of creating BIM - project goals and objectives?
2 When was BIM built?
3 Who (how many people) built BIM? What were their roles and responsibilities? How
were they involved in creating BIM?
4 What is the modeled project scope? What is the level of the detail in BIM? How were the
3D/4D components organized? How many design/schedule options were modeled?
5 What is the BIM software used? Are you satisfied with software functionality and why?
6 How long did it take to build BIM (in hours)? What was the cost to create BIM? Was
there an explicit budget line item for the modeling effort? Who paid for BIM?
7 Who (how many people) reviewed BIM? How was BIM reviewed?
8 What aspects of the project were analyzed in BIM?
9 Was BIM updated? What is the reason for iterations of BIM?
10 What were the best aspects of the BIM-related processes? What aspects of the BIM-
related processes need to be improved?
Impacts of BIM Implementations
Perceived BIM Impacts
1 What do you think of the impact of BIM on the project design?
2 What do you think of the impact of BIM on the timing of involving project stakeholders,
the number of stakeholders engaged as well as the work responsibility and contractual
relationships between stakeholder organizations?
3 What do you think of the impact of BIM on the execution and sequencing of the various
types of tasks in the design-construction-operation process?
Quantifiable BIM Impacts
4 What are the quantifiable impacts of BIM on performance during the project?
5 What are the quantifiable impacts of BIM on performance upon the project completion?
59
Table 5-5: The additional questions in the revised interview questionnaire for the second
and third phase of case study interviews
Note: The text in red indicates the questions added to the original questionnaire.
Company Context
1 What is your companys vision for BIM?
2 What is the current practice of BIM in your company?
Implementing BIM on a Project
Sharing 3D/4D Model
10 What was shared with BIM?
11 How was BIM shared?
12 How did the information flow among project participants and what was the BIM
deliverable/format for each participating organization?
13 What were the challenges in the data exchange process?
2) Collecting primary data from face-to-face interviews
The list of interview questions was a guide for the researcher to follow. Besides, the
researcher also asked if the person being interviewed had a special story he or she would
like to tell. The researcher recorded her conversations with interviewees and took notes.
3) Collecting secondary data from available documents
Whenever possible, the researcher requested screen shots of BIM, work flow diagrams,
company brochures, and accounts in extant literature, which helped the researcher
become more familiar with the BIM implementations on the case projects.
Research tasks 2: data analysis
1) Transcribing and checking interview data
The researcher transcribed every interview conversation from the notes and tape
recording and then wrote case narratives. Table 5-6 shows an example of the narrative for
one of the case projects. The researcher also checked with interviewees by asking them to
proofread the case narratives and to clarify parts of the narratives that the researcher had
60
not understood well during the interviews. In addition, the researcher triangulated the
case narratives with extant documentation to make sure that the data presented in the case
narratives are correct and accurate.
2) Replicating existing factors and measures
Based on the case narratives, the researcher entered project data pertinent to BIM
implementations into the framework spreadsheet (Table 5-7) to replicate existing factors
and measures. When project data in a case exists to describe a particular measure in the
framework, the measure occurred in (or is replicated by) this case. The researcher marked
the measures that are replicated in a case with the symbol x. In this way, the researcher
calculated the consistency (occurrence) of each measure across the 40 cases as a
percentage ratio of the number of cases that exhibit the measure to the total number of
cases studied.
3) Discovering new factors and measures
The grounded theory method (Strauss and Corbin 1998) provides explicit procedures to
conceptualize new factors and measures as they emerge from case studies. There are
three types of coding: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding.
The researcher used open coding and selective coding for data analysis. By means of
open coding, data are compared, and identical or similar statements are combined to form
specific concepts. Through selective coding, the identified concepts are connected to the
prescribed categories (an upper-level of abstraction) presented in a framework (Strauss
and Corbin 1998). The researcher carried out data coding by assembling or sub-clustering
words or break sentences into segments (Strauss and Corbin 1998).
Table 5-8 illustrates an example of the coding process. The researcher compared case
narratives, combined identical or similar statements (aggregation level 1) to form new
measures (aggregation level 2), and then linked the new measures to an existing factor or
pooled the closely-related measures to form a new factor (aggregation level 3).
4) Framework development
61
The evolving nature of developing the framework is demonstrated as follows:
After using Framework-1 to document 21 case projects, the researcher found 25

new measures which became part of Framework-2. The researcher also revised
Framework-1 by breaking down the perceived impacts on process factor into
four sub-factors and adding descriptive features to some measures (Table 5-9).
For example, for the measure types of model uses, the researcher incorporated 7
model uses emerging from the first 21 case studies.
Framework-2 is shown in Table 5-10. The text in blue indicates the factors and
measures that were newly found or revised from being compared to Framework-1.
After using Framework-2 to document 11 case projects, the researcher found one
new factor and 11 new measures. The researcher also revised Framework-2 by
breaking down the factors modeled data and software tools into sub-factors
and adding descriptive features to some of the measures (Table 5-11).
Framework-3 is shown in Table 5-12. The text in red indicates the factors and
measures were newly found or revised from being compared to Framework-2.
After using Framework-3 to document 8 case projects, the researcher did not find
any new factors and measures nor revised any existing factors and measures in
Framework-3 (Table 5-13).
62
Table 5-6: An example of case narrative for Case 6 (Baystreet Retail Complex)
Project Type: Retail Contract Value: $ 117 million

Contract Type: Design-bid-build Project Scope: 1,250,000 square feet
1. For what purposes was BIM used on this project?
Site constraints on this project were extremely severe: tightly bounded on three sides by a large
retail store, railroad tracks, and a creek, the site also contained unforeseen site conditions in the
form of contaminated soil from a previous industrial occupant, as well as human remains and
Indian artifacts from a Native American burial ground. The project schedule was only 14
months from start of construction to turnover of the first retail store space just before the
Christmas holiday. The 4D model was needed to accelerate the project. This retail development
suffered a two-month delay due to the unforeseen site conditions. The risk was that the project
would miss the turnover date. Thus, Bay Street required tight scheduling of concrete placement
and steel erection. The general contractor also used the 4D model to plan difficult logistical
challenges, such as getting concrete up five floors inside tight quarters.
2. When was BIM created and used?
The 3D model and 4D model were generated during the early construction phase.
3. Who was involved in the BIM implementation and what were their roles and
responsibilities?
The GC built the 3D and 4D models. During the review sessions, the GC, together with its
subcontractors, considered acceleration options and analyzed their resource and other
organizational needs along with their schedule and cost impact. Together with the developer, the
GC also evaluated several options to redesign parts of the project to enable partial opening or
faster construction.
4. What was modeled in BIM and what was the level of detail in BIM?
The 4D model contained 13,000 3D CAD objects and 900 activities at five levels of detail. Four
schedule alternatives were modeled.
63
Table 5-6 (contd): An example of case narrative for Case 6 (Baystreet Retail Complex)
Project Type: Retail Contract Value: $ 117 million

Contract Type: Design-bid-build Project Scope: 1,250,000 square feet
5. With which software tool was BIM created?
Architectural Desktop was used as the 3D software tool. Microsoft Project was used as the
scheduling tool. Disneys InviznOne tool (a precursor to Common Point 4D) was used as the
4D software tool. VRML was the format used to transfer the 3D model to the 4D model.
6. How was BIM carried out?
The 3D model was generated from the 2D project drawings. The project schedule and the 3D
model were then merged into a 4D virtual building model.
7. For how much effort/costs was needed to implement BIM?
DPR spent roughly US$40,000, around 0.04% of the project's $117-million budget.
8. What were the impacts (benefits and obstacles) of BIM?

Benefits of Supporting Product, Process and Organization: The 4D model had a positive
impact on the construction planning process. It identified opportunities to accelerate the
project. The 4D model was critical in the coordination and communication between GC,
subs and the developer.
Benefits of Serving as Visualization, Planning, Analysis and Communication Tools: The

4D model helped analyze various acceleration options, their resources and other
organizational needs along with their schedule and cost impact. One acceleration option
was to erect the steel structure of the retail building concurrently with the concrete parking.
The 4D model detected a clash: no access to the parking area, which made it difficult to get
the concrete up five floors inside tight quarters. With the aid of visualization through the 4D
model, the final solution was to provide a connector bridge across the creek to facilitate the
acceleration at a lower cost. The 4D model also assisted in planning difficult logistical
challenges.
Overall Business Performance: DPR was successful in accelerating the steel in the theater
area and saved three weeks that were credited to the 4D model, nearly 7% off the original
14-month schedule.
64
Table 5-7: An example showing how the measures are replicated across cases in
Framework-3
Notes:
1) Factors are indicated in the grey rows; and
2) x indicates that the measure is replicated in one particular case.
3) Consistency is a percentage ratio of the number of cases that exhibited the project
data for each measure to the total number of cases studied.
Case Case Case #n Consis-
ID Factors and Measures
#1 #2 (n<=40) tency
A1 Project Context
A1.1 Type of project x x x 100%
A1.2 Contract type x x x 100%
A1.3 Contract value vs. value of scope modeled x x 62.50%
A1.4 Project location x x x 100%
A1.5 Project start and completion x x x 100%
A1.6 Project size x x 68.75%
A1.7 Site constraints x 59.38%
A2 Company Context
A2.1 Vision into implementing BIM within the project x 28.13%
participants companies
A2.2 BIM R&D activities within the company x 28.13%
A2.3 Current BIM practices within the company x x x 100%
B1 Model Uses
B1.1 Purpose of creating BIM - project goals and x x 100%
objectives
B1.2 Aspects of the project analyzed in BIM x x 62.50%
B1.3 Types of model uses x x x 100%
B2 Timing of BIM
B2.1 Project phase(s) when BIM was built x x x 100%
B2.2 Project phase(s) when BIM was used x x x 100%
B2.3 Project phase(s) when BIM impacts were perceived x x x 100%
B3 Stakeholder Involvement
B3.1 Stakeholder organization(s) initiating BIM effort x x x 100%
B3.2 Stakeholder organization(s) paying for BIM x x x 93.75%
65
Table 5-7 (contd): An example showing how the measures are replicated across cases in
Framework-3

#1 #2 (n<=40) tency
B3.3 Stakeholder organization(s) building BIM x x x 100%
B3.4 Number of individuals building BIM x x 84.38%
B3.5 Stakeholder organization(s) using BIM x x x 100%
B3.6 Number of individuals using BIM x x 84.38%
B3.7 Stakeholder organization(s) reviewing BIM x x 71.88%
B3.8 Number of individuals reviewing BIM x 53.13%
B3.9 Stakeholder organization(s) owning BIM x 31.25%
B3.10 Stakeholder organization(s) controlling BIM x 31.25%
B3.11 Stakeholder organization(s) influencing on BIM x 31.25%
B4(a) Modeled Data: Modeled Scope
B4(a).1 Modeled scope of project x x x 96.88%
B4(a).2 Number of modeled disciplinary systems x x x 100%
B4(a).3 Number of design or schedule alternatives x x 62.50%
modeled
B4(b) Modeled Data: Model Structure
B4(b).1 Data structure in BIM x x x 96.88%
B4(b).2 Number of break-down levels in the data x x 53.13%
structure
B4(c) Modeled Data: Level of Detail
B4(c).1 Levels of detail in the 3D/4D model x x x 93.75%
B4(d) Modeled Data: Data Exchange
B4(d).1 Information flow among project participating x x x 90.91%
organizations
B4(d).2 Model deliverables for each participating x x x 63.64%
organization
B4(d).3 Challenges in the process of data exchange x x 81.82%
B5(a) Software Tools: Software Functionality
B5(a).1 BIM software used x x x 100%
B5(a).2 Useful functionality of BIM software x x x 100%
B5(a).3 Missing functionality of BIM software x x x 90.63%
66
Framework-3

#1 #2 (n<=40) tency
B5(a).4 Rating of software functionality to satisfy x x x 90.63%
modeling requirements on a numerical scale
from 1-5
B5(b) Software Tools: Software Interoperability
B5(b).1 Challenges in software interoperability x x 81.82%
B6 Workflow
B6.1 Workflow of BIM process x x x 75%
B6.2 Number of iterations of BIM x x 65.63%
B6.3 Reasons for iterations of BIM x x 81.25%
B6.4 The best aspects of BIM process x x x 93.75%
B6.5 Needed improvements in BIM process x x 84.38%
B7 Effort and Cost
B7.1 Time (man-hours) to creating and/or managing x x 56.25%
BIM
B7.2 Cost of building and/or managing BIM x 37.50%
C1 Perceived Impacts on Product
C1.1 Rating of the impact of BIM on building design x x x 100%
on a numerical scale from 1-5
C1.2 Explanation of the impact of BIM on product x x x 100%
C2 Perceived Impacts on Organization
C2.1 Rating of the impact of BIM on project x x x 100%
organization on a numerical scale from 1-5
C2.2 Explanation of the impact of BIM on project x x x 100%
organization
C3 Perceived Impacts on Process
C3.1 Rating of the impact of BIM on project x x x 100%
processes on a numerical scale from 1-5
C3.2 Explanation of the impact of BIM on processes x x x 100%
67
Framework-3

#1 #2 (n<=40) tency
C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance during
Project Run-time
C4.1 Process Metrics for Interaction with Non- x
12.50%
professionals
C4.2 Process Metrics for Design Analysis x 62.5%
C4.3 Process Metrics for Building System (MEP) x 6.25%
Coordination
C4.4 Process Metrics for Drawing x 6.25%
Production
C4.5 Process Metrics for Cost Estimating and Change x 12.50%
Order Management
C4.6 Process Metrics for Supply Chain Management x 6.25%
(detailing-fabrication-delivery)
C4.7 Process Metrics for 4D Planning and x 6.25%
Coordination
C5 Quantifiable Final Performance upon Project
Completion
C5.1 BIM helps reduce a projects first costs ($ or 3.13%
hours)
C5.2 BIM helps reduce a projects life-cycle costs ($ x 3.13%
or hours)
C5.3 BIM helps reduce a projects life-cycle value ($ 0%
or hours
C5.4 BIM helps reduce a projects schedule duration x 12.50%
(Weeks)
C5.5 BIM helps improve a projects schedule 3.13%
conformance (%)
C5.6 BIM helps improve a projects quality (% 3.13%
conformance to explicitly stated design intent,
normalized by relative weight of each quality
item)
C5.7 BIM helps improve a projects safety 3.13%
performance (Incidents or lost-work hours)
68
Table 5-8: An example showing the process of discovering new measures and factors
Case Aggregation level 1 Aggregation level 2 Aggregation

No. level 3
Narratives Measures Factors
The 3D models modeled three design and two life-
cycle alternatives (architectural features, two air-
conditioning system alternatives: mixed cooling vs.
23 displaced cooling system). 3D models enabled the
team to develop multiple alternatives early in the
project and provided valuable life-cycle parameters
to the decision-makers during early phases.
Enable development
The 3D model gave a clear view of how pieces go of multiple design
together. The initial design required stick built by alternatives early on
the Architect, but in order to save time and costs in
the fabrication process, the fabricator suggested
25 using prefabricated panels. 3D model facilitated the
demonstration that the use of prefabricated panels
instead of stick built would be more cost-effective.
The initial design plan was changed from stick built Perceived
to panelized based on joint study of the 3D model. impact on
process
Along with the 3D modeling process, the on-site
co-created detailing crossed contractual barriers
and sped up the shop drawing approval process.
26
The 3D modeling minimized the number of review
sessions. The cycle time of design review was Expedite design
reduced from 5-6 weeks to 2-3 weeks. coordination, shop
drawing approval
3D models allowed the generation of elevations
process, and
21 and plans in a single time-cutting step and the
production of
modifications to one model.
construction
The architects reported about 50% time savings in documents
the design documentation phase as a result of
23 object-oriented libraries and catalogues,
parametric properties, knowledge reuse, and
various automation tools.
69
21 case projects
Framework-1: (Figure 3-3 and Table 3-9)

# of Categories 3 # of Factors 13 # of Measures 38
21 cases: factors and measures (newly found or revised)
Revised factors:
Perceived impacts on process broken down into three sub-factors
C3(a) Perceived Impacts on Process: Design Process
C3(b) Perceived Impacts on Process: Construction Process
C3(c) Perceived Impacts on Process: Operation & Maintenance Process
Newly found Measures:

Types of model uses (and seven descriptive features for it) added to the factor model
uses
B1.3 Types of model uses
Interaction with non-professionals (e.g., for client briefing, schematic
design review, development permitting, and/or marketing)
Analysis of building design options
Building system coordination
Production of design drawings and construction documents
Quantity takeoff, cost estimating, and change order management
Supply chain management (BIM-based detailing-fabrication-delivery)
Construction planning and coordination (4D modeling)
Four newly found measures added to the factor stakeholders involvement
B3.1 Stakeholder organization(s) initiating BIM effort
B3.2 Stakeholder organization(s) paying for BIM
B3.7 Stakeholder organization(s) reviewing BIM
B3.8 Number of individuals reviewing BIM
Two newly found measures added to the factor effort and cost
B7.2 Time (man-hours) to managing BIM
B7.4 Cost of managing BIM
70
Table 5-9 (contd): Factors and measures found or revised after using Framework-1 to
document 21 case projects


Seven newly found measures and their descriptive features added to the factor quantifiable
progress performance during project run-time
C4.1 Process Metrics for Interaction with Non-professionals

Reduced turnaround of permitting
Increased number of stakeholders engaged
C4.2 Process Metrics for Design Analysis
Increased number of design alternatives
Reduced response latency (reduced time to clarify a problem)
C4.3 Process Metrics for Building System (MEP) Coordination
Timing of coordination: MEP coordination starting from DD phase
instead of CD phase.
Duration of coordination: duration of MEP coordination by 1-2 months
Weekly time for coordination: team spending 40% less of weekly time on
coordination
Quality of coordination effort: quality of MEP coordination improved by
enabling more detailed coordination effort, more detected clashes, and
fewer issues left to the field
Clashes detected: 100% of major clashes before the installation began
Field conflicts: zero conflicts during the field installation.
Defects (rework): 99% (estimated) first-time installation with zero
defects
Requests for information (RFIs): RFIs between contractors and
designers by 60%-80%.
Pre-fabrication: VDC enabled 75% more pre-fabrication in subs shops
Smaller crew sizes for onsite assembly: 30% fewer sheet metal workers
than estimated and 55% fewer pipe fitters than estimated
Fewer crew hours in the field: ~25-30% fewer crew hours in the field
C4.4 Process Metrics for Drawing Production
Reduced design effort
Reduced turnaround of shop-drawing review
71


Seven newly found measures and their descriptive features added to the factor
quantifiable progress performance during project run-time (contd)
C4.5 Process Metrics for Cost Estimating and Change Order Management
Increased accuracy of cost estimates: 95% of cost items estimated within +/-
2% of variation of final cost
Reduced cost estimating effort
Reduced number (or reduced cost growth) of change orders
C4.6 Process Metrics for Supply Chain Management (detailing-fabrication-delivery)
Cycle time of design review: reduced from 5-6 weeks to 2-3 weeks
Engineering lead time of material procurement: (rebar) reduced from 10
days to 3 days
Onsite RFI's: reduced by 80%
Turnaround of detailing-fabrication-delivery: (rebar) within 5 days
C4.7 Process Metrics for 4D Planning and Coordination
Number of design and schedule alternatives: 20 different design and
schedule alternatives evaluated over a two-week period
Time needed to resolve constructability issues: reduced from several hours
to less than 10 minutes
Number of people involved in design review: ~200 people
Closeness of bid results: within +/- 2.5 percent of the owners budget
Two newly found measures added to the factor quantifiable impacts upon project
completion
C5.1 BIM helps reduce a projects first costs ($ or hours)
C5.2 BIM helps reduce a projects life-cycle costs ($ or hours)
C5.3 BIM helps reduce a projects life-cycle value ($ or hours)
C5.4 BIM helps reduce a projects schedule duration (Weeks)
C5.5 BIM helps improve a projects schedule conformance (%)
C5.6 BIM helps improve a projects quality (% conformance to explicitly stated design
intent, normalized by relative weight of each quality item)
C5.7 BIM helps improve a projects safety performance (Incidents or lost-work hours)
72


The measure explanation of the impacts on process broken down into three measures
C3(a).1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on design process
C3(b).1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on construction process
C3(c).1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on operation & maintenance process
The measure rating of the impacts on process broken down into three measures
C3(a).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on design process on a numerical scale from
1-5
C3(b).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on construction process on a numerical scale
C3(c).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on operation & maintenance process on a
numerical scale from 1-5
Revised Measures:
Four descriptive features for the measure levels of detail
B4.6 Levels of detail in the 3D/4D model
project (building/site)
system
sub-system/assembly
component/part
Five descriptive features for the measure perceived impacts of BIM on product
C1.1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on product
Improve the quality of building design
Improve the quality of construction documents
Improve the accuracy of cost estimation (by obtaining actual
verifiable quantities from BIM)
Improve the control of building life cycle costs, the operation of
technical systems, and the working conditions for facility maintenance
and management personnel (by enabling a BIM-based FM system)
Improve the reliability of building design
73

Revised Measures:
Nine descriptive features for the measure perceived impacts of BIM on organization
C2.1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on project organization
Engage more non-professionals in providing more input and hence
having more influence on the design
Engage downstream designers, GC and subs early and frequently in the
schematic design and design development phases
Engage more designers efforts in the early design phase
Foster more collaborative contractual relationships
Externalize and share project issues among more project stakeholders so
as to solve discovered problems more collaboratively
Engage subs early to coordinate their work
Engage fewer or no draftsmen in the process of drawing production (by
little or no division between design development and construction
documentation)
Release foremen from repetitive work in terms of re-calculating and
verifying the quantities from estimators
Engage more estimators effort in their companys R&D activities (by
using man-hours saved from cost estimating)
74

Revised Measures:
Fourteen descriptive features for the measure perceived impacts of BIM on design
process
Facilitate the process for owners and end users to inspect and evaluate
aesthetic and functional characteristics of building design
Facilitate the process for non-professionals to understand the design
intent and stay up-to-date with project development
Facilitate the exploration of design options
Accelerate the decision-making process (by fast analysis of design
options)
Accelerate the turnaround of design coordination
Facilitate the iterative design process between multiple disciplines
Facilitate the production of construction documents
Accelerate the process of determining the project budget
Accelerate the construction estimating and cost feedback to design
Facilitate the generation of building product specifications early in the
design phase (by integrating standard product libraries to the design in
BIM)
Incorporate more off-site fabrication and assembly in building design
and hence reduce field labor costs (by integrating standard building
product libraries to the design in BIM)
Shorten the engineering lead-time (by streamlining schedule information
flows between engineering, fabrication, and erection)
Accelerate the manufacturing turn-around (e.g., by transferring 3D CAD
data to computer numerically controlled (CNC) fabrication)
Facilitate the process for fabricators and subcontractors to visualize and
understand the intricacy of the frame and connection details in a 3D
structural model
75
newly found or revised. The bullets are the descriptive features for a particular measure.)
A Context
A1 Project Context
A1.1 Type of project
A1.2 Contract type
A1.3 Contract value
A1.4 Project location
A1.5 Project start and completion
A1.6 Project size
A1.7 Site constraints
B Implementation
B1 Model Uses
B1.1 Purpose of creating BIM - project goals and objectives
B1.2 Aspects of the project analyzed in BIM
76
Table 5-10 (contd): Framework-2 (The text in blue indicates the factors and measures
that are newly found or revised. The bullets are the descriptive features for a particular
measure.)
B Implementation (contd)
B2 Timing of BIM
B2.1 Project phase(s) when BIM were built
B2.2 Project phase(s) when BIM were used
B3.3 Stakeholder organization(s) building BIM
B3.4 Number of individuals building BIM
B3.5 Stakeholder organization(s) using BIM
B3.6 Number of individuals using BIM
B4 Modeled Data
B4.1 Modeled scope of project
B4.2 Number of modeled disciplinary systems
B4.3 Number of design (or schedule) alternatives modeled
B4.4 Data structure in BIM
B4.5 Number of break-down levels in the data structure
B4.6 Levels of detail in the 3D/4D model
Project (building/site)
System
Sub-system/assembly
Component/part
77
that are newly found or revised.)
B5 Software Tools
B5.1 BIM software used
B5.2 Useful functionality of BIM software
B5.3 Missing functionality of BIM software
B5.4 Rating of software functionality to satisfy modeling requirements on a
B6 Workflow
B6.1 Workflow of BIM process
B6.2 Number of iterations of BIM
B6.3 Reasons for iterations of BIM
B6.4 The best aspects of BIM process
B6.5 Needed improvements in BIM process
B7 Effort and Cost
B7.1 Time (man-hours) to creating BIM
B7.3 Cost of building managing BIM
78
measure.)
C Performance Impacts
C1.1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on product
technical systems, and the working conditions for facility
maintenance and management personnel (by enabling a BIM-
based FM system)
C1.2 Rating of the impact of BIM on building design on a numerical scale
from 1-5
Engage more non-professionals in providing more input and
hence having more influence on the design
Engage downstream designers, GC and subs early and frequently
in the schematic design and design development phases
Externalize and share project issues among more project
stakeholders so as to solve discovered problems more
collaboratively
Engage fewer or no draftsmen in the process of drawing
production (by allowing little or no division between design
development and construction documentation)
Release foremen from repetitive work in terms of re-calculating
and verifying the quantities from estimators
Engage more estimators effort in their companys R&D
activities (by using man-hours saved from cost estimating)
C2.2 Rating of the impact of BIM on project organization on a numerical
scale from 1-5
79
measure.)
C Performance Impacts (contd)

Facilitate the process for owners and end users to inspect and
evaluate aesthetic and functional characteristics of building
design
Facilitate the process for non-professionals to understand the
design intent and stay up-to-date with project development
Accelerate the decision-making process (by fast analysis of
design options)
Facilitate the iterative design process between multiple
disciplines
Accelerate the construction estimating and cost feedback to
design
Facilitate the generation of building product specifications early
in the design phase (by integrating standard building product
libraries to the design in BIM)
Incorporate more off-site fabrication and assembly in building
design and hence reduce field labor costs (by integrating
standard building product libraries to the design in BIM)
Shorten the engineering lead-time (by streamlining schedule
information flows between engineering, fabrication, and
erection)
Accelerate the manufacturing turn-around (e.g., by transferring
3D CAD data to computer numerically controlled (CNC)
fabrication)
Facilitate the process for fabricators and subcontractors to
visualize and understand the intricacy of the frame and
connection details in a 3D structural model
C3(a).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on design process on a numerical scale
from 1-5
80
measure.)

Reduce the amount of material stored on site (by reducing the
batch size of shop drawings and placing procurement orders
more frequently)
Expedite work packaging or phased handover
Support the evaluation and analysis of multiple construction and
facility operation strategies during master planning
Make construction bids closer in range
Brief bidders about the owners or GCs intentions
Facilitate the process of change management (by automatically
updating drawings when changes are made in BIM)
Facilitate the construction process (by cutting components to
precise dimensions for adequate fit)
Facilitate the procurement and fabrication processes (by directly
extracting dimensions and component placement information
from BIM for fabricators or suppliers)
Facilitate communication of the construction sequencing
required by engineers specifications to potential contractors
Expedite construction permitting
Improve the reliability and executability of the contractors
master schedule
Streamline concurrent facility operations and construction
Facilitate communication of project status to stakeholders
Enable early detection of potential site logistics and accessibility
constraints
Enable early identification of work scope and interferences
between trades
C3(b).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on construction process on a numerical
scale from 1-5
81
measure.)

C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance during Project Run-time
Duration of coordination: duration of MEP coordination by 1-2
months
Weekly time for coordination: team spending 40% less of weekly time
on coordination
Quality of coordination effort: quality of MEP coordination improved
by enabling more detailed coordination effort, more detected clashes,
and fewer issues left to the field
Clashes detected: 100% of major clashes before the installation
began
defects
Pre-fabrication: VDC enabled 75% more pre-fabrication in subs
shops
Smaller crew sizes for onsite assembly: 30% fewer sheet metal
workers than estimated and 55% fewer pipe fitters than estimated
82
measure.)

C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance during Project Run-time (contd)
Increased accuracy of cost estimates: 95% of cost items estimated
within +/- 2% of variation of final cost
C4.6 Process Metrics for Supply Chain Management (detailing-fabrication-
delivery)
Engineering lead time of material procurement: (rebar) reduced from
10 days to 3 days
Time needed to resolve constructability issues: reduced from several
hours to less than 10 minutes
C5 Quantifiable Final Performance upon Project Completion
C5.6 BIM helps improve a projects quality (% conformance to explicitly stated
design intent, normalized by relative weight of each quality item)
C5.7 BIM helps improve a projects safety performance (Incidents or lost-work
hours)
83
11 case projects
Framework-2: (Table 5-10)

Newly found factors:

Company context added to the category context
A2 Company Context
Revised factors:
Modeled data broken down into four sub-factors
Software tools broken down into two sub-factors

Three newly found measures added to the factor stakeholders involvement
B3.9 Stakeholder organization(s) owning BIM
B3.10 Stakeholder organization(s) controlling BIM
B3.11 Stakeholder organization(s) influencing on BIM
Three newly found measures added to the sub-factor software tools: software
functionality
B4(d).1 Information flow among project participating organizations
B4(d).2 Model deliverables for each participating organization
B4(d).3 Challenges in the process of data exchange
One newly found measure added to the factor software tools: software interoperability
B5(b).1 Challenges in software interoperability
84

# of
3 # of Factors 13 # of Measures 63
Categories
Revised Measures:
Two descriptive features added for the measure perceived impacts of BIM on design
process
Accelerate the turnaround of permit approvals and early start of
developers marketing efforts
Facilitate the process for home buyers to compare alternatives and
make the decision to buy
Two descriptive features added for the measure perceived impacts of BIM on construction
process
Facilitate the management of owner-initiated change orders (by
quickly showing the cost impact of these change orders and
improving the accuracy of Bills of Quantities)
Reduce chances for the owner or GC to overpay contingency for
unforeseen change orders and allowance for materials or equipment
not yet selected (by accurately defining the scope of work in
subcontract bid packages)
Three descriptive features added for the measure perceived impacts of BIM on operation
& maintenance process
Facilitate the space-planning for facility managers in the early stage
of a project (by color-coding user units and departments)
Facilitate the re-use of as-built BIM in the operations and
maintenance phase (by updating the information from the design
phase and developing as-built BIM during construction)
Facilitate the performance reporting for facility managers to steer the
building operation (conformance to targets) with the help of clearly
documented performance metrics
Two descriptive features added for the measure process metrics for drawing production
Enhanced capacity of drawing production: numbers of drawings
created from BIM vs. total numbers of drawings produced
Change in the distribution of design effort
85
newly found or revised for Framework-1; and the text in red indicates the factors and
measures that are newly found or revised for Framework-2. The bullets are the
descriptive features for a particular measure.)
A Context
A1 Project Context
A1.1 Type of project
A1.2 Contract type
A1.3 Contract value
A1.4 Project location
A1.5 Project start and completion
A1.6 Project size
A1.7 Site constraints
A2 Company Context
A2.1 Vision into implementing BIM within the project participants companies
A2.2 BIM R&D activities within the project participants company
A2.3 Current BIM practices within the project participants company (BIM
platform choices, data standardization, internal and external organizational
alignment (e.g., staffing, communication, and coordination))
B Implementation
B1 Model Uses
B1.1 Purpose of creating BIM - project goals and objectives
B1.2 Aspects of the project analyzed in BIM
Establishment of owner requirements
Facility management
86
that are newly found or revised for Framework-1; and the text in red indicates the factors
and measures that are newly found or revised for Framework-2.)
B2 Timing of BIM
B2.1 Project phase(s) when BIM were built
B2.2 Project phase(s) when BIM were used
B2.3 Project phase(s) when BIM impacts were perceived
B3.3 Stakeholder organization(s) building BIM
B3.4 Number of individuals building BIM
B3.5 Stakeholder organization(s) using BIM
B3.6 Number of individuals using BIM
B3.9 Stakeholder organization(s) owning BIM
B3.10 Stakeholder organization(s) controlling BIM
B3.11 Stakeholder organization(s) influencing on BIM
B4(a).1 Modeled scope of project
B4(a).2 Number of modeled disciplinary systems
B4(a).3 Number of design (or schedule) alternatives modeled
B4(b).1 Data structure in BIM
B4(b).2 Number of break-down levels in the data structure
B4(c).1 Levels of detail in the 3D/4D model
Project (building/site)
System
Sub-system/assembly
Component/part
87
and measures that are newly found or revised for Framework-2.)
B4(d).1 Information flow among project participating organizations
B4(d).2 Model deliverables for each participating organization
B4(d).3 Challenges in the process of data exchange
B5(a).1 BIM software used
B5(a).2 Useful functionality of BIM software
B5(a).3 Missing functionality of BIM software
B5(a).4 Rating of software functionality to satisfy modeling requirements on
a numerical scale from 1-5
B5(b).1 Challenges in software interoperability
B6 Workflow
B6.1 Workflow of BIM process
B6.2 Number of iterations of BIM
B6.3 Reasons for iterations of BIM
B6.4 The best aspects of BIM process
B6.5 Needed improvements in BIM process
B7 Effort and Cost
B7.1 Time (man-hours) to creating BIM
B7.3 Cost of creating BIM
88
and measures that are newly found or revised for Framework-2. The bullets are the
C Performance Impacts
C1.1 Explanation of the impact of BIM on product (design of building)
technical systems, and the working conditions for facility
maintenance and management personnel (by enabling a BIM-
based FM system)
C1.2 Rating of the impact of BIM on building design on a numerical scale
from 1-5
Engage more non-professionals in providing more input and
hence having more influence on the design
Engage downstream designers, GC and subs early and frequently
in the schematic design and design development phases
Externalize and share project issues among more project
stakeholders so as to solve discovered problems more
collaboratively
Engage fewer or no draftsmen in the process of drawing
production (by allowing little or no division between design
development and construction documentation)
Release foremen from repetitive work in terms of re-calculating
and verifying the quantities from estimators
activities (by using man-hours saved from cost estimating)
C2.2 Rating of the impact of BIM on project organization on a numerical
scale from 1-5
89

Facilitate the process for owners and end users to inspect and
evaluate aesthetic and functional characteristics of building design
Facilitate the process for non-professionals to understand the
design intent and stay up-to-date with project development
Accelerate the decision-making process (by fast analysis of design
options)
Facilitate the iterative design process between multiple disciplines
Accelerate the construction estimating and cost feedback to design
Facilitate the generation of building product specifications early in
the design phase (by integrating standard building product
libraries to the design in BIM)
Incorporate more off-site fabrication and assembly in building
design and hence reduce field labor costs (by integrating standard
building product libraries to the design in BIM)
Shorten the engineering lead-time (by streamlining schedule
information flows between engineering, fabrication, and erection)
Accelerate the manufacturing turn-around (e.g., by transferring 3D
CAD data to computer numerically controlled (CNC) fabrication)
visualize and understand the intricacy of the frame and connection
details in a 3D structural model
Accelerate the turnaround of permit approvals and early start of
developers marketing efforts
Facilitate the process for home buyers to compare alternatives and
make the decision to buy
C3(a).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on design process on a numerical scale
from 1-5
90

Reduce the amount of material stored on site (by reducing the batch
size of shop drawings and placing procurement orders more
frequently)
Expedite work packaging or phased handover
Support the evaluation and analysis of multiple construction and
facility operation strategies during master planning
Facilitate the process of change management (by automatically
updating drawings when changes are made in BIM)
Facilitate the construction process (by cutting components to
precise dimensions for adequate fit)
Facilitate the procurement and fabrication processes (by directly
extracting dimensions and component placement information from
BIM for fabricators or suppliers)
Facilitate communication of the construction sequencing required
by engineers specifications to potential contractors
Expedite construction permitting
Improve the reliability and executability of the contractors
schedule
Streamline concurrent facility operations and construction
Facilitate communication of project status to stakeholders
Enable early detection of site logistics and accessibility constraints
Enable early identification of work interferences between trades
Facilitate the management of owner-initiated change orders (by
quickly showing the cost impact of these change orders and
improving the accuracy of Bills of Quantities)
Reduce chances for the owner or GC to overpay contingency for
unforeseen change orders and allowance for materials or
equipment not yet selected (by accurately defining the scope of
work in subcontract bid packages)
C3(b).2 Rating of the impact of BIM on construction process on a numerical
scale from 1-5
91
Table 5-12 (contd): Framework-3

Facilitate the space-planning for facility managers in the early
stage of a project (by color-coding user units and departments)
Facilitate the re-use of as-built BIM in the operations and
maintenance phase (by updating the information from the design
phase and developing as-built BIM during construction)
Facilitate the performance reporting for facility managers to steer
the building operation (conformance to targets) with the help of
clearly documented performance metrics
C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance during Project Run-time
Duration of coordination: decreased by 1-2 months
Weekly time for coordination: team spending 40% less of weekly time
Quality of coordination effort: quality of MEP coordination improved
by enabling more detailed coordination effort, more detected clashes,
and fewer issues left to the field
Clashes detected: 100% of major clashes before installation began
defects
Pre-fabrication: 75% more pre-fabrication in subs shops
Smaller crew sizes for onsite assembly: 30% fewer sheet metal
workers than estimated and 55% fewer pipe fitters than estimated
92
Table 5-10 (contd): Framework-3

C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance during Project Run-time (contd)
Enhanced capacity of drawing production: numbers of drawings created
from BIM vs. total numbers of drawings produced
Change in the distribution of design effort
Increased accuracy of cost estimates: 95% of cost items estimated within
+/- 2% of variation of final cost
C4.6 Process Metrics for Supply Chain Management (detailing-fabrication-
delivery)
Engineering lead time of material procurement: from 10 days to 3 days
Time needed to resolve constructability issues: a few hours to 10
minutes
C5 Quantifiable Final Performance upon Project Completion
C5.6 BIM helps improve a projects quality (% conformance to explicitly stated
design intent, normalized by relative weight of each quality item)
C5.7 BIM helps improve a projects safety performance (Incidents or lost-work
hours)
93
8 case projects

Newly found factors:

None
Revised factors:
None

None
Revised Measures:
None
94
CHAPTER 6 RESEARCH RESULTS
Grounded in 40 case studies and developed through 3 rounds of data collection and
analysis, the final version of the framework (Table 6-1 and Table 5-12) is:
A structure (Table 6-1) that organizes the characteristics of BIM implementations in

an elaborating level of detail (from the highly conceptual characterization at the
category-factor level to the detailed capture in measures).
A checklist (Table 5-12) that characterizes BIM implementations into 3 categories
(itemized by A, B, and C), 14 factors (itemized by A1, A2 ) and 74 measures
(itemized by A1.1, A1.2 ...).
The vertical structure of the framework (Table 6-1) as presented by the row header
represents the evolving process of planning, executing, and evaluating BIM
implementations. First, the motivation of using BIM is often triggered by situations,
challenges, requirements, and constraints on a project or within a company. Second, how
a BIM implementation is executed affects the design of the product (building), the project
organization, and the processes carried out on a project. In turn, this impact on product,
organization, and process design affects the overall project performance.
The horizontal structure of the framework (Table 6-1) as presented by the column header
represents the increasing level of detail in documentation when BIM is implemented on a
project. The framework has three main categories. Each category is described with
several factors. Each factor is described with one or several measures.
The three main categories conceptually characterize three main aspects of BIM
implementations on projects.
Starting a BIM implementation is often subject to the project-specific or

company-specific context (Category A).
When carrying out a BIM implementation (Category B), AEC practitioners
determine a range of specific implementation factors.
95
After implementing BIM, professionals evaluate the perceived or quantifiable
impacts (categories C) during the project run-time and upon its completion.
Table 6-1: A characterization framework to document BIM implementations on

construction projects
Measures
Categories Factors
(Table 5-12)
A1 Project Context A1.1 A1.7
A Context
A2 Company Context A2.1 A2.3
B Implementation B1 Model Uses B1.1 B1.2
B2 Timing of BIM B2.1 B2.3
B3 Stakeholder Involvement B3.1 B3.11
B4(a).1
B4(a).3
B4(b).1
B4 B4(b).2
B4(c) Modeled Data: Level of Detail B4(c).1
B4(d).1
B4(d).3
B5(a).1
B5 B5(a).4
B5(b) Software Tools: Software Interoperability B5(b).1
B6 Workflow B6.1 B6.5
B7 Effort and Cost B7.1 B7.2
C Performance C1 Perceived Impacts on Product C1.1 C1.2
Impacts
C2 Perceived Impacts on Organization C2.1 C2.2
C3(a) Perceived Impacts on Process: C3(a).1
Design Process C3(a).2
C3(b) Perceived Impacts on Process: C3(b).1

C3 C3(b).2
Construction Process
C3(c) Perceived Impacts on Process: C3(b).1
Operation & Maintenance Process C3(b).2
C4 Quantifiable Progress Performance C4.1 C4.7

during Project Run-time
C5 Quantifiable Final Performance C5.1 C5.7
upon Project Completion
96
To document the three aspects of BIM implementations in detail, it is necessary to
formalize and structure factors within each of the three categories, i.e., context,
implementation, and performance impacts.
The context category includes two factors, i.e., project context and organization
context.
The implementation category characterizes the execution of a BIM
implementation with seven factors, i.e., why (modeling uses), when (timing of
BIM), who (stakeholder involvement), what (modeled data), with which tools
(BIM software), how (workflow), and for how much (effort/cost) a BIM
implementation is done. Modeled data are described by four sub-factors, i.e.,
modeled scope, model structure, level of detail, and data exchange.
The performance impact category uses three factors to describe the professionals
perception of the impacts from implementing BIM on a project, i.e., the perceived
impacts on the product (i.e., facilities), organization of the project team, and the
design-construction-operation processes. The performance impact category also
has two factors to describe the quantifiable impacts of a BIM implementation, i.e.,
performance during the project run-time and final performance upon project
completion.
This framework also identifies 74 measures that provide concrete measurements of the 14
factors. Table 5-12 specifies all the 74 measures in the framework. For instance, the
factor timing of BIM is characterized by three measures: 1) the time at which project
participants create BIM, 2) the length of time that BIM is used, and 3) the time period
during which the impacts are in effect. Another example is the 11 measures that capture
the factor stakeholder involvement. Stakeholder involvement can be characterized in
terms of the roles they play in implementing BIM (i.e., initiating, paying for, building,
using, reviewing, owning, and/or influencing on BIM) as well as the number of
stakeholders involved in building, using, and reviewing BIM.
97
CHAPTER 7 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION AND VALIDATION
This chapter presents the requirements of a good characterization framework for BIM
implementations, the metrics and methods applied for validation, and the validation
results.
The researcher interprets the data from the analysis of the 40 case projects as evidence for
the sufficiency, consistency, and structured integrity of the framework for cross-
project comparisons of BIM implementations. Based on the evidence, the researcher
claim that the research contribution to the knowledge in the field of AEC is a
characterization framework for BIM implementations that:
documents project data into categories, factors, and measures; and

captures why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, for
how much, and how well BIM implementations were done.
7.1 Requirements of a Good Characterization Framework for BIM

Implementations and an Overview of Validation Metrics and Methods
The quality of this framework depends on its capability to meet the five requirements of a
good characterization framework for BIM implementations (Figure 7-1).
98
Figure 7-1: Requirements of a good characterization framework for BIM
implementations
A good framework has documentation power:
1. Structured documentation: The framework organizes the project data of BIM

implementations in a structured way.
2. Sufficient and consistent capture: The framework captures the project data of
BIM implementations as sufficiently and consistently as needed for documenting
why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools, how, for how
much, and how well BIM is implemented across different projects.
3. A good framework supports the comparison of BIM implementations across
projects to gain insights on implementation patterns.
A good framework has methodological rigor that is strengthened when techniques to

improve the generality and validity of the data collection and analysis process are applied
to research design and data analysis (Barbour 2001).
4. Generality: Generality refers to the degree to which a theory (i.e., the framework)
can be extended to other situations (Maxwell 1992). The framework applies to a
99
wide spectrum of projects with variations in project type, size, delivery method,
time period of design and construction, and project location.
5. Validity: Validity refers to whether the concepts (i.e., categories, factors, and
measures) truly measure what they set out to measure (Kerlinger 1973). The
validity of the framework depends on how well the factors and measures in the
framework reflect the BIM implementations which they are intended to
document.
To meet these five requirements of a good characterization framework for BIM
implementations, the researcher set up the following validation metrics and methods
(Table 7-1).
100
Table 7-1: Validation metrics and methods for the characterization framework for BIM
implementations
Validation Requirements Validation Validation Methods

Metrics
Structured Structured or Structure present or not
DOCUMENTATION
documentation unstructured
Sufficient % of The sufficiency of Framework Ver. (1/2/3) =

POWER
capture sufficiency # of measures in Framework Ver. (1/2/3)

# of measures in Framework Ver. 3
Consistent % of Framework Ver. (n) =
capture consistency # of measures with (>= 25%) occurrence
Total # of measures
Support of comparison Implementation Selecting factors and measures from the
patterns framework to develop a crosswalk that
discerned? qualitatively shows the relationship
between factors or measures
Comparing project data captured by
these factors and measures across the 40
cases
Presenting a crosswalk graphically in a
table or figure
Discerning implementation patterns from
analyzing the crosswalk
Generality The framework can be applied to a wide spectrum of projects
with variations in project type, size, delivery method, time
period of design and construction, and project location.
METHODO-LOGICAL RIGOR
Validity Techniques are used in research design to ensure the validity of

the data collection and analysis process.
Ethnographic interviews: Interview questions become
refined and more specific in the course of fieldwork and a
parallel process of data analysis (Keen, 1995).
Triangulation: multiple data sources are used for data
collection (Johnson, 1997).
Selection of interviewees: Interviewees are key staff at
practices and people responsible for BIM implementations
on projects.
Interviewee validation: Interviewees double check the
data presented in case narratives to ensure that the
researcher got it right (Marshall and Rossman, 2006).
101
7.2 Validation Results
The following sections describe the findings from validating the characterization
framework for BIM implementations.
7.2.1 Validating the documentation power of the characterization framework for

BIM implementations
The researcher validated the documentation power of the framework by evaluating how
well the framework can 1) organize the project data of BIM implementations in a
structured way, 2) sufficiently capture the project data as much as needed to document
BIM implementations and to enable the comparison of implementations across projects,
and 3) consistently capture the BIM implementations across projects.
1) Structured documentation
The framework needs to have schemas that classify and organize the characteristics of
BIM implementations.
In the overview map of the characterization framework for BIM implementations (Figure
7-2), the vertical structure presents the classification scheme of contexts
implementation performance impacts, which represents the evolving process of
planning, executing, and evaluating BIM. The horizontal structure presents the
classification scheme of category factor measure, which represents the increasing
level of detail in documentation when BIM is implemented. That is to say, each category
is characterized with several factors and each factor is described with one or several
measures.
The framework consists of 3 categories, 14 factors, and 74 measures (see Table 6-1) that
characterize a BIM implementation at three levels of detail and enables the
documentation of a BIM implementation in a structured way.
102
Figure 7-2: Overview map of the characterization framework for BIM implementations
Category Factor Measure
Contexts
Implementatio
Performance
2) Sufficient capture
The capture of BIM implementations has to be sufficient to document implementations

to enable the comparison of implementations across projects. When new measure(s) (i.e.,
measures not observed on previous cases and not originally covered in the framework)
emerged from a particular case, the researcher added them to the framework and tested
them in the subsequent case studies. Therefore, the fewer new measures the researcher
had to add to the framework as the researcher carried out more case studies, the more
confidence the researcher gained that the framework is sufficiently developed.
The sufficiency of the framework is calculated as the percent ratio of the number of
measures in each version of the framework to the number of measures in the final version
of the framework (Table 7-2).
103
Table 7-2: Calculating the sufficiency of the three versions of the characterization
framework for BIM implementations
# of # of newly found Sufficiency

Measures measures
Framework-1 25 measures added to 38/74x 100% =51%
38
(applied to 21 cases) Framework-2
Framework-2 11 measures added to 63/74 x 100% =85%
63
(applied to 11 cases) Framework-3
Framework-3 0 new measures 74/74 x 100% =100%
74
(applied to 8 cases) found
The preliminary framework (Framework-1) had 38 measures and the sufficiency of

Framework-1 is 51%. After documenting BIM implementations with Framework-1 on 21
cases, the researcher found 25 new measures and added them to Framework-2. Hence, the
sufficiency of Framework-2 is 85%. Afterwards, the researcher used Framework-2 to
study 11 more projects and incorporated 13 new measures to Framework-3. These newly
added measures expand the view of BIM at the level of a project to that at the level of a
firm so as to exhibit such characteristics as company context, inter-organizational
collaboration, data exchange, software interoperability, etc. After applying the
Framework-3 to another 8 case studies, the researcher could not find new factors and
measures. The factors and measures in Framework-3 covered the eight case studies
completely. Therefore, the sufficiency of Framework-3 is 100%. That is to say, within the
scope of the 40 case projects, the framework is able to capture all the major
characteristics related to why, when, for whom, at what level of detail, with which tools,
how, for how much, and how well BIM implementations are done.
3) Consistent capture
The framework must be consistent to ensure that the measures are applicable from one
case to another. Consistency assesses the occurrence of each measure across all the
cases. The consistency of each measure in the framework across the 40 cases is
calculated as a percentage ratio of the number of cases that exhibit the project data for
each measure to the total number of cases studied (Table 7-3). The more frequently
104
measures (related to factors, e.g., model uses, timing of BIM, etc.) occurred on the 40
cases, the more confidence the researcher gained that this framework is consistent.
Table 7-3: Examples of calculating the consistency (occurrence) of measures across the
40 cases
Consistency (%)
Case #n
ID Measures Case #1 Case #2 # of cases reported 1
(N<= 40)
# of total cases
1 Measure reported in a case, 0 Measure not reported in a case
B6.
Workflow of BIM 1 1 75%
1
B6.
Number of iterations 1 0 66%
2
B6.
Reasons for iterations 1 0 81%
3
B6. The best aspects of

1 1 94%
4 BIM process
B6. Needed improvements

1 1 56%
5 in BIM process
After calculating the consistency (occurrence) of each measure across the 40 cases (Table
5-7), the researcher stratified the 74 measures in Framework-3 into three groups
according to their occurrence in 40 cases (Figure 7-3 and Table 7-4).
Level 1 (high level of consistency measures occurred in more than 75% of the
case projects): 56% of the 74 measures were observed in more than 75% of the
case projects. These measures focus mostly on describing the project context to
implement BIM and specifying the implementation factors (such as model uses,
timing, stakeholder involvement, level of detail, workflow, etc.) and their impacts
on product, organization and process.
105
Level 2 (medium level of consistency measures occurred in 25% - 75% of the
case projects): 20% of the 74 measures were observed in 25% - 75% of the case
projects. These measures (such as contract value, modeling cost, and so on) did
not reach the high level of occurrence in our case studies because they were often
confidential and not accessible.
Level 3 (low level of consistency - measures occurred in fewer than 25% of the
case projects): 24% of the 74 measures were observed in fewer than 25% of the
case projects. Most measures at this level fall into the category quantifiable
project performance. During the study of the 40 cases, the researcher found only
a handful of companies that had quantified the performance improvements
attributable to BIM. In addition, the researcher was not able to collect the
financial data, such as the project cost and the cost (work-hours) of creating BIM,
for all the projects. The main reason is that this kind of information is often
confidential and not accessible. Although these measures tended to have a low
level of occurrence, the researcher retained them in the framework because they
highlight the opportunity to document them in more cases.
Table 7-4: Calculating the consistency of the characterization framework for BIM
implementations
High level of Medium level Low level of

occurrence of occurrence occurrence Consistency
(%) (%) (%)
Framework-3 56 20 24 56% + 20% = 76%
Since the framework has a high percentage of measures that have a medium or high level
of occurrence (20% + 56% = 76%), the researcher has confidence that the framework is
consistent.
106
Figure 7-3: Three levels (high, medium, and low) of occurrence of the measures in the framework
100%
High level of occurrence:
Described
describedin in
more thanthan
more 24 projects
30
projects
75%
Medium level of
occurrence:
Described in 8 -described
24 projectsin
50% 10 30 projects
Low level of occurrence:

described in fewer than
25%
10 projects
Described in less than 8 projects
0%
A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 B4(a) B4(b) B4(c) B4(d) B5(a) B5(b) B6 B7 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Factors
A1 Project Characteristics and Challenges
A2 Company Context of Project Participants Factors
B6 Workflow
B1 Model Uses
B7 Effort and Cost
B2 Timing of Model Use
B4(a) C2 Perceived Impacts on Organization
Data: Modeled Scope
B4(b) C3 Perceived Impacts on Process
Data: Model Structure
B4 C4 Performance during the Project Run-time
B4(c) Data: Level of Detail
B4(d) C5 Final Performance upon Project Completion
Data: Data Exchange
B5(a) Tools: Software Functionality
B5
B5(b) Tools: Software Interoperability
107
7.2.2 Validating the capability of the characterization framework for BIM
implementations to support the comparison of BIM implementations across
projects and gain insights on implementation patterns
The researcher validated how the framework supports comparisons of BIM

implementations across projects via the following procedure:
1. The researcher selects a few factors and measures from the framework to develop
a crosswalk (cross-tabulation that qualitatively shows the relationship between
two factors);
2. The researcher compares project data captured by these factors and measures
across the 40 cases;
3. The researcher presents a crosswalk that qualitatively shows the relationship
between factors or measures;
4. The researcher discerns implementation patterns from analyzing the crosswalk.
To facilitate the decisions in planning a BIM implementation that maximizes the benefits
on a project (Table 2-2), the researcher developed four crosswalks to discern the
similarities and differences among implementations of BIM on the 40 case projects.
Crosswalk 1: nine BIM uses and their related benefits to building design as well
as project processes and organization (Table 7-6);
Crosswalk 2: seven time periods of BIM uses and the timing of their related
benefits to building design as well as project process and organization (Table
7-8);
Crosswalk 3: eleven situations of key stakeholder involvement and their
corresponding benefits (Table 7-10); and
Crosswalk 4: three situations of the timing of developing levels of detail in BIM
and their corresponding benefits (Figure 7-8 and Table 7-12).
From analyzing the four crosswalks about BIM implementations, the researcher
discerned four BIM implementation patterns:
108
How model uses affect benefits: The higher the number of BIM uses on a
project, the higher the number of benefits (Figure 7-4).
How timing of BIM affects benefits: The earlier BIMs are created and used, the
more lasting the benefits of BIM (Table 7-8).
How stakeholder involvement affects benefits: The benefits to individual
stakeholder and to the whole project team are maximized when all the key
stakeholders are involved in creating and using BIM (Figure 7-5, Figure 7-6, and
Figure 7-7).
How the level of detail in BIMs affects benefits: To maximize benefits, it is
critical to create BIMs at the appropriate level of detail that matches a particular
model use and is just in time with the information available at different design
and construction stages (Table 7-12).
1) Crosswalk 1: How model uses affect benefits
Table 7-5: Factors and measures used to develop crosswalk 1
Factors Measures
B1 Model Uses B1.3 Types of model uses
C1 Perceived Impacts on C1.1 Explanation of the impact of BIM

Product on product

Organization on project organization
Crosswalk
C3(a).1 Explanation of the impact of BIM
1
on design process
Perceived Impacts on C3(b).1 Explanation of the impact of BIM

C3 on construction process
Process
C3(c).1 Explanation of the impact of BIM
on operation & maintenance
process
B3 Stakeholder Involvement B3.12 Stakeholder organization(s)

receiving BIM benefits
109
The researcher developed crosswalk 1 by comparing the factors and measures (Table 7-5)
across the 40 cases.
There are many BIMs developed for many different uses in the design and construction
phases of a building, before and during the creation of the real world structure. Each
model use plays a part in supporting project team members to accomplish a particular
professional task they are expected to do.
From the study of the 40 cases, the researcher summarized and categorized BIM uses into
9 types. The researcher found that BIM was used for:
establishing the owners requirements,

interacting with non-professional stakeholders,
analyzing design options (visualization analysis, structural analysis, energy
analysis, and lighting analysis)
checking multi-disciplinary system clashes and constructability issues,
producing construction documents,
supporting cost estimating,
managing supply chains,
planning for construction execution, and
managing facility operations.
Crosswalk 1 relates BIM uses with their corresponding impacts on building design,
project processes and organization as well as their related benefits to project stakeholders
(Table 7-6).
110
Table 7-6: Crosswalk 1 links BIM uses to the corresponding impacts on product, process,
and organization and the related benefits to project stakeholders. (The text in italic
indicates case examples which are listed in Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and Table 5-3.)
Impacts on Product, Process, Organization

Impact on product: the effects that BIM has on the design of
Benefits to
the physical elements within a facility
Whom
Impact on organization: the effects that BIM has on the
Beneficial
timing of engaging project stakeholders, on the number of
BIM Uses results that
stakeholders engaged, and on work responsibilities and
accrue to
contractual relationships between stakeholder organizations
project
Impact on process: the effects that BIM has on the execution stakeholders
and sequencing of tasks in the design-construction-operation
process
Improve the quality of building design (by satisfying
Owner
owner requirements better)
1 (or Developer)
Case Example: 32
Establishment of
Product Improve the quality of building design (by
owner Owner
establishing realistic energy, cost, and environmental
requirements (or Developer)
targets earlier)
Designer
Case Example: 32
Improve the quality of building design (by reviewing
Owner
how the design meets functional requirements, e.g.,
Product (or Developer)
space program, sightlines, lighting, acoustics, etc.)
End user
Case Examples: 5, 18, 21, 31, 32
Facilitate the process for owners and end users to
Owner
inspect and evaluate aesthetic and functional
End user
characteristics of the building design
Designer
Case Examples: 5, 18, 31, 32, 37
2 Accelerate the turnaround of permit approvals (by
Interaction with planning commissions and city councils) so as to
Developer
non- facilitate an early start of developers marketing
Authorities
professionals efforts
(e.g., for client Case Example: 25
Process
briefing, Facilitate the process for homebuyers to compare
Developer
schematic design various alternatives and make an decision to buy
End user
review, Case Examples: 25, 26, 27, 29, 30
development Facilitate the process for non-professionals to
permitting, understand design intent and stay up-to-date with
marketing, etc.) project development
Case Examples: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, Owner
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, (or Developer)
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37 End user
Engage more non-professionals in providing more Designer
input and hence having more influence on building Authority
design General Public
Org.
Case Examples: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31, 32
111
Table 7-6 (contd): Crosswalk 1 links BIM uses to the corresponding impacts on product,
process, and organization and the related benefits to project stakeholders. (The text in
italic indicates case examples which are listed in Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and Table 5-3.)
Benefits
BIM Uses Impacts on Product, Process, Organization
To Whom
Improve the quality of building design (by exploring more
Product design options)
Case Examples: 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37
Facilitate the exploration of options (by updating parameters
3 Owner
in 3D CAD objects and changing the look and behavior of an
Analysis of (or
facility more correctly, quickly, and completely)
building Process Developer)
Case Examples: 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37
design Designer
Accelerate decision-making (by fast analysis of options)
options End user
Case Examples: 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37
Engage more professional disciplines in design review so as
Org. to provide more input to building design at the right time
Case Examples: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32
Improve the quality of design (by reviewing constructability Owner
according to the GCs or subcontractors know-how) (or
Developer)
Case Examples: 2, 5, 7, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32
GC, Subs
Product
Improve the quality of building design (by coordinating Owner
architectural, structural, and MEP system design) (or
4 Developer)
Design Case Examples: 2, 7, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37
Designer
checking Accelerate the turnaround of design coordination (by
(system combining other consultants 3D-information with the Owner
coordination architects model and checking for interference between (or
and/or separate systems) Developer)
construct- Designer
Process Case Examples: 2, 7, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37
ability Facilitate the iterative design process between multiple
review) disciplines (by keeping every discipline working on up-to- Owner
date information) (or
Case Examples: 2, 5, 7, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 Developer)
Engage downstream designers, GC, and subs early and Designer
Org. frequently in the schematic design and design development GC, Subs
Case Examples: 2, 5, 7, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32
Improve the completeness and consistency of construction
Owner
documents (by reducing design errors in drawings)
Product Designer
Case Examples: 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30,
Builder
31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40
Facilitate the automatic and fast production of construction
5
documents (by extracting information directly from 3D
Production
models for plans, sections and elevations, architectural and
of Designer
construction details, window/door/finish schedules, etc.)
construction
Case Examples: 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30,
documents Process
31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40
Facilitate change management (by automatically updating
drawings when changes are made in a 3D model)
Designer
Case Examples: 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32
112
Benefits To
Whom
Facilitate procurement and fabrication (by directly extracting
dimensions and component placement information from 3D Fabricator
models for fabricators or suppliers) Supplier
Process Case Examples: 3, 8, 11, 14, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32
5 Facilitate work on site and assembly (by cutting components Fabricator
Production to precise dimensions for adequate fit) Supplier
of Case Examples: 3, 8, 11, 14, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32 GC and subs
construction
Engage fewer or no draftsmen in drawing production (by
documents
allowing little or no division between design development
(contd) Designer
and construction documentation)
Org. Case Example: 22
Designer
Case Examples: 3, 8, 11, 22
Improve the accuracy of cost estimation (by obtaining actual Owner
and verifiable quantities from a 3D model) (or
Product
Developer)
Case Examples: 2, 5, 7, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32
GC
Accelerate the determination of the project budget Owner
Case Examples: 5, 32 (or
Accelerate estimating and cost feedback to design Developer)
Designer
Case Examples: 2, 5, 7, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32
Process GC
6 Facilitate the management of owner-initiated change orders Owner
Quantity (by quickly showing the cost impact of these change orders (or
takeoff, cost and improving the accuracy of Bills of Quantities) Developer)
estimating Case Examples: 26, 27 GC
and change
Release foremen from repetitive work in terms of re-
order
calculating and verifying the quantities from estimators GC
management
Case Examples: 26, 27
Reduce chances for the owner to overpay contingency for
Process
unforeseen change orders and allowance for materials or
equipment not yet selected (by accurately defining the scope Owner
of work in subcontract bid packages)
Case Examples: 28, 29, 30
Org. activities (by using man-hours saved from cost estimating) GC
Facilitate the generation of building product specifications
early in the design phase (by integrating standard building Owner
product libraries to the design in 3D models) (or
7
Case Examples: 5, 28, 29, 30, 32 Developer)
Supply chain Process
Incorporate more off-site fabrication and assembly in Fabricators
management
building design and hence reduce field labor costs (by (or
integrating standard building product libraries in 3D models) suppliers)
Case Examples: 3, 8, 11, 14, 28, 29, 30
113
Benefits
To Whom
Shorten engineering lead-time (by synchronizing schedule
and scope information between engineers, fabricators, and
contractors) Designer
Case Examples: 3, 8, 11, 14, 24, 32 Fabricator
Accelerate manufacturing turn-around (e.g., by transferring GC and
3D CAD data to computer-numerically-controlled (CNC) subs
fabrication)
7
Case Examples: 2, 3, 8, 11, 14, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32
Supply chain Process
management
visualize and understand the intricacy of framing and Fabricators
connection details in a 3D structural model Subs
Reduce the amount of material stored on site (by producing
smaller batches of shop drawings and placing procurement GC and
orders more frequently) subs
Case Example: 14
Improve the quality of design (by enabling designers to
Product better understand construction challenges) Owner/ GC
8 Expedite work packaging and phased handover
Construction Case Examples: 4, 9
planning/4D Process
Support the evaluation and analysis of multiple construction
modeling
and facility operation strategies during master planning
Case Examples: 4, 9, 13, 17
8.1
Engage more project participants in strategic project Owner/ GC
Strategic
planning
project
planning Org. Case Examples: 4, 16
Engage project participants early to visualize project scope
and gain insights on project goals
Case Examples: 4, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21
Win contract by showing the contractor's capability to
8.2 execute the work
Org.
Contractors Case Examples: 11, 12 CM/GC
proposal Pursue subsequent work with the same client
Case Example: 12
8.3
Owners
Process Case Examples: 4, 11, 12 Owner/GC
bidding and
GCs Facilitate communication of the construction sequencing
subcontracting required by engineers specifications to potential
contractors
Case Example: 10
8.4 Expedite construction permitting
Permit Process CM/GC
approval
114
Benefits To
Whom
Improve the reliability and executability of the
contractors master schedule
Case Examples: 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 19, 20, 21, 24,
CM/GC
8.5 32, 35, 36
Subs
Master Streamline concurrent facility operations and
Fabricator/
scheduling and Process construction
Supplier
construction Case Examples: 12, 17
FM (Facility
sequencing Facilitate communication of project status to Manager)
stakeholders
Case Examples: 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20,
21, 24, 32, 34, 36
Enable early detection of potential site logistics and
accessibility constraints
Process
Case Examples: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,
8.6 19, 20, 21, 33, 34, 36
CM/GC
Constructability Externalize and share project issues among more
Subs
review project stakeholders so as to solve discovered problems
Org. more collaboratively
Case Examples: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,
19, 20, 21
Enable early identification of work scope and
8.7 Process interferences between trades
Operations Case Examples: 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 36 CM/GC
planning/ Subs
analysis Org.
Case Examples: 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21,36
Improve the control of building life cycle costs, the
operation of technical systems, and the working Owner
Product conditions for facility maintenance and management Facility
personnel (by enabling a 3Dmodel-based FM system) Manager
Case Examples: 5, 31, 32
Facilitate the space-planning for facility managers in
the early stage of a project (by color-coding user units
and departments)
9 Case Example: 32
Facility Facilitate the re-use of as-built 3D data in the
management operations and maintenance phase (by updating the
information from the design phase and developing as- Facility
Process
built 3D data during construction) Manager
Facilitate the performance reporting for facility
managers to steer the building operation (conformance
to targets) with the help of clearly documented
performance metrics
Case Example: 31
115
To investigate the correlation between the model uses and impacts on the 40 case
projects, the researcher charted the scatter plot shown in Figure 7-4. Each single data
point represents the documented situation on a particular case, i.e., how many uses of
3D/4D models were realized on a particular project and how many benefits were obtained
(as accounted from the data sources (case examples) in Table 7-6. A trend line then
connected these individual points. Because the R2 (correlation constant) value is 0.8735,
this line describes the trend in the data with a high degree of certainty. That is to say, the
higher the number of BIM uses on a project, the higher the number of benefits.
Figure 7-4: The trend line correlates the number of model uses to the number of benefits
for the 40 cases (each case is represented by a dot).
R2 = 0.8735
35
30
25
# of Benefits
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
##ofofModel
ModelUses
Usages
2) Crosswalk 2: How the timing of BIM affects benefits
I developed crosswalk 2 by comparing the following factors and measures (in the
characterization framework for BIM implementations) across the 40 cases (Table 7-7).
Crosswalk 2 (Table 7-8) links the major phases of a project when BIM is used (as shown
in the light-grey boxes) to the timing of the impacts on the product, organization, and
processes (as shown in the dark-grey boxes). The length of the light-grey box indicates
the length of time of a particular model use. Below each light-grey box, several dark-grey
116
boxes stretch over one or a few project phases, representing the timing and duration of
impacts.
The horizontal axis in crosswalk 2 depicts the phases in the design and construction
processes that are most common to building construction projects: Schematic Design
(basic appearance and plans), Design Development (defining systems), Construction
Documents (details of assembly and construction technology), Preconstruction
(purchasing and award of contracts for construction as well as final fabrication shop
drawings), Construction (manufacture and installation of components or labor-intensive
field construction and installation), and Operations and Maintenance.
Factors Measures
B1 Model Uses B1.3 Types of model uses
B2.2 Project phase(s) when BIM were

used
B2 Timing of BIM
B2.3 Project phase(s) when BIM
impacts were perceived
Crosswalk C1 Perceived Impacts on C1.1 Explanation of the impact of BIM

2 Product on product


on design process

Process
process
117
Table 7-8: Crosswalk 2 links BIM uses with the impacts on product, organization, and process along the project timeline.
Engineering and Design Phase

Pre-construction Operations and Maintenance
Construction Construction Phase
Schematic Design Design Development Phase Phase
Documents
Legend: Timing of Impact on Product, Organization, and Process
Timing of Model Use
Establishment of
Owner Requirements
Product: Better quality building
Process: (owner) Reliable design based on realistic
and better achievement of the
energy cost, and environmental targets
owner objectives
Interaction with Non-professionals

Process: (owners and Product: Better quality of
end users) Easy building, design forms better
evaluation of design complying with functions, and
forms vs. functions more end user satisfaction
Process: (homebuyers) Easy comparison of alternatives
and making the decision to buy
Process: (authorities)
Process: (developer) Quick start of developers marketing
Fast permitting
Process: (owners, end users, planning commissions, city councils, and the general public) Better understanding of design
intent and project status
Org.: (owners, end users, planning commissions, city councils, and the general public) More and earlier involvement in terms
of providing more input and hence having more influence on a project
Analysis of Design Options

Product: Better life-cycle
Product: Improved quality of building design in
performance and more end user
terms of meeting aesthetic and technical functions
satisfaction
Process: Easy exploration of design options
Process: Fast analysis and timely decision-making
118
Table 7-8 (contd): Crosswalk 2 links BIM uses with the impacts on product, organization, and process along the project timeline.

Construction Pre-construction Phase Construction Phase
Schematic Design Design Development
Documents
Legend: Timing of Model Use Timing of Impact on Product, Organization, and Process
Design Checking (System Coordination and
Constructability Review)
Product: Better design solution and well-
coordinated drawings
Process: Easy clash detection, fast design
coordination, and better coordination and Process: Reduced field requests for information (RFI),
communication between multiple disciplines change orders (C.O.), and rework because the facility
design has been coordinated within and across multiple
Org.: Early and frequent involvement of
disciplines
downstream designers, GC, and subs
Production of Construction
Documents
Product: Better quality of Process: Accurate Process: Prefab pieces more likely to fit together in the
construction documents schedule/BOQ for procurement field
Process: Easy and quick drawing
Process: Easy and quick change management
production
Org.: No draftsmen
Org.: Longer involvement of architects in the entire
design process
Quantity Takeoff and Cost Estimating

Process: Prompt
Process: Fast process for
determination of Process: Fast cost feedback to design
construction estimate
project budget
Product: More accurate cost estimation Process: Better management of change orders
Org.: Better prices for subcontract Org.: Foremen released from repetitive work of re-
bid packages calculating quantities
119

Pre-construction Phase Construction Phase
Schematic Design Design Development Construction Documents
Legend: Timing of Model Use Timing of Impact on Product, Organization, Process
Supply Chain Management
Process: Early
Process: Reduced construction time with more
specification of building
off-site prefabrication and assembly
products in design
Process: Reduced engineering lead-time by streamlining schedule
information flows between engineering, fabrication, and erection
Process: Reduced batch sizes Process: Quicker manufacturing
Process: Reduced amount of material stored on
of drawings and frequent and turnaround and reduced response
site
small orders of materials time for RFIs
Process: Easy process for fabricators and subcontractors to
Process: Smooth field construction and reduced
understand the intricacy of the structural frame and connection
field RFIs and rework
details
Construction Planning / 4D Modeling

Process: Better communication and
Process: Work phasing less prone to
coordination in the process of strategic
interference
project planning
Process: Better communication of
construction status to project stakeholders
Org.: More project stakeholders involved
Process: Well-coordinated renovation and
early in providing input to strategic project
facility operation
planning
Process: Winning the construction contract by showing the Process: Timely meeting of project
contractors capability milestones
Process: Better understanding of the engineers specification or Process: Reduced field C.O.s and rework
owners intention by the contractors and improved site safety
Process: Fast construction permitting Process: Smooth field construction,
Process: Improved reliability of master schedules subcontractors work less prone to
Process: Bids closer in range interference
Process: Better communication and coordination in constructability Process: Better communication and
review coordination of site operations
120

Pre-construction Construction
Schematic Design Construction Operations and Maintenance Phase
Phase Phase
Design Development Documents
Legend: Timing of Impact on Product, Organization, and Process
Timing of Model Use
Facility Management
Product: Better response to end users space needs
Product: Well-performed operation of technical systems and

better working conditions
Process: Seamless transfer and reuse of as-built information,

and building performance reporting to facility manager
121
Crosswalk 2 (Table 7-8) shows that, among all the benefits attainable from one particular
BIM use, some benefits come along immediately with that BIM use while other benefits
occur later. The immediate benefits often affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the
current design process as well as the communication and coordination within the project
organization; while the late benefits mostly have an impact on the downstream
construction and O&M process as well as the quality and performance of the building.
For example, the use of BIM for design checking (as manifested in cases 2, 3, 7, 8, 11,
14, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, and 32) facilitates a more efficient and reliable design
process by easy clash detection (benefit to the design process) and allows earlier and
more frequent feedback from other designers and contractors (benefit to the
organization). These are immediate benefits reaped along with the use of BIM for design
checking. The benefits occurring after the design checking include a reduction in field
RFIs, change orders, and rework in the construction phase (benefits to the construction
process) and a completed building product that has well-coordinated systems (benefits for
the product).
In crosswalk 2 (Table 7-8), some immediate and late benefit boxes are shown in the
same row. This means that the late benefits are the ripple effects of the immediate
benefits that have been realized early on. For instance, 3D visualization in the schematic
design phase can assist designers in space planning. This immediate benefit subsequently
leads to a finished building product that better responds to end users space needs in the
O&M phase.
The last column in crosswalk 2 (Table 7-8) identifies benefits (in the O&M phase) which
have lasting and positive effects on the facility. For example, the improvement of overall
project performance in case 5 was demonstrated by a 10%-15% savings in first cost and a
5%-25% potential savings in the life-cycle cost. These lasting impacts (demonstrated by
cases 5, 18, and 32) were brought about by using 3D models in the early planning and
design phase. For example, BIM facilitates evaluation of product (building) design forms
vs. functions and helps project teams set and manage towards aggressive but realistic
targets for energy, cost, and environmental performance. In addition, BIM supports
122
space-planning by color-coding different user units and departments, involve end-users
early in a projects decision-making process, and assist designers in exploring alternatives
of building shape and space layout via simulation and analysis. Crosswalk 2 also shows
that these BIM uses are initiated from the start of schematic design throughout design
development.
Therefore, the earlier BIM is created and used, the more lasting the benefits of BIM. The
use of BIM early in the design phase results not only in immediate benefits (which relate
to the ongoing project process and organization) but also late benefits (which accrue
during the downstream processes and relate to the performance of a finished building
product). However, the use of BIM in the preconstruction and construction phases mostly
leads to immediate benefits.
3) Crosswalk 3: How stakeholder involvement affects benefits
The researcher developed crosswalk 3 by comparing the following factors and measures
(in the characterization framework for BIM implementations) across the 40 cases (Table
7-9).
Key stakeholders on a project include the owner/developer and AEC service providers,
i.e., the designers, general contractors, and subcontractors. Key stakeholders involved in
the BIM process play two primary roles, i.e., they lead (i.e., initiate and control the whole
BIM process) or they are involved (i.e., participate partially in the process of building,
reviewing, or using BIM). Crosswalk 3 (Table 7-10) links the situations in which key
stakeholders take on different roles to the number of benefits that accrue to them
individually.
123
Factors Measures
B3.1 Stakeholder organization(s)

initiating BIM effort

controlling BIM

building BIM
B3 Stakeholder Involvement B3.5 Stakeholder organization(s) using
BIM

reviewing BIM

Crosswalk receiving BIM benefits
3 Number of benefits for
B3.13
stakeholder organizations

Product on product


on design process

Process
process
124
Table 7-10: Crosswalk 3 links the key stakeholders roles in the BIM process with the
benefits to them as individual stakeholders
Situations Average # of Average # of Average # of Average #

Leading Benefits per Benefits per Benefits per of Benefits
Involved Case Case (for Case (for per Case
(applicable cases listed in parentheses) (for Owner) Designer) GC) (for Subs)
Owner Leading
Situation 1:
Owner leading and GC involved 6 1 8 5
(4) (26) (27) (34)
Owner leading and designer involved
2 1 0 0
(18) (37)
Situation 2:
Owner leading and designer, GC, and
9 12 10 10
subs involved
(24) (25) (28) (29) (23) (32)
Situation 3:
Only owner leading and involved 3 0 0 0
(9) (10) (16) (17)
GC Leading
Situation 4:
GC leading and owner, designer, and
4 3 7 8
subs involved
(2) (20) (21)
Situation 5:
GC leading and owner and subs involved 3 2 4 6
(7)*
Situation 6:
GC leading and owner involved 2 0 7 3
(12)*
Situation 7:
GC leading and only subs involved 0 0 6 6
(19) (36)
Situation 8:
Only GC leading and involved 1 0 3 3
(1) (6) (13) (33) (35)
Designer Leading
Situation 9:
Designer leading and owner, GC, and
2 7 9 11
subs involved
(3) (8) (11) (14)
Situation 10:
Designer leading and GC and owner
5 11 3 2
involved
(5) (31)
Situation 11:
Designer leading and owner involved 3 10 2 2
(22) (23) (38) (39) (40)
Note (*): More cases are needed
125
Often individual stakeholders evaluate the benefits of BIM purely from their
stakeholder perspectives (i.e., with a WIIFM (whats in it for me) attitude).
Although the viewpoint of each individual stakeholder is important because each of them
makes the decision whether or not to implement BIM, it is also important to reflect on the
impacts on the whole project team as well.
Based on crosswalk 3 (Table 7-10), the researcher drew spider diagrams (Figure 7-5,
Figure 7-6, and Figure 7-7) to reveal not only the benefits of BIM to each individual
stakeholder but also the scope of impacts (i.e., number of benefits) of BIM for the key
project stakeholders as a whole.
In these charts, the four axes stand for the owner, designer, general contractor, and
subcontractors respectively. The number of benefits to each stakeholder (as shown in
Table 7-10) is measured along the axis and highlighted by the axis marker. The BIMs
scope of impacts for the key project stakeholders as a whole is the area enclosed by the
lines that join the markers.
In Figure 7-5, Figure 7-6, and Figure 7-7, i.e., for the cases where the owner, GC, or
designer leads and use BIM development respectively, the biggest area is bounded by the
bold solid lines. This pattern illustrates that, no matter who is leading, the benefits (i.e.,
BIMs scope of influence) are maximized for the project team as a whole when all the
key stakeholders are involved. For example, on case 20, one of the MEP subs commented
that the more other trades participate in the model the more accurate the model becomes.
Therefore, the MEP subs can fabricate more items.
No matter who is leading, the scenario where all the key stakeholders are involved offers
most benefits for the whole project team. It is also interesting to note that in most cases,
the benefits that accrue to the owner, designer, GC, and subcontractors individually are
also maximized when all parties participate in the BIM efforts. This is a win-win
opportunity that all stakeholders can take advantage of. The benefits to individual
stakeholders and to the whole project team are maximized when all the key stakeholders
are involved in creating and using BIM.
126
Figure 7-5: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the owner leading situations
Stakeholders' Benefits Owner - Benefits

in the "Owner Leading" Situations 12
9
Owner
leading and
designer, GC, 6
and subs
involved
Owner 3
leading and
GC involved
Designer - Benefits 0 Subs - Benefits
Owner
leading and
designer
involved
Only owner
leading and
involved
GC - Benefits
127
Figure 7-6: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the GC leading situations

in the "GC Leading" Situations 8
GC leading and
owner, designer,
4
and subs involved
GC leading and 2
owner and subs
involved

GC leading and
only owner
involved
GC leading and
only subs involved
Only GC leading
and involved
GC - Benefits
128
Figure 7-7: The number of benefits of BIM to the key project stakeholders in the designer leading situations

in the "Designer Leading" Situations 12
Designer
leading and 6
owner, GC,
subs
involved
3
Designer
leading and
GC
Only owner
leading and
involved
GC - Benefits
129
4) Crosswalk 4: How the level of detail in BIMs affects benefits
The researcher developed crosswalk 4 by comparing the following factors and measures
(in the characterization framework for BIM implementations) across the 40 cases (Table
7-11).
Factors Measures
B1 BIM uses B1.3 Types of model uses
B2.1 Project phase(s) when BIM were

B2 Timing of BIM
built
B4(a).2 Modeled disciplinary systems

B4 Modeled data
B4(c).1 Levels of detail in the 3D/4D
model
Crosswalk
4 C1 Perceived Impacts on C1.3 Number of perceived impacts of
Product BIM on product
C2 Perceived Impacts on C2.3 Number of perceived impacts of

Organization BIM on organization
C3(a).3 Number of perceived impacts of

BIM on design process
C3(b).3 Number of perceived impacts of

Perceived Impacts on
C3 BIM on construction process
Process
C3(c).3 Number of perceived impacts of
BIM on operation & maintenance
process
As shown in Figure 7-8, each column in the matrix corresponds to a certain level of detail
in BIM, including the project (building/site), system, sub-system, component, and part.
Each row represents a phase during the design and construction process. The text under
the double-arrowed lines at the bottom of these figures exemplifies model uses that the
130
levels of detail need to serve. Each cell in the table maps the level of detail to the
information available in a project phase and needed for a particular model use. Thus, the
appropriateness of the level of detail is twofold: 1) the level of detail in BIM should
accommodate the model use (i.e., the amount of information needed is a function of what
it will be used for); 2) the level of detail in BIM is subject to the information available at
different design and construction stages.
Figure 7-8: Crosswalk 4 (part I) links the level of detail in BIM with the timing of BIM.
131
Figure 7-8 maps the evolving level of detail in BIM along the typical project timeline to
accommodate a particular model use.
Level of detail of architectural system: Cases 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, and 40 demonstrate that the BIM of the architectural
system evolved throughout the phases of schematic design and design development.
In the early schematic design phase, the architectural BIM was a dimensionally
accurate summary of the fundamental form and geometry of a building or site. These
models were used to communicate the essential forms of a building to
nonprofessionals, e.g., clients, end users, authorities, or communities. In the late
schematic design phase (50% SD) and the design development phase, the basic
building form was enriched with details about the actual sizes, styles, material types,
and finishes of the architectural subsystems including walls, floors, roof, windows,
and doors.
Level of detail of structural system: Cases 3, 8, 11, 14, 20, 23, 24, 25, 37, 38, and 39
demonstrate that the BIM of the structural system was often started in the design
development phase. Structural engineers often used the architects model as input for
strength calculations of the preliminary framing plan, evaluated the appropriateness
of the architectural design, and compared different options for the framing plan in the
schematic design phase. Case 32 is an exception of the above pattern. On this project,
the structural engineers started BIM for a number of alternative structural systems and
material combinations early in the schematic design phase. For example, they
modeled three alternatives for foundation beams, i.e., steel, pre-cast concrete
(selected), and cast-in-place concrete. These options were then evaluated to meet the
criteria with regard to the architectural appearance, material costs based on the BOM,
and the contractors specialization and expertise. Cases 3, 8, 11, 14, 20, 23, 24, 25,
38, and 39 also demonstrate that the level of detail in the structural 3D model evolved
throughout the design development phase. In the early design development phase, the
structural model had rough framing information of the superstructure (and/or
foundation). In the late design development phase, the structural BIM included more
132
detail about the geometry, dimensions, member properties, connection types, and
materials of the structural subsystems, e.g., beams, columns, plates, bolts, etc.
Level of detail of the MEP systems: Cases 2, 3, 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, and
32 demonstrate that building system designers started the BIM of the MEP system in
the design development phase Building system designers typically used the
architects model as the basis to set up the preliminary sizing of the heating, cooling,
and ventilation systems (cases 2, 3, 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32) and
supported the optimization of the building shape from the viewpoint of energy
performance (cases 5, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32) in the schematic design
phase. When the system specifications were in place and the best system solution was
chosen, they started to model the HVAC and electrical systems in the design
development phase. Late in design development, the MEP BIM was combined with
the architectural and/or structural BIM to check for interferences between these
models (cases 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32).
In addition to identifying the two factors related to the appropriateness of the level of
detail and illustrating the evolving pattern of the level of detail in relation to the two
factors, Figure 7-8 also categorizes the timing of developing the level of detail in BIM as
just in time, too early, and too late.
Just in time: If a case example fell into the grey box that depicts the ideal timing
of producing a certain level of detail, the BIM on that project was created or
modified to represent the on-going design.
Too early: If a case example fell into an upper-right blank area, the BIM on that
project was built too early, i.e., the information necessary for a BIM at that level
of detail was not yet available.
Too late: If a case example fell into a lower-left blank area, the BIM model on
that project was generated too late despite the earlier availability of the required
level of detail.
Table 7-12 links the timing of developing the level of detail in BIM to the average
number of benefits reaped on each case project. It demonstrates that creating BIM just in
133
time and at the appropriate level of detail that matches a particular model use is critical in
maximizing benefits.
Table 7-12: Crosswalk 4 (part II) links the timing of developing the level of detail in BIM
with the corresponding benefits.
Average # of
Scenario Timing and Level of Detail Benefits per
Case
1 BIM was created just in time and at the appropriate level of detail
to serve a particular model use.
5
Case Examples: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28,
29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40
2 BIM was created too early to serve a particular model use because
the necessary information for the higher level of detail in BIM was
2
not yet available.
3 BIM was created too late to serve a particular model use, even
though the necessary information for the higher level of detail in
2
BIM would have been available earlier.
Case Examples: 1, 26, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36
134
7.2.3 Validating the methodological rigor of the characterization framework for
BIM implementations
The researcher validated the methodological rigor of the characterization framework for
BIM implementation by applying techniques in research design and data analysis (see
more details in the chapter of research methods).
1) Generality of the framework
The researcher ensured the generality of the framework by applying theoretical sampling
method in the selection of case projects. The 40 case projects range in size from a few
million dollars to several hundred million dollars, include public and private projects in a
range of construction sectors (residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and
transportation), were delivered with several contractual arrangements (design-bid-build,
design/build, and CM/GC) (Figure 7-9), and took place in several regions on the globe
(North America, Europe, Asia).
Figure 7-9: Framework applied to different project types, delivery methods, and sizes
Project Type Delivery Method Project Size
Commercial
Facilities
Residential Small (=< $ 5
20%
Facilities million)
Construction
32% Large (>= $ 25%
Managers /
100 million)
General
Transportation 38%
Contractors
Facilities Institutional 23%
8% Facilities
30% Design-Bid-
Industrial Build Medium ($ 5
Facilities Design-Build 54% 100 million)
10% 23% 37%
2) Validity of the framework
The validity of the framework is ensured by the use of four techniques in research design.
Ethnographic interviews: The interview questions became refined and more

specific in the course of data collection and analysis.
135
Triangulation: The researcher used multiple data sources (i.e., primary data from
face-to-face interviews and secondary data from available project documents) as
opposed to relying solely on one avenue of collecting data.
Selection of interviewees: To collect accurate and concrete project data, the
researcher selected key persons who were directly responsible for BIM practices
on projects.
Interviewee validation: The researcher requested the interviewees to double-
check the project data documented in the framework.
136
Table 7-13 is a summary of the validation results. Therefore and in contrast to currently-
available BIM stories and guidelines, the researcher claims that the characterization
framework enables the structured documentation as well as sufficient and consistent
capture of BIM implementations to support cross-project comparisons of why, when, for
implementations are done.
137
Table 7-13: A summary of the validation results
Requirements Validation Results

Structured The framework consists of 3 categories, 14 factors, and 74 measures
capture that characterize a BIM implementation at three levels of detail.
DOCUMENTATION POWER
Sufficient The sufficiency of the framework is 100%. Within the scope of 40

capture case projects, the framework is able to capture all the major
characteristics related to why, when, for whom, at what level of
detail, with which tools, how, for how much, and how well BIM
implementations are done.
Consistent After applying the framework to 40 case projects, the researcher
capture found that: 1) 56% of the 74 measures were occurred in more than
75% of the 40 case projects; 2) 20% of the 74 measures were
occurred in 25% - 75% of the 40 case projects; 3) 24% of the 74
measures were occurred in fewer than 25% of the case projects.
Since the framework has a high percentage of measures that have a
medium or high level of occurrence (20% + 56% = 76%), the
researcher have confidence that the framework is consistent.
Support of The researcher found four implementation patterns from
comparison documenting and comparing 40 case projects with the framework.
How model uses affect benefits: The higher the number of BIM
uses on a project, the higher the number of benefits.
How timing of BIM affects benefits: The earlier BIM is created
and used, the more lasting the benefits of BIM.
How stakeholder involvement affects benefits: The benefits to
individual stakeholder and to the whole project team are
maximized when all the key stakeholders are involved in
creating and using BIM.
How the level of detail in BIM affects benefits: To maximize
benefits, it is critical to create BIM at the appropriate level of
detail that matches a particular model use and is just in time with
the information available at different design and construction
stages.
Generality The 40 case projects range in size from a few million dollars to
METHODO-LOGICAL RIGOR

several hundred million dollars, include public and private projects
in a range of construction sectors, were delivered with several
contractual arrangements, and took place in several regions on the
globe (North America, Europe, Asia).
Validity Four techniques are used in research design to ensure the validity of
the data collection and analysis process.
Ethnographic interviews
Triangulation
Selection of interviewees
Interviewee validation
138
CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the practical significance and the intellectual merits of the
framework. The future work is also discussed here.
8.1 Practical Significance of the Framework
Practitioners can use the characterization framework for BIM implementations to:
document BIM implementations to enable sufficient and consistent capture;

compare BIM implementations across projects and examine the implementation
patterns (i.e., how to plan a BIM implementation to maximize benefits); and
develop BIM guidelines based on the understanding of implementation patterns.
This framework has the potential to help practitioners to develop an empirical knowledge
base for BIM implementations on projects. Based on this knowledge base, practitioners
can guide and prioritize their own implementation efforts instead of creating project-
specific implementation plans on the basis of anecdotes from prior BIM implementations.
For example, practitioners document their BIM implementation projects using the eight
measures, i.e., model uses, number of model uses, modeled systems, number of modeled
systems, involved stakeholders, number of involved stakeholders, project phases, and
number of project phases. After documenting a sufficient number of BIM
implementation projects, they can identify the range of possible model uses and figure
out the implementation plan of BIM. That is to say, practitioners can design the
implementation in terms of the level of detail in BIM (i.e., modeling product), the
stakeholders to be involved in building and using BIM (modeling organization), and the
timing to start BIM modeling (modeling process) and customize the modeling product,
organization, and process to different model uses.
139
8.2 Intellectual Merits of the Framework
Compared to currently available BIM guidelines (Table 3-4), the characterization

framework for BIM implementations focuses on project-level implementation of BIM
and is validated through 40 case studies. Implementation patterns discerned from
applying the framework to compare BIM across projects confirm or adjust general
beliefs, hypotheses, and anecdotes of BIM implementations and impacts (Table 8-1).
Table 8-1: Implementation patterns confirm or adjust the general beliefs about BIM
implementations
Confirmation Implementations Patterns Discerned

General Beliefs
or Adjustment from 40 Case Projects
(Legend: confirmation; adjustment)
How model uses affect benefits
There are many 3D/4D models The higher the number of BIM uses on a
developed for many different uses project, the higher the number of
(Bedrick et al. 2005). benefits (Figure 7-4).
How timing of BIM affects benefits
It is essential to capitalize on
project opportunities early to
The earlier BIMs are created and used,
make 3D/4D models have a
lasting and positive effect on the
the more lasting the benefits of BIM
(Table 7-8).
facility over its total life span
(Kam 2002).
How stakeholder involvement affects benefits
The benefits to individual stakeholder
The more stakeholders involved and to the whole project team are
in implementing 3D/4D maximized when all the key

modeling; the more benefits stakeholders are involved in creating
accrue to them (Fischer 2004). and using BIM (Figure 7-5, Figure 7-6,
and Figure 7-7).
How the level of detail in BIMs affects benefits
To maximize benefits, it is critical to
Creating 3D and 4D models at the create BIMs at the appropriate level of
appropriate level of detail is detail that matches a particular model

critical in reaping their benefits use and is just in time with the
(Fischer 2004). information available at different design
and construction stages (Table 7-12).
140
Researchers can use the framework to conduct a large-size case survey which allows
statistical analysis of implementation patterns across cases (Larsson 1993). This
framework provides a structured form and well-defined measures for documenting a
large number of cases. Researchers can apply the framework as a coding scheme to case
studies and systematically convert those qualitative case measures into quantifiable
variables. In doing so, researchers will be able to statistically analyze their cases with
coded data and cross-validate or extend the findings from our case studies.
The framework provides a foundation for identifying new knowledge, such as additional
implementation patterns. For instance, the four crosswalks categorize nine BIM uses,
eleven situations of key stakeholder involvement, and three situations of the timing of
developing levels of detail in BIM. The classification of a particular implementation
factor (e.g., the model use, stakeholder involvement, and the level of detail) provides the
opportunity for cross-case analysis and generalization of the patterns pertinent to that
particular implementation factor. For example, researchers can pool relevant cases of the
four primary uses of BIM (i.e., interaction with non-professionals, construction planning,
drawing production, and design checking) into data sets that are sufficiently large for
statistical analysis of the implementation patterns pertinent to these model uses. This will
assess the magnitude of the relationship between the effort and the value of creating
different kinds of BIM more precisely than the assessment made in this thesis.
8.3 Future Work
The following steps are suggested for further studies:
1. Developing a better way of quantifying the value of benefits and differentiating the
value of benefits to different stakeholders.
In this thesis, the researcher simply counted the number of benefits as a way of
quantification. In a future study, it is necessary to collect the financial data (such as
the project cost and the cost (work-hours) of creating BIM) for all the projects. It is
also important to capture the value of benefits and differentiate the value of benefits
to different stakeholders.
141
2. Validating how helpful the framework is for generating BIM guidelines and
managing BIM implementations.
The use of the framework was demonstrated by comparing BIM experiences across
projects. A further step is to validate how helpful the framework is for generating
BIM guidelines and managing BIM implementations.
3. Investigating the benefits and uses of BIM in different contexts of companies or

countries.
This thesis focused on documenting and comparing BIM implementations at the

project level. This project-based approach did not consider the organizational and
social contexts of the implementation of BIM modeling at the company level as well
as at the regional and country industry level. A next step is to further develop the
framework to document:
how the implementation approach of BIM in one company differs from

implementations in other firms with respect to issues such as their BIM
software platform choices, data standardization, research and development
activities, external strategic alliance, and internal organizational alignment;
and
how the implementation of BIM is different in one national or regional
context from another, given the influences of institutional factors, e.g., market
structure, organizational forms, work practices, national and professional
culture, technology support, and government support/policy, etc.
Therefore, it is necessary to carry out further case studies to support the specific
understanding with regard to the benefits and uses of BIM in different contexts of
companies or countries.
4. Conducting case studies on more recent projects to extending the scope of BIM uses
emerging from the 40 case studies.
142
Based on the 40 projects, the researcher categorized nine BIM uses. This is by no
means an exhaustive list of all BIM uses in practice but it gives an indication of
primary model uses taking place. The researcher suggests that future research
extends BIM uses emerging from the 40 case studies: 1) to other important model
uses such as 3D-laser scanning for accurate as-built documentation and CNC usage
(e.g., metal cutting) by MEP subs; 2) to new areas of model uses such as 4D
workflow automation and optimization; 3) to the use of BIM in the project operation
and maintenance phases.
5. Studying inter-organizational implementation of BIM and addressing lessons learned

from facilitating exchange and interoperability of information and standardizing the
work methods for BIM modeling implementations.
Like Adriaanse (2007), in this study, the researcher did not find plenty of experiences
related to inter-organizational implementation of BIM. This is a problem of
implementing data-exchange integration standard in software (e.g., the Industry
Foundation Classes (IFC)) and developing standardized work methods for clear
definitions of objects (e.g., IFD library) and clear definitions of process protocols and
exchange requirements (e.g., the Information Delivery Manual (IDM)).
Researchers and software companies need to develop a better way to

exchange BIM data electronically between software applications. Researchers
have already invested a vast amount of work in developing BIM standards or
BIM exchange interfaces for the building sector by developing IFC.
Different models used for the different software applications by the various
stakeholders require different levels of detail. Standardized work methods are
needed to switch between different levels of detail and views among
construction practitioners from different stakeholder organizations.
Therefore the researcher suggests further case studies to focus on inter-organizational

implementation of BIM and to address lessons learned from implementing
interoperability and standardizing the work methods for BIM implementations.
143
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From Data to Wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16,
3-9.
Adriaanse, Arjen (2007). The Use of Interorganisational ICT in Construction Projects.

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente, the Netherlands.
Alavi, M. (1992). Revisiting DSS Implementation Research: A Meta-analysis of the

Literature and Suggestions for Researchers. MIS Quarterly, 16(1), pp. 95-116.
Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., and Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers Investigate
Their work: An Introduction to Action Research across the Professions (2nd edition).
Routledge.
AGC (2006). The Contractors' Guide to BIM Edition 1. Associated General

Contractors of America (AGC).
Autodesk (2010). Autodesk BIM Deployment Plan: A Practical Framework for

Implementing BIM, Autodesk Inc..
Azhar, S., and Brown, J. (2009). BIM for Sustainability Analyses. International
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 5(4), pp. 276-292.
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for Improving Rigor in Qualitative Research. British

Medical Journal, 322, pp. 1115-1117.
Bauman, L.J. and Greenberg, E. (1992). The Use of Ethnographic Interviewing to

Inform Questionnaire Construction. Health Education Quarterly, 19(1), pp. 9-23.
Bedrick, J. and Davis, G. (2005). VDC from the Executive Office (Webcor Builders).
Presentation to CIFE Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering,
Stanford, CA, June 22, 2005.
144
Bedrick, J., Rinella, T., Bevins, R., and Hecht, L. (2005). Interoperability Challenges
for BIM Implementers. Presentation to Building Connections 2005, the 2nd Congress
on Digital Collaboration in the Building Industry, AIA, Washington D.C., Nov 10, 2005.
Bergsten, S. and Knutsson, M. (2001). 4D CAD-An Efficient Tool to Improve

Production Method for Integration of Apartments in Existing Buildings. Proceedings of
the CIB-W78 International Conference IT in Construction in Africa 2001: Implementing
the next generation technologies, CSIR, Division of Building and Construction
Technology, Pretoria, South Africa, also available at
http://buildnet.csir.co.za/constructitafrica/au, pp. 3-1 to 3-10
BIPS (2008), Digital construction 3D Working Method. Danish Government.
Bogdan, R. C. and Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative Research for Education: An

Introduction to Theories and Methods (5th ed.), Pearson Education Group, Boston.
Byrne, M.M. (2001). Evaluating the Findings of Qualitative Research. AORN Journal.
73(3), pp. 703-706.
Carzaniga, A., Fuggetta, A., Hall, R. S., van der Hoek, A., Heimbigner, D., and Wolf, A.
L. (1998) A Characterization Framework for Software Deployment Technologies.
Technical Report CU-CS-857-98, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Colorado.
Cerovsek, T. (2010) A Review and Outlook for a Building Information Model (BIM):
A Multi-standpoint Framework for Technological Development. Advanced Engineering
Informatics, 25(2), pp. 224-244.
Clevenger, C. and Haymaker, J. (2009). Framework and Metrics for Assessing the
Guidance of Design Processes. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on
Engineering Design (ICED09), Vol. 1, Norell Bergendahl, M.; Grimheden, M.; Leifer,
L.; Skogstad, P.; Lindemann, U. (Ed.), pp. 411-422.
Coble, R.J., Theisen, D., and Blatter, R.L. (2000). Application of Four-Dimensional
Computer-Aided Design (4D CAD) in the Construction Workplace. Proceedings of the
Congress, Orlando, FL, Feb 20-22, 2000, Walsh, Kenneth D. (Ed.) ASCE. pp. 984-989.
145
Collier, E. and Fischer, M. (1995). Four-Dimensional Modeling in Design and
Construction. Technical Report Nr. 101, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
(CIFE), Stanford.
CRC-CI (2008), National Guidelines for Digital Modeling. CRC Construction

Innovation, Brisbane, Australia.
Cunz, D. and Knutson, G. (2005). VDC for Construction Coordination (M.A. Mortenson
Co.). Presentation to CIFE Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility
Engineering, Stanford, CA, June 21, 2005.
CURT (2006). Optimizing the Construction Process: An Implementation Strategy. CURT

WP 1003, The Construction Users Roundtable.
CURT (2010). BIM Implementation: An Owner's Guide to Getting Started, The

Construction Users Roundtable.
Danso-Amoako, M.O., Issa, R.R.A., and OBrien, W. (2003). Framework for a Point-N-
Click Interface System for 3D CAD Construction Visualization and Documentation.
Towards a Vision for Information Technology in Civil Engineering: 4th Joint
International Symposium on Information Technology in Civil Engineering. Flood, Ian
(Ed.), November 1516, 2003, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. pp. 1-9.
Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook (5th edition). Aldine

Transaction.
de Vries, B. and Broekmaat, M. (2003). Implementation Scenarios for 4D CAD in

Practice. In Maas, G. and van Gassel, F. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 20th International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction. Eindhoven University of
Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands. pp. 393-398.
Eberhard, D. (2005). Case Examples (Parsons Brinckerhoff). Presentation to CIFE

Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June 20,
2005.
146
E-BOUW (2008). E-BOUW Framework BIM Building Information Model(ling). E-
BOUW, Netherlands.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 532-550.
Ferber, R. (1977). Research by Convenience. The Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1).

pp. 57-58.
Fischer, M., Aalami, F., and Akbas, R. (1998). Formalizing Product Model
Transformations: Case Examples and Applications. Artificial Intelligence in Structural
Engineering: Information Technology for Design, Collaboration, Maintenance, and
Monitoring. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1454, Smith, Ian (Ed.), Springer,
July 1998, pp. 113-132.
Fischer, M., Haymaker, J., and Liston, K. (2003). Benefits of 3D and 4D Models for
Facility Managers and AEC Service Providers. 4D CAD and Visualization in
Construction - Developments and Applications, Issa, R.R.A., Flood, I., and O'Brien, W.
(Ed.), Balkema, pp. 1-32.
Fischer, M. (2004). VBE Metrics. Presentation to VBE Meeting at CIFE, Center for
Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June 14.
Fischer, M. (2005). Virtual Builders Roundtable Workshop Introduction.

Presentation at Virtual Builders Roundtable, Seattle, WA, June 13.
Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. (1990). Performance Indicators. BERA Dialogue, Vol. 2, Multi-

lingual Matters.
Forgues, D. and Iordanova, I. (2010). An IDP-BIM Framework for Reshaping

Professional Design Practices. Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for
Reshaping Construction Practice - Proceedings of the 2010 Construction Research
Congress, Ruwanpura, J., Mohamed, Y., and Lee, S. (Eds), University of Alberta, Banff,
Alberta, Canada. pp. 172-182.
147
Forze, C. and Di Nuzzo, F. (1998). Meta-analysis Applied to Operations Management:
Summarizing the Results of Empirical Research. International Journal of Production
Research, 36(3), pp. 837-61.
Gao, J., Tollefsen, T., Fischer, M., and Haugen, T. (2005). Experiences with 3D and 4D
CAD on Building Construction Projects: Benefits for Project Success and Controllable
Implementation Factors. 22nd CIB-W78 Conference on Information Technology in
Construction, CIB Publication 305, Raimar J. Scherer, Peter Katranuschkov, Sven-Eric
Schapke (Eds), Institute for Construction Informatics, Technical University Dresden,
Germany, July 19-21, pp. 225-234.
Glser, J. and Laudel, G. (2004). The Expert Interview and Content Analysis. Wiesbaden:
VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften.
Gonzales, J. (2005). VDC for Facility Operations Planning (Intel). Presentation to

CIFE Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June
21, 2005.
Gonzales, D. (2005). Comments & Discussion on the Recommendations for Lean

Virtual Design & Construction (RQ Construction). Presentation to Lean Design Forum,
Lean Construction Institute, Chicago, IL, June 1, 2006.
Griffis, F.H., Hogan, D., and Li, W. (1995). An Analysis of the Impacts of Using Three
Dimensional Computer Models in the Management of Construction. CII Research
Report 106-11, Construction Industry Institute.
Griffis, F.H. and Sturts, C.S. (2003). Fully Integrated and Automated Project Process
(FIAPP) for the Project Manager and Executive. 4D CAD and Visualization in
Construction: Developments and Applications, Issa, R., Flood, I., and OBrien, W. (Eds).
A. A. Balkema, Lisse, Netherlands, pp. 55-73.
148
GSA (2006). The National 3D4D-BIM Program Guidelines, U.S. General Services
Administration Public Buildings Service, Office of the Chief Architect, Washington,
DC.
Hagan, S. and Graves, T. (2005). VDC for Facility Owner (GSA). Presentation to
CIFE Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June
22, 2005.
Hamblen, M. (2005). Project at World Trade Center Site Puts Advanced Design Tools to
Test. Computerworld, 39(10), pp. 7-7.
Hastings, J., Kibiloski, J., Fischer, M., Haymaker, J., and Liston K. (2003). Four-
Dimensional Modeling to Support Construction Planning of the Stata Center Project.
Leadership and Management in Engineering, 3(2), ASCE. pp. 86-90.
Haymaker, J., Fischer, M., Kunz, J., and Suter, B. (2004). Engineering Test Cases to
Motivate the Formalization of an AEC Project Model as a Directed Acyclic Graph of
Views and Dependencies. ITCon (Electronic Journal of Information Technology in
Construction) Vol. 9, pp. 419-441, http://www.itcon.org/2004/30.
Hnninen, R. and Laine, T. (2004). Product Models and Life Cycle Data Management.
Xth International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering
(ICCCBE-X conference). Bauhaus-Universitt Weimar, Weimar, pp.1-6.
Hedges, L.V., and Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. New York:
Academic Press.
Holm, C., Addeman, F., Tyson, W., and Ford, B. (2005). Case Study: Disney's
Expedition Everest (Walt Disney Imagineering). Presentation to CIFE Summer
Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June 20, 2005.
Holsapple, C. W. and Joshi, K. D. (1999) Description and Analysis of Existing

Knowledge Management Frameworks. Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, volume 1, pp.1072-1086.
149
Jensen, J. L. and Robert, R. (2001). Cumulating the Intellectual Gold of Case Study
Research. Public Administration Review 61(2): pp. 236-246.
Joch, A. (2005) Virtual Reality and Digital Modeling Go On Trial for a Federal
Courtroom design. Architectural Record, 193(1), pp. 184-184.
Jongeling, R., Kim, J., Mourgues, C., Fischer, M., and Olofsson, T. (2005). Quantitative
Analyses using 4D Models An Explorative Study. 1st International Conference on
Construction and Engineering Management (ICCEM 2005), C. Park (Eds), KICEM
Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management, Seoul, Korea, pp. 830-
835.
Jung, Y. and Joo, M. (2011) Building information modelling (BIM) framework for
practical implementation. Automation in Construction, 20(2), pp. 126-133.
Kam, C., Fischer, M., Hanninen, R., Lehto, S., and Laitinen, J. (2002). Capitalizing on
Early Project Opportunities to Improve Facility Life-Cycle Performance. Proceedings
of International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, 19th (ISARC).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, pp. 73-78.
Kam C., Fischer M., Hnninen R., Karjalainen A., and Laitinen J. (2003). The product
model and Fourth Dimension project. ITcon (Electronic Journal of Information
Technology in Construction), Special Issue IFC - Product models for the AEC arena,
Vol. 8, pp. 137-166.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart,

& Winston.
Khanzode, A., Fischer, M., and Reed, D. (2005). Case Study of the Implementation of
the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS) using Virtual Building Technologies on a large
Healthcare Project. Proceedings 13th Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction (IGLC-13), Sydney, July 19-21, pp. 153-160.
150
Koerckel, A. (2005). VDC for Site Operations (Strategic Project Solutions).
Presentation to CIFE Summer Program, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering,
Stanford, CA, June 21, 2005.
Koivu, T., Laine, T., Iivonen, V. and Gonzales, D. (2003). Options for the Finnish
FM/AEC Software Packages for Market Entry in the U.S. VTT Research Note 2211,
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland. 2003.
Koo, B. and Fischer, M. (2000). Feasibility Study of 4D CAD in Commercial

Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 126 (5),
pp. 251-260.
Korman, T.M., Fischer, M., and Tatum, C.B. (2003). Knowledge and reasoning for
MEP coordination. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE,
129(6), pp. 627634.
Kunz, J. and Fischer, M. (2005). Virtual Design and Construction: Themes, Case
Studies and Implementation Suggestions. The Center for Integrated Facility
Engineering (CIFE) Working Paper #097, Stanford University, June 2005.
Kuzel, A.J. (1992). Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry. in Crabtree BF, Miller WL (Eds).
Doing qualitative research. London: Sage.
Larsson, R. (1993). Case survey methodology: Quantitative analysis of patterns across

case studies. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 15151546.
Lee, G., Sacks, R., and Eastman, C. M. (2006). Specifying Parametric Building Object
behavior (BOB) for a Building Information Modeling System. Automation in
Construction, 15(6), pp. 758-776.
London, K., Singh, V., Gu, N., Taylor, C., and Brankovic, L. (2010) Towards the
Development of a Project Decision Support Framework for Adoption of an Integrated
Building Information Model Using a Model Server. Underwood, J. and Isikdag, U.
(eds), Handbook of Research on Building Information Modeling and Construction
151
Informatics : Concepts and Technologies, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA,
pp. 270-301.
Majumdar, T. and Fischer, M. (2006).Virtual Reality Mock-up Model. Proc. Joint

International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building
Engineering. Rivard, H., Melhem H., and Miresco, E. (Eds), Montreal, Canada, pp. 2902-
2911.
Malafsky, G.P. (2003) Technology for Acquiring and Sharing Knowledge Assets.
Handbook on Knowledge Management, Volume 2: Knowledge Directions. Holsapple,
C.W. (Eds.), Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 85-108.
Mason, R.O. (1984). Summary of IT Impacts Research. The Information Systems

Research Challenge. McFarlan, F.W. (Eds). Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA,
pp. 279-307.
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard

Educational Review, 62, pp. 279 - 300.
McQuary, J. (2004). Case Example (Fluor). Presentation to CIFE Summer Program,

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, June 24, 2004.
Messner, J. I., and Lynch, T. (2002). A Construction Simulation Model for Production
Planning at the Pentagon Renovation Project. International Workshop on Information
Technology in Civil Engineering 2002. Anthony D. Songer and John C. Miles (Eds),
Washington, D.C., USA. pp. 145-153.
Minsky, M. (1975). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. Reprinted in The

Psychology of Computer Vision, P. Winston (Eds.), McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Moore, G. A. (1999). Crossing the Chasm Marketing and Selling High-tech Products to
Mainstream Customers. Harper Business. New York.
152
NIST (2001). Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Construction Systems
Integration and Automation Technologies in Commercial Buildings. National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
NIST (2007). National Building Information Modeling Standard part 1: Overview,

Principles and Methodologies, National Institute of Building Sciences.
OBrien, W. (2003). 4D CAD and Dynamic Resource Planning for Specialist

Contractors: Case Study and Issues. 4D CAD and Visualization in Construction:
Developments and Applications, Issa, R., Flood, I., and OBrien, W. (Eds). A. A.
Balkema, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 101-124.
Ohio GSD (2010). The State of Ohio Building Information Modeling (BIM) Protocol,
Office of the Chief Architect, General Services Division: Ohio.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1993). CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating

Increment. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), pp. 309-340.
Penn State (2010). BIM Project Execution Planning Guide and Templates Version 2.0
BIM Project Execution Planning, CIC Research Group, Department of Architectural
Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK.
Riley, D. (2000). The Role of 4D modeling in Trade Sequencing and Production

Planning. Proc. of Construction Congress VI, ASCE, pp. 1029-1034.
Rischmoller, L., Fischer, M., Fox, R., and Alarcon, L. F. (2001). 4D Planning and
Scheduling (4D-PS): Grounding Construction IT Research in Industry Practice.
Proceedings of the CIB-W78 International Conference IT in Construction in Africa 2001:
Implementing the next generation technologies, CSIR, Division of Building and
Construction Technology, Pretoria, South Africa, also available at
http://buildnet.csir.co.za/constructitafrica/au, pp. 34-1 to 34-11.
153
Robson, C. (1993), Real World Research: A resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioner-Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rockart, J.F. (1986) A Primer on Critical Success Factors. The Rise of Managerial
Computing: The Best of the Center for Information Systems Research, Christine V.
Bullen (Eds), McGraw-Hill, 1986.
Roe, Andrew (2002). Building Digitally Provides Schedule, Cost Efficiencies.

Engineering News Record, 248(7), pp. 29-31.
Rubin, A., and Babbie, E.R. (2008). Research Methods for Social Work. Thomson
Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.
Sampaio, A.Z., Henriques, P.G., Ferreira P.S., and Luizi R.P. (2005). Vizualizing
Construction Processes by Means of Virtual 3D Models: Two Study Cases.
Proceedings (469) Applied Simulation and Modelling. Hamza, M. H. (Eds)
Benalmdena, Spain, pp. 469-020.
Sawyer, T. (2005). Maturing Visualization Tools Make Ideas Look Real. ENR:
Engineering News-Record, 255(2), pp. 28-33.
Schwegler, B.R., Fischer, M., OConnell, J.M., Hanninen R., and Laitinen J. (2001).
Near- Medium- and Long-Term Benefits of Information Technology in Construction.
CIFE Working Paper #65, Stanford University, July 2001.
Schwegler, B., Fischer, M., and Liston, K. (2000). New Information Technology Tools
Enable Productivity Improvements. North American Steel Construction Conference,
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Las Vegas, pp. 11-1 to 11-20.
Seibold, C. (2002). The Place of Theory and the Development of a Theoretical

Framework in a Qualitative Study. Qualitative Research Journal, Vol.2, pp. 3-15.
SENATE Properties (2007). Building Information Model (BIM) Requirements. SENATE

Properties, Helsinki, Finland.
154
Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and Analyzing Qualitative Data: Issues Raised by the Focus
Group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 28, pp. 345353.
Singh, V., Gu, N., and Wang, X. (2011) A Theoretical Framework of a BIM-based
Multi-disciplinary Collaboration Platform. Automation in Construction, 20 (2), 134-144.
Somekh, B., and Lewin, C. (2005). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Snowden, Dave (2009). Everything is Fragmented the Core Principles. KMWorld

Magazine, 18(1). http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/News/News-Analysis/Everything-is-
fragmented--The-core-principles--52016.aspx.
Statsbygg (2006). HITOS Documented Pilots, Statsbygg (Norwegian Directorate of

Public Construction and Property), Oslo, Norway.
Staub-French, S., Fischer, M., Kunz, J., and Paulson, B. (2003). An Ontology for
Relating Features with Activities to Calculate Costs. Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering, 17(4), pp. 243-254.
Staub-French, S. and Fischer, M. (1998). Constructibility Reasoning based on a 4D

Facility Model. Structural Engineering World Wide, T191-1 (CD ROM Proceedings),
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Staub-French, S. and Khanzode, A. (2007). 3D and 4D Modeling for Design and

Construction Coordination: Issues and Lessons Learned. ITCON, Vol. 12, pp. 381-407.
Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
SUCCAR, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research delivery

foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in construction. Vol. 18, pp.357-375.
155
Teicholz, P. (2004). Labor Productivity Declines in the Construction Industry: Causes
and Remedies. AECbytes Viewpoint #4:
http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/issue_4.html.
USACE (2006). Building Information Modeling: A Road Map for Implementation To

Support MILCON Transformation and Civil Works Projects within the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center,
Washington, DC.
Wang, R.Y., Kon, H.B., and Madnick, S.E. (1993). Data Quality Requirements Analysis
and Modeling. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Data
Engineering. Vienna, Austria, pp. 670-677.
Webb, R.M. and Haupt, T.C. (2004). The Potential of 4D CAD as A Tool for
Construction Management. Journal of Construction Research, 5(1), pp. 43-60.
Whyte, J. (2001) Business Drivers for the Use of Virtual Reality in the Construction
Sector. Conference on Applied Virtual Reality in Engineering &
Construction Applications of Virtual Reality: Current Initiatives and Future Challenges.
Chalmers University of Technology Goteborg, Sweden. pp. 99-105.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research Design and Method. 2nd Edition, Sage Publication
Inc., CA.
156
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY
Term Definition
Benefit of BIM The benefits of BIM refer to the advantageous results that project
stakeholders attain from using BIM on their projects.
BIM BIM implementations are the practical application of BIM tools for
Implementations helping AEC professionals with their tasks on a project. It can also
be called as a BIM Project Execution Plan (Penn State 2010).
Building Building Information Modeling (BIM) is the process of generating
Information and managing building data during its life cycle (Lee et al. 2006).
Modeling (BIM)
Building Building Information Model (BIM) involves representing a design
Information as objects that carry their geometry, relations and attributes.
Model (BIM)
Case Study Case study is a strategy for doing research which involves an
empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon
within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence (Yin
1994).
Categories Categories are concepts that stand for a given phenomenon. They
depict the matters that are important to the phenomena being
studied. In this report, categories are related to the main tasks AEC
professionals need to carry out when implementing BIM.
Crosswalk A crosswalk is a form of cross-tabulation that qualitatively shows
the correlation between two factors (NIST 2001).
Factors Factors specify a category further by denoting information such as
when, where, why, and how a phenomenon is likely to occur.
Impact of BIM The impact of BIM is the effect BIM has on building product
design and project processes and organization. It includes the
benefits accruing to project stakeholders and the efforts/costs
required to overcome obstacles.
Impact of BIM The impact of BIM on the tasks and their execution in the design
on Process and construction processes (Kunz and Fischer 2005), e.g., making
the execution easier, faster, or earlier.
Impact of BIM The impact of BIM on the design of physical elements within a
on Product building or plant (Kunz and Fischer 2005), e.g., better design
quality in terms of meeting design functions.
Impact of BIM The impact of BIM on the work responsibility and role
on Organization relationships between organizational groups that design, construct
and operate a project (Kunz and Fischer 2005).
157
APPENDIX A (contd): GLOSSARY
Term Definition
Implementation Implementation factors are the main aspects that shape and affect
Factors the implementation of BIM. For example, one factor of
implementing BIM is model use which explains why BIM was
used.
Implementation Patterns are formed when classifications of characteristics align
Patterns themselves along a continuum or range. For example, the pattern of
model use is shown by aligning nine types of model uses along
the project timeline and by ranking them according to their
frequency of occurrence on the 40 case projects.
Measures Measures capture a factor in terms of its characteristics. For
example, the factor model uses is measured (qualified) by
specifying types of model uses. Types of model uses can be
classified into nine types of model uses according to the tasks BIM
facilitates.
158
1

T-10 Comparación de Implementación BIM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T-10 Comparación de Implementación BIM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A CHARACTERIZATION FRAMEWORK TO DOCUMENT AND COMPARE BIM

IMPLEMENTATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL

ENGINEERING AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/yj761rc6510

Martin Fischer, Primary Adviser

Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies.

Through case studies on 40 construction projects, this research provides a framework to

The contribution of this research is a characterization framework that:

Organizes project data of BIM implementations into categories, factors, and

In particular, I wish to thank those AEC professionals, researchers, and organizations

Dr. Airaksine, Miimu (OptiPlan)

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii

TABLE OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... x

TABLE OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH MOTIVATION AND READERS

1.1 Research Motivation .................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Readers Guide Key Points of the Thesis ............................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2 PRACTICAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE, INTUITION, AND

2.1 Observed Problems .................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Intuition ................................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Research Question and Scope Definition ................................................................ 21

CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE ........................................ 24

3.1 Theoretical P.O.Ds that Demonstrate Why a Framework is Needed ...................... 24

3.4 Theoretical P.O.Ds for Developing the Characterization Framework .................... 37

4.1 Criteria for Research Methods................................................................................. 44

4.2 Multiple Case Studies .............................................................................................. 44

4.3 Grounded Theory..................................................................................................... 45

4.4 Techniques to Improve the Methodological Rigor .................................................. 46

CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH TASKS ............................................................................... 50

5.1 Three Phases of Case Studies .................................................................................. 50

5.2 Data Collection, Analysis, and Framework Development ...................................... 56

CHAPTER 6 RESEARCH RESULTS .......................................................................... 95

CHAPTER 7 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION AND VALIDATION .......................... 98

7.1 Requirements of a Good Characterization Framework for BIM Implementations

7.2 Validation Results ................................................................................................. 102

7.2.1 Validating the documentation power of the characterization framework for

7.2.2 Validating the capability of the characterization framework for BIM

7.2.3 Validating the methodological rigor of the characterization framework for

CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ........................................................ 139

8.2 Intellectual Merits of the Framework .................................................................... 140

8.3 Future Work........................................................................................................... 141

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 144

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY.......................................................................................... 157

Table 2-1: Examples of decisions to be made in setting up a BIM implementation .......... 7

Table 2-3: By learning BIM implementations on individual projects, AEC professionals

Table 2-5: A list of guidelines for BIM implementations................................................. 18

Table 3-2: An overview of twenty-two papers that document BIM implementations on

Table 3-4: An overview of BIM related guidelines and frameworks ............................... 32

Table 3-9: Labeling the measures in Framework-1 .......................................................... 41

Table 6-1: A characterization framework to document BIM implementations on

Table 7-13: A summary of the validation results............................................................ 138

Figure 3-1: The structure of Framework-1 ....................................................................... 38

Figure 3-2: Labeling the categories in Framework-1 ....................................................... 39

Figure 3-3: Labeling the factors in Framework-1 ............................................................. 40

Figure 7-1: Requirements of a good characterization framework for BIM

1.1 Research Motivation

1.2 Readers Guide Key Points of the Thesis

The contribution of the research is a characterization framework (as shown in Chapter 6

Organizes project data of BIM implementations into a classification scheme of 3

The quality of the characterization framework manifests itself in three aspects.