The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2631-6862.htm
ARCH
14,1
112
Received 6 April 2019
Revised 30 May 2019
Accepted 29 July 2019
Archnet-IJAR: International
Journal of Architectural Research
Vol. 14 No. 1, 2020
pp. 112-132
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2631-6862
DOI 10.1108/ARCH-04-2019-0081
A roadmap for BIM adoption and
implementation in developing
countries: the Pakistan case
Suzan Girginkaya Akdag and Uzair Maqsood
Faculty of Architecture and Design, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – Digital media is reshaping architectural design by introducing new tools, methods and
workflows. Among various AEC tools, Building Information Modeling (BIM) has gained popularity due to its
collaboration platform enabling cross-disciplinary teamwork during whole life cycle of buildings. BIM
has further transformed culture and processes associated with design, construction and operation of
buildings, hence triggering new building regulations in developed countries. However, in developing
countries, BIM implementation is facing several barriers, such as lack of investment in technology and
training, hesitation in quitting traditional tools and practices, etc. The purpose of this paper is to highlight
potentials of BIM for developing countries, which are in need of more sustainable policies for enhancing their
economic and environmental performances.
Design/methodology/approach – Throughout the text, a literature review on BIM including its
dimensions and benefits, impacts on architectural design and adoption in global and local contexts is
provided. In case study, surveys and structured interviews are conducted with BIM user and non-BIM
user architects throughout Pakistan. Beyond 2D/3D modeling, the use of BIM applications for sustainable
design process such as scheduling (4D), cost estimation (5D), performance analysis and facilities management
(6D) is investigated.
Findings – Using analytical tools of an online surveying tool and SPSS statistical software, barriers and
motivations for BIM implementation in Pakistan are determined. Strategies for further BIM adoption
and implementation via “education and training institutions” and “supporting organizations and institutions”
are defined.
Originality/value – As a developing country, Pakistan shall be moving the barriers for the spread of BIM
technology. Recent research covered the entire AEC sector (Masood et al., 2014; Sohu et al., 2017; Ali et al.,
2018), yet this paper focuses specifically on architectural design and practice field. In order to find out
experiences and expectations about BIM technology in the architecture sector, professionals are surveyed and
four chief architects are interviewed. How far have Pakistani architects adopted BIM? For which project types
and scales is BIM more serviceable for them? Which BIM applications are they implementing to overcome the
limitations in their professional practice? In Pakistan, where sustainability, in terms of scheduling, cost
estimation, performance analysis and facilities management, is an indispensible measure for local practices,
has implementation of BIM technology achieved sustainability in architectural design process? What are the
motivations of Pakistani architects for becoming BIM users in future?
Keywords BIM adoption, BIM implementation strategies, Sustainable architectural design process,
Developing countries, BIM user
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Developing countries, which are in need of new and improved built environments and urban
infrastructure, emerge as top markets for AEC industry. Due to limited resources and economic
hardship, policies governing sustainable growth and construction have gained extreme
importance in developing countries. The adoption of new technologies and their effective
implementation have become the only way for closing the gap with developed countries. As a
The authors would like to thank Assistant Professor Dr Emrah Turkyilmaz, Assistant Professor
Dr Durnev Atilgan Yagan and Assistant Professor Dr Yigit Yilmaz for their contributions to master
thesis of Uzair Maqsood titled “Determining Scale For BIM Implementation in Architectural Design
Practice: The Case of Pakistan,” submitted to BAU Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science in
August 2018.
developing country, construction sector in Pakistan has recently been booming due to foreign, BIM adoption
especially Chinese, investors exploring the country for investment and joint ventures. Many and
mega residential, industrial and commercial construction projects have been built or planned in implementation
major cities. Thus, adapting to global trends in construction technology, including Building
Information Modeling (BIM), has become even more obligatory. Therefore, there is a need to
spot the current strengths, weaknesses and limitations of BIM adoption and implementation
from a local perspective. As a developing country, Pakistan shall be moving the barriers for the 113
spread of BIM technology. Recent research covered the entire AEC sector (Masood et al., 2014;
Sohu et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2018), yet this paper focuses specifically on architectural design and
practice field. In order to find out experiences and expectations about BIM technology in the
architecture sector, professionals are surveyed and four chief architects are interviewed.
How far have Pakistani architects adopted BIM? For which project types and scales is
BIM more serviceable for them? Which BIM applications are they implementing to overcome
the limitations in their professional practice? In Pakistan, where sustainability, in terms of
scheduling, cost estimation, performance analysis and facilities management, is an
indispensible measure for local practices, has implementation of BIM technology achieved
sustainability in architectural design process? What are the motivations of Pakistani architects
for becoming BIM users in future? Results are evaluated using SPSS statistical software. Upon
findings, a roadmap for future adoption and further implementation of BIM for Pakistan and
such developing countries is proposed.

2. Literature review
The initial wave of BIM development hit the AEC industry in the early 2000s, to overcome
low productivity and obstacles that were limiting innovations in the sector (Egan, 1998;
Teicholz, 2004). As a new innovation in AEC industry, BIM presented a collaborative model
that simulated physical characteristics of the building through different phases of the
project. It was a multi-dimensional and complicated information model in which building
elements preserved their symbolic and abstract meanings through qualitative and
quantitative data. The specific types of data were particularly linked with the information
model and were named as BIM dimensions such as 3D modeling, 4D time, 5D cost, 6D
performance and several other (n)D facilities (Figure 1).
Due to evolving technology, current BIM modeling can extend its function to more
numerous dimensions such as facilities management and maintenance, disaster management

1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D
SCRATCH POINT VECTOR SHAPE TIME COST PERFORMANCE

RESULTS
RESEARCH PRODUCTION REPRESENTATION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION - KNOWN ALTERNATIVES
- EXISTING CONDITIONS - 2D DRAWINGS - RENDERINGS - MODEL FEDERATION - QUANTITY EXTRACTIONS - ASSESTMENT
- REGULATIONS - DOCUMENTATION - WALKTHROUGHS - VIRTUAL CONSTRCTION - DETAILED - AUDITED BIM MODEL
- WEATHER SIMULATIONS - VIEWS AND PLANS - LASER SCANNING - SCHEDULING COST ESTIMATION (BPA PROJECT)
- SUN ORIENTATION - PROJECT PHASING - FABRICATION MODELS - TO BE OPTIMIZED
- FUNCTIONAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION - TIME LINING
- BIM OBJECT CREATION - BIM OBJECT CREATION - CONSTR PLANNING CONTRACTS VALUE
IMPLEMENTATION - PARAMETERIZATION - VISUAL PROGRAMMING - EQUIPMENT DELIVERIES - FEES COMPARISON ENGINEERING
- CONSULTING - FILE MANAGEMENT - CLASH DETECTION - VISUAL VALIDATION - TRADE SELECTION - SIMULATIONS
- BIM EXECUTION PLAN - COMMUNICATIONS - MODELCHECKER - LOGISTICS - ENERGY PERFORMANCE
- SERVER REPOSITORY
DS DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS - SYSTEMS PERFORMCE
- SOFTWARE FINAL DOCS - PREFABRICATION SUSTAINABILITY - CONSTR. PERFORMCE
- ROOM DATA SHEETS
- DETAILED DESIGN - STRUCTURAL CONSTR - LEED EVALUATION - ARCHITECTURAL PERF
CONCEPT DESIGN - LIST OF DELIVERABLES
- ASSEMBLIES - MEP CONSTR - LIFE CYCLE COST
- SCOPE DEFINITION
- STRATEGIES - MATERIALS - STRUCTURAL DESIGN - COMPARATIVE STUDY SAVE ESTIMATION
- AREA ESTIMATION - STRUCTURAL LOADS - MEP DESIGN SIMULATIONS - COMPARATIVE COST
- COST ESTIMATION - SPECIFICATIONS - LIFE CYCLE SIMULATION - CONSTR. BENEFITS
- ENERGY LOADS
- GENERAL VOLUMETRY - SUN SIMULATIONS - OWNER BENEFITS
- ACCESIBILITY SUSTAINABILITY - WIND SIMULATIONS
SUSTAINABILITY - TIMING RISK
- VIABILITY - LIFE CYCLE ESTIMATION - ENERGY SIMULATIONS
- INSOLATION VALUES - SELECTED ITEMS TO
- CONSTR, SOLUTIONS - LEED CHECK BE OPTIMIZED
- SUN PROTECTION
- PRIMARY MEP SYSTEMS
- ENERGY PRODUCTION - DAYLIGHT REQUIRMENTS RE-DESIGN
- LEED STRATEGIES - CERTIFIED BIM MODEL Figure 1.
Dimensions of BIM
Source: www.BIMCommunity.com
ARCH system, emergency response, building automation and remote control, infrastructure and real
14,1 estate management, levels of detail, lean construction and industrialized construction, etc.
With all these inclusive dimensions, BIM can lately be integrated to a broader scope of
building design, construction and operation activities.

2.1 Potential benefits of BIM in AEC industry

114 BIM is a robust design and management tool with implicit advantages over building design
management and life cycle (Yan and Demian, 2008). BIM helps to achieve project goals of a
team in efficient time with precise numbers (Haron et al., 2010). Positive economic benefits
and improvement in productivity of BIM could be achieved through experience in projects
(Bernstein and Pittman, 2005). According to Azhar (2011), BIM adoption will support AEC
industry in the following aspects:
• cost estimating: BIM software can perform quantity measures and automatically
adjust any changes throughout design and construction processes;
• fabrication drawings: with the help of BIM, developing fabrication drawings become
simple for different systems of buildings;
• construction sequencing: BIM helps to develop sequencing and coordinating
fabrications, materials order and delivery schedules; and
• conflict and collision detection: a BIM model can detect conflicts and clashes between
building and its elements.
As shown in Figure 2, comparison of BIM with traditional CAD in terms of time and cost
efficiency was demonstrated in previous research works (Kumar and Mukherjee, 2009;
Leicht et al., 2007; Smith and Tardif, 2009). Table I shows potential benefits of BIM adoption,
which have been classified according to short-term and long-term usage (Bernstein and
Pittman, 2005; Yan and Demian, 2008; McGraw-Hill Construction, 2012; Won et al., 2013;
Nanajkar, 2014; Erin, 2016). After gathering data on 32 major projects, benefits of BIM were
defined (Azhar, 2011): 40 percent decrease of work by early problem detection,
3 percent more accurate results as compared with traditional methods of estimation and
80 percent reduction of time consumption.
Previous research and practice have proven the viability and advantage of BIM over
CAD (Howell and Batcheler, 2005). Hence, moving from traditional ways of working to BIM
is mandatory (Arayici et al., 2009). Besides common limitations, each discipline in AEC

Impact Costs Costs of Changes

Traditional
Effort

BIM

Cost Benefit
Preparation

Concept
Design

Developed
Design

Approval

Construction

Event of Delay
Legal Action

Operation
Maintenance

Figure 2.
BIM workflows vs
traditional workflows
Source: Smith and Tardif (2009)
industry, practicing in different parts of the world, has been facing discrete challenges BIM adoption
besides common problems. Hence, it is essential to analyze each and offer alternative and
strategies for BIM implementation for distinct cases. implementation
2.2 Impacts of BIM on architectural design process
Among the general set of limitations of BIM implementation in AEC industry, the most
apparent challenges have been declared as the increase of cost and requirements in terms of 115
software and hardware, change in organizational culture and lack of BIM trained
professionals (Khemlani, 2006; Riese and Peake, 2007; Olofsson et al., 2008; Khanzode et al.,
2008; Manning and Messner, 2008). According to a report for Autodesk (Erin, 2016), firms
were unwilling to invest in BIM setup due to difficulty in calculating costs of investment and
return on investment (ROI). They sought more time to calculate ROI despite experiencing
benefits of BIM simultaneously.
However, it is essential to understand the change of organizational culture due to BIM
implementation since BIM is actually a process. So far, several cases have been recorded as
failures for implementing BIM on an organizational level (Davies and Harty, 2011). Yet, only
few number of research works and guides are available for the implementation of BIM on an
organizational level. Among them, one of the most prominent and recent sources is the
International BIM Implementation Guide (RICS Professional Guidance, 2014). It discusses
essential requirements in the transition period from traditional methods to BIM process by
keeping focus on all stakeholders. Other research works have pointed to contractual issues
between clients and subcontractors, different model sharing systems for BIM environment
in organizations and inter-organizational aspects and implications of BIM on professional
organizations and in architecture offices (Richards, 2010; Construction Industry Council,
2013; Sawhney, 2014; Bargstädt and Tarigan, 2015; Oberoi and Holzer, 2016).
CAD has allowed architects and designers to develop, design and document through
computers. However, BIM has changed the ways of generating, integrating and sharing
design data with all project stakeholders. Its impact has become an “epochal”
transformation of architects’ practice (Eastman et al., 2011). Design culture and design
practice are affected internally by BIM, which eventually effects the external traditional
CAD-based interactions with the rest of the members of the project. Following are the three
major shifts (Sawhney, 2014):
• Impact over design processes: BIM changes the realm of linear step by step process to
a more collaborative and integrated process.
• Changing of design culture: BIM is shifting the thinking process of designers from 2D
to 3D.
• BIM process is significantly shifting the scenario: in BIM process, designers are
required to focus on the generation of design options with available data, enriching
early-stage designs with more information rather than just drafting and documenting

Long-term benefits Short-term benefits

Fewer claims/litigations Reduce conflicts

Reduce construction cost Better understanding of design intent among team members
Increase profits Enhance project quality
Reduce project duration Decrease in number of RFIs
Marketing new business Better construction cost predictability Table I.
Sources: Nanajkar (2014), McGraw-Hill Construction (2012) Benefits of BIM
ARCH as in traditional ways. This is restructuring, indicative redistributing and shifting the
14,1 design effort, as explained in Figure 3.
With BIM technology, architects and designers are able access the digital model to conduct
more detailed analysis. This enriches the design process and leads to more complex design
solutions via analysis of sustainability and constructability in a much robust way than
traditional methods. Architects are able to deliver with BIM more than what they used to via
116 traditional CAD. This has led to identification of new roles and responsibilities for architects
and architecture offices. A new organizational structure as well as a fee structure for
architecture offices has come into consideration. To be a leading architecture firm on the
market, an organization needs to spend more on hardware and software. Training and
development of BIM professionals are also prerequisites for carrying out a BIM workflow in
the office (Throssell, 2012).
According to American Institute of Architects, BIM implementation is more rooted in
large architecture firms as compared to small- and medium-sized firms. According to a
survey report, 37 percent of firms with less than 9 employees use BIM, 60 percent of the
firms with 10‒49 employees and 80 percent of firms with more than 50 employees adopted
BIM (AIA, 2014). Their shift from traditional methods to BIM process required investment
in time and resources; however, they declared getting the BIM adoption pay off in just three
projects (Saxon, 2013). Implementation of BIM should be established by a productive
strategy among client and project participants. This strategy should be transparent and
followed by all team members. Besides these, in-house BIM object libraries were substantial
since they would save time and efforts to establish management and ICT protocol at the
beginning of each new project (Sebastian et al., 2009).

2.3 BIM adoption around the world and in Pakistan

Inspecting BIM adoption ratios from 2007 to 2015 has revealed that major private and
government sector organizations have transferred to BIM process because of its faster
delivery, reliable quality and cost-efficient benefits (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2014). BIM
method has become mandatory in the USA and the UK for empowering the AEC industry
and for meeting and exceeding owner targets (Lee et al., 2014). Since 2006, US General
BIM
Traditional

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Effort (%)

= Schematic = Analysis
Figure 3.
Indicative = Documentation
= Design development
redistribution of effort
in design process
Source: Sawhney (2014)
Services Administration approved BIM as a minimum requirement of drawing submission BIM adoption
by chief architect’s office for final drawing approval. This is the reason for the USA to and
become the most leading BIM market, with growth from 28 to71 percent between 2007 and implementation
2012. In recent studies about South America, the ratio of architects exceeded to 70 percent
and contracts exceeded to 74 percent.
Similarly, the UK and other regions showed high ratios of adoption (McGraw-Hill
Construction, 2014). In 2016 and onward, Government of UK mandated the use of BIM for 117
public sector projects; thus, the UK has become the leading country for BIM adoption in
Europe. BIM adoption has also increased rapidly in European countries such as Sweden,
Denmark, Norway, Finland, Austria, Brazil, France and Germany as well as in other
developed countries overseas including Japan, New Zealand, Australia, etc.
According to a previous survey, based on Hype Cycle model (tracing the evolution of
technological innovations) and BIM services index, North America apparently was ranked
as the most advanced continent ( Jung and Lee, 2015). Oceania and Europe were considered
as the secondary most advanced and both were strong especially in the design phase.
The Middle East and Africa were in the third row. In terms of the engagement levels, the
Middle East and Africa were quite similar with the first and second; however, their status of
BIM adoption was still considered to be in the “beginner phase.” Asia ranked fifth in terms
of engagement level and BIM services; however, its perceived status of BIM adoption was
similar to other advanced continents. South America ranked last due to the lack of BIM
services (Figure 4).
For generalizing sustainable design processes globally, it is important to inspect
developing cases and understand their motivations and barriers for BIM adoption and
implementation. A bench mark study was previously handled to investigate perceptions
regarding BIM advantages in Pakistan construction industry (Masood et al., 2014).
According to results, BIM was recognized as a faster and more effective method for design
and construction management. It was found to be improving quality of design, quality
of construction and reducing rework during construction, which came out as the top

Middle
North East and South
Overall America Europe Oceania Asia Africa America
Technology Trigger 11.4% 0.0% 11.1% 10.0% 9.5% 28.6% 50.0%
Peak of Inflated Expectations 2.6% 3.7% 6.7% 0.0% 6.3% 20.0% 0.0%
Trough of Disillusionment 20.0% 7.4% 22.2% 20.0% 28.6% 0.0% 33.3%
Slope of Enlightenment 38.6% 48.1% 33.3% 40.0% 42.9% 28.6% 16.7%
Plateau of Productivity 21.4% 40.7% 22.2% 30.0% 4.8% 35.7% 0.0%

Perceived status of BIM adoption in the Hype Cycle model

Middle
North East and South
Overall America Europe Oceania Asia Africa America
3D Coordination 85.0% 95.5% 92.9% 100.0% 70.3% 91.7% 60.0%
Cost Estimation 75.0% 95.5% 92.9% 66.7% 56.8% 58.3% 80.0%
Existing Conditions Modeling 74.3% 81.8% 60.7% 88.9% 67.6% 66.7% 80.0%
Design Authoring 63.4% 63.6% 71.4% 88.9% 73.0% 83.3% 0.0% Figure 4.
Structural Analysis 60.0% 90.9% 78.6% 88.9% 51.4% 50.0% 0.0% Difference between
Maintenance Scheduling 30.1% 54.5% 57.1% 33.3% 18.9% 16.7% 0.0% perceived status of
Building System Analysis 33.4% 72.7% 53.6% 11.1% 37.8% 25.0% 0.0% BIM adoption (a) and
use frequencies of
Use frequencies of BIM services used in each continent BIM services (b) in
each continent
Source: Jung and Lee (2015)
ARCH three advantages. BIM had the least impacts on reduction of cost, time and human
14,1 resources. The most significant finding was BIM adoption to be more popular among
architecture professionals relative to other disciplines of AEC. The BIM adoption rate in
Karachi was found to be higher than the rest of Pakistan. Firms like Ahmed Associates and
Khatri Associates were found to be shifting to BIM and utilizing its applications like “3D
coordination,” “lighting analysis,” “design review” and “4D Scheduling.” Advanced
118 technology adoption was observed particularly on projects funded by international bodies.
These projects were large in scale, and peer monitoring systems were set for various
stakeholders involved (Figure 5). Motivated by recent research on BIM technology in
Pakistan, this paper aims to monitor the current situation in 2019 and introduce a roadmap
for architects who are supposed to exploit BIM with its multi-dimensional benefits.

3. Case study: Pakistan

3.1 Sample selection
According to the Pakistan Council of Architects and Town Planners (PCATP), there are
132 architectural firms, 22 town planning firms and 5 architectural/town planning firms
registered all over Pakistan. Between January 2018 and April 2018, 300 surveys were mailed
online to architecture professionals working in these firms. Stating lack of time and work
intensity, 54 percent did not participate in the research. Together with other 6 percent who

Figure 5.
BIM-implemented L
and XL scale projects
in Pakistan
did not fulfill the questionnaire entirely, they were dismissed from the evaluation. BIM adoption
Eventually, 120 surveys were found valid for quantitative analysis with SPSS statistical and
software. The rate of BIM use was found to be quite low (30 percent). However, due to the implementation
nature of research, which was focused on a new technology, the possibility of interviewing
with a higher number of respondents was not possible. Therefore, quantitative analysis was
limited with 120 architects’ feedback. Later, among BIM user group, four chief architects
were interviewed with predefined questions for further deliberation of results. All the 119
respondents, with varying years of experience in the sector (1 from 1 to 3, 2 from 3 to 7 and 1
from 7 to 15 years of experience), were questioned about their opinions about BIM
technology. Figure 6 presents the flowchart of the research and Table II shows the summary
of respondents’ profile according to their professional experience and educational skills.

3.2 Methodology
In the initial stage of analysis, normality tests were conducted for each variable. According
to the results of Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests, the variables were not found
to be normally distributed since significance values were less than 0.05. Therefore,
non-parametric tests were preferred for further analysis.
This research was designed to determine whether group differences of BIM users and
non-BIM users were statistically significant and whether meaningful relationships were
available between their variables. In analysis of group differences, Mann–Whitney U test
was applied for two groups, and for three and more groups, Kruskal–Wallis test was
applied. As the variable structure for relationship analysis was categorical, for the two
nominal categorical variables, the χ2 relationship analysis was applied.

3.3 Results and analysis

The investigation of BIM implementation levels revealed that among overall professionals,
more than half (60 percent) have never implemented BIM in their projects. Between rest
40 percent BIM users, 5 percent always, 20 percent usually, 10 percent sometimes and

Common Survey
Awareness Toward
BIM Technology

BIM User Non-BIM

30% user 70%

Research on
BIM Implementation
• Case studies worldwide
Survey for Survey for
• Case studies from Pakistan
BIM Users Non-BIM users
• National BIM Guides
• RICS International BIM
Interview with Implementation Guide
4 BIM User
chief architects

Outcomes of Outcomes of
BIM Traditional
Implementation Techniques

Figure 6.
Proposal for BIM Implementation Flowchart of
in Pakistan the research
ARCH Respondents info Categories Frequency Percentage
14,1
Company headquarter Islamabad 32 26.66
Punjab 48 40.00
KPK 28 23.33
Sindh 12 10.00
Professional experience in terms of years 1–3 28 23.33
120 3–7 20 16.67
7–15 16 13.33
15–30 44 36.67
30+ 12 10.00
Residential 28 93.33
Commercial 25 83.33
Public works 11 36.67
Green and sustainable design 9 30.00
Other 8 26.67
Professional experience in terms of firm size 1–5 24 20.00
5–10 32 26.67
10–20 16 13.33
20–50 28 23.33
50 + 20 16.67
Educational skills Diploma 4 3.33
Bachelor’s 52 43.33
Master’s 64 53.33
Table II. PhD 0 0.00
Profile of respondent Abroad degree 40 33.33
Pakistani architects Local (Pakistan) degree 80 66.66

5 percent rarely implemented BIM. χ2 test revealed that there was no statistically significant
correlation between the duration of professional experience and BIM implementation (Table III).
According to survey results, BIM user respondents are satisfied with shifting from
traditional CAD to BIM process. With BIM, they achieve much more than they expect, even
though they face several limitations, as given below:
• While enhancing the scope of BIM, it is hard for them to find other organizations and
professionals who can deliver more aspects of BIM such as sustainability tests,
structure tests, etc.
• Current fee structure for architects in Pakistan is not practically suitable for BIM
process.
• Clients mostly do not support the use of BIM for their projects due to lack of awareness
and presence of hesitation for investing in a new and uncommon technology on
the market.
• Other stakeholders are not willing to participate in BIM process with architects, even
if traditional methods are not efficient.

Value df Asymp. sig. (2-sided)

Table III. Pearson χ2

4.212 4 0.378
χ2 tests (duration of Likelihood ratio 4.710 4 0.318
professional practice – Linear-by-linear association 0.021 1 0.883
BIM implementation) Note: Since p W0.05, relevant relation is not provided
 • Architects do not own engineering skills; hence, they are dependent on other BIM adoption
engineering firms. They need to consider other stakeholders who force them to use and
the common software on the market. implementation
• If architecture offices transfer to BIM process, they would not be able to do government
projects with BIM until and unless BIM becomes mandatory in public sector.
We have fewer professionals here in Pakistan and our fee structure does not support BIM process. 121
There might be people who are using Revit and other BIM application for their own use since the
issues are mostly related with client’s interest. If a client supports that and he wants that his
building to be modeled in 3D information system, then it is possible. We, as an architectural firm,
can hire a BIM professional. We give our clients the option but still they don’t support the idea of
BIM. (Respondent 3 with 3–7 years professional experience)
3.3.1 BIM in architectural professional practice: sustainability in architectural design phase.
While surveying notion of sustainability in architectural practice, all respondents agreed
that it was a major criteria in their professional practice. Regardless of their tools, they
mostly implemented pre-construction management. In χ2 test, a significant relation was
found that BIM users owned higher awareness of sustainability (Table IV ). For efficient
management of project costs, energy, resources, etc., pre-construction planning (90 percent)
has stood out. The following were among the most popular BIM methods for
pre-construction planning (Figure 7):
• Design Phase Planning (DPCP-2D) by 90 percent.
• Use of Past Project Data (UPPDIP) by 25 percent.
• Building Information Modeling (BIM) by 30 percent.
• Establishing a Project Control System Unit (EPCSU) by 10 percent.
When BIM user architects were interviewed about their knowledge of BIM in Table VI, they
were found to be aware of its 4D, 5D and 6D facilities. BIM was not simply a tool for
visualization, but it was also essential for costing, scheduling, clash detection and
coordinating data due to its parametric and collaborative nature (Table V ).

Value df Asymp. sig. (2-sided)

Pearson χ2
1.618 2 0.005 Table IV.
Likelihood ratio 1.953 2 0.007 χ2 test (sustainability
Linear-by-linear association 0.328 1 0.007 in design phase – BIM
Note: Since p o0.05, relevant relation is provided implementation)

100% 90%

80% DPCP-2D

BIM
60%
EPCSU
40% Figure 7.
25% UPPDIP BIM as a
30%
pre-construction
20% 10% None method among
3.33% Pakistani architects
0%
ARCH Respondent 1 (with 1–3 years’ BIM is the digital representation of buildings regarding 3D modeling
14,1 professional experience) that gives a sense of the look and feel of that space. It is beneficial as it
gives full information of what a building will look like once it is
constructed and hence helps an architect to make design decisions
Respondent 2 (with 3–7 years’ For us, as a firm BIM is the most reliable tool for the accuracy of the
professional experience) project through parametric relations within the model, shadow studies,
take offs, using for revisions and altering information in 2D and 3D
122 Respondent 3 (with 3–7 years’ Integrated and coordinated set of data that keeps track of designer’s
professional experience) decisions and assists team members to understand with minimum time
Table V. lags. We are working on streamlining of construction cost estimates
Definition of BIM with BIM models. That will be the next massive advantage for us
according to four Respondent 4 (with 7–15 years’ BIM is an integrated digital model which delivers clash free designs,
BIM-user Pakistani professional experience) accurate schedules and precise cost estimation. These are all basic
architects needs for every AEC investor

3.3.2 BIM in architectural professional practice: project scales and types. In questionnaires,
scales of projects were classified into order of size, with a similar logic to S, M, L, XL book,
which includes Office for Metropolitan Architecture’s works (OMA et al., 1995). Table VI
shows the size range for architectural projects in Pakistan (Table VI). Collected data were
non-parametric; hence, Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to check the implementability
of BIM for different project scales. The significance value of L and XL scales was found
to be less than 0.05 (Table VII). When mean rank values were considered for the source of
the difference, it was determined that BIM use in L and XL projects had higher values
(Table VIII).
Between project types including residential, commercial, public works (government)
projects and BIM Implementation, no statistically significant correlation was derived
(Table IX). Each category indeed included S, M, L and XL scale projects. Residential projects
involved housing in different scales such as single houses, apartment buildings, multi-storey
high rise buildings and mass housing. Commercial building projects included any structure
featuring commercial use such as malls, shopping centers and department stores,
restaurants, cafes, private theme parks, offices and plazas, factories and storage facilities.
Public works included local, state or federal infrastructure projects financed by the
government including public education facilities, health care institutions, governmental

Scale From To
Table VI. 2 2
Project scale Small scale 0 ft /0 mt 3,500 ft2/300 mt2
classification Medium scale 3,500 ft2/300 mt2 28,500 ft2/2,500 mt2
according to Pakistani Large scale 28,500 ft2/2,500 mt2 86,000 ft2/80,000 mt2
architects Extra-large scale 86,000 ft2/80,000 mt2 3,484,000+ ft2/300,000+ mt2

Kolmogorov–Smirnov Shapiro–Wilk
Statistic df Sig. ( p) Statistic df Sig.( p)
Table VII.
S 0.473 120 0.000 0.526 120 0.000
Test for normality –
Kolmogorov–Smirnov M 0.457 120 0.000 0.554 120 0.000
and Shapiro–Wilk L 0.372 120 0.000 0.632 120 0.000
tests (project scale – XL 0.389 120 0.000 0.624 120 0.000
BIM implementation) Note: Since p o0.05, normal ranking is not provided
Group n Mean rank Mann–Whitney U p
BIM adoption
and
S implementation
Non-BIM user 72 14.67 93.000 0.437
BIM user 48 16.75
Total 120
M 123
Non-BIM user 72 14.00 81.000 0.178
BIM user 48 17.75
Total 120
L
Non-BIM user 72 12.50 54.000 0.004*
BIM user 48 20.00
Total 120
XL Table VIII.
Non-BIM user 72 13.50 72.000 0.028* Mann–Whitney
BIM user 48 18.50 U test results (project
Total 120 scale – BIM
Note: *Significant at 0.05 level implementation)

Value df Asymp. sig. (2-sided)

Pearson χ2 1.910 2 0.385 Table IX.

Likelihood ratio 1.969 2 0.374 χ2 tests (project
Linear-by-linear association 1.686 1 0.194 type – BIM
Note: Since p W0.05, relevant relation is not provided implementation)

structures, urban and rural infrastructures, public housing, parks and recreational facilities.
Change of project types was found without effect on BIM use.
3.3.3 BIM in architectural professional practice: applications and limitations.
For exploring the effects of BIM implementation on professional practice, limitations faced by
BIM user architects and non-BIM user architects were compared with Mann–Whitney U test.
A significant difference was found between both groups’ non-parametric data (Table X).
For non-BIM users, main limitations in professional practice were discovered to be
complexities in construction process (25 percent), time management (25 percent), labor
management (25 percent), poor communication (16.7 percent) and design alteration
(8.3 percent). On the contrary, among BIM user architects, time and labor management
decreased to (11.1 percent), while complexities in construction process were lowered to
(16.7 percent). Poor communication and design alteration (8.4 percent) problems were totally
replaced by unfamiliar technology (61.1 percent) of BIM services (Table XI).

Group n Mean rank Mann–Whitney U p

Limitations
Non-user 728 15.22 103.000 0.004*
User 48 19.58 Table X.
Total 120 Mann–Whitney
Note: *Significant at 0.05 level U test results
ARCH Frequency %
14,1
Non-BIM user
Complexities in construction process 12 25
Design alteration 4 8.4
Poor communication 8 16.7
Time management 12 25
124 Labor management 12 25
Total 48
BIM user
Table XI. Complexities in construction process 12 16.7
Main limitations Unfamiliar technology 44 61.1
Pakistani architects Time management 8 11.1
face in professional Labor management 8 11.1
practice Total 72 100.0

The priority of BIM applications in current practice and in future scenarios is shown in
Figure 8. Hence, in Pakistan, BIM is currently used for the following purposes:
• first, for Cost Estimation and Design Visualization;
• second, for Scheduling and Sequencing, Design Assistance and Construction Review,
Site Planning and Site Utilization;
• third, for System Coordination;
• fourth, for Layout and Fieldwork, Prefabrications and Integration of Subcontractor
and Suppliers’ Models; and
• finally, for Operation and Maintenance.
Radar graph (Figure 9) reveals the tendency of increase in specific BIM services and
architects’ desire to adopt BIM as a part of modern information-based design era. Hence, the

BIM USER NON-BIM USER

94.44%
91.67%
91.67%
88.89%

88.89%
83.33%

83.33%
66.67%

66.67%

66.67%

61.11%
61.11%
58.33%

55.56%

55.56%
50.00%
16.67%

16.67%
16.67%

8.33%

APPLICATIONS ABBREVIATION
Prefabrications PREFEB-6D
Layout and Field Work LF-5D
Integration of Subcontractor and Suppliers’ Models ISSM-6D
Operation and Maintenance OM-6D
Figure 8. Site Planning and Site Utilization SPSU-3D
Current use of BIM Scheduling and Sequencing SS-4D
applications and
Design Assistance and Construction Review DACR-3D
tendency of future use
Cost Estimation CE-5D
in Pakistan’s
architecture sector System Coordination SC-6D
Design Visualization DV-3D
 DV-3D BIM adoption
100.00%
OM-6D DACR-3D
and
80.00%
implementation
60.00%
40.00%
PREFAB-3D SPSU-3D
20.00%
BIM USER 125
0.00%
NON-BIM USER
LF-5D SS-4D
Figure 9.
Increasing tendency
in BIM applications
SC-6D CE-5D
in Pakistan’s
architecture sector
ISSM-6D

biggest gap between current and future BIM applications exists mostly in 5D applications
for Layout and Fieldwork application, 6D applications for Operation and Maintenance,
Integration of Subcontractor and Suppliers’ Models and 3D application for Prefabrication
process. Hence, in line with these expectations, strategies for further implementation of BIM
and its promising modules for architectural practice have to be developed.
3.3.4 Future of BIM in architectural professional practice in Pakistan. Globally, BIM
culture is expected to bring a positive impact not only in architecture but on the whole AEC
industry. Figure 10 displays consideration of Pakistani architects on future BIM
implementation till 2020. Non-BIM users strongly agree to implement BIM and deliver the
second and third Level of Development (LOD) till 2020. They strongly disagree to the
statement “not yet ready to implement BIM,” whereas BIM users remarked that they were
left behind developed countries in terms of architectural professional practice and education.
BIM could easily solve professional issues and limitations via its applications enabling
better quality, less time and precise costs in design process.
However, a comment by one of the architects, who was also a firm owner, was “My use of
BIM is unfortunately limited because of my clients and contractors in the market. I mostly
use it for scheduling and estimation and visualizations. Payments of projects do not support
BIM. The issue is, can architects hire BIM professionals?” When “limitations for
implementation of BIM” were questioned, major limitations were found to be “lack of trained
BIM professionals” (94 percent) and “education and training issues” (83 percent). They were
followed by “lack of demand in the market” (44 percent), “cost of set-up” (39 percent) and
“other companies not employing BIM” (33 percent) (Figure 11). All limitations were indeed
found to be interlinked with each other. If education system focused on intensive BIM

Move BIM into other sectors (e.g. Facilities Management)

Advancing to Level 2 modeling by 2020

Advancing to Level 3 modeling by 2020

Not ready to implement BIM Figure 10.

Future tendency of
Implementing BIM until 2020
BIM implementation
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% in Pakistan’s
architecture sector
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
ARCH 100.00% 94.44%
83.33%
14,1 80.00%

60.00%
44.44%
38.89%
40.00% 33.33%

20.00%
126
0.00%
Cost of Set-Up
Figure 11. Lack of Trained BIM Professionals
Limitations for BIM
Implementation in Education and Training issues
Pakistan’s architecture Other companies not using BIM
sector
Lack of demand for BIM

training, awareness toward BIM would increase and more BIM users would appear in the
market, overcoming “lack of demand” and “other companies not using BIM.” “Cost of setup”
would be a secondary issue if BIM became mandatory for professional practice. The
relationships between limitations indeed highlighted the consideration of “BIM in the
education systems” as the most important factor.

4. Conclusion and future suggestions

BIM offers great advantages for sustainable design and construction; hence, the number of
BIM implementing countries is increasing every year ( Jung and Lee, 2015). In the case of
Pakistan, according to the results of surveys and interviews with professional architects, the
demand for shifting from traditional methods to BIM process was clear (Figure 10).
All Pakistani architects, independent of their tools, emphasized the importance of
pre-construction planning for sustainable design process. Traditional methods were causing
communication and coordination gaps between project stakeholders. The main limitations
set by current tools caused complexities in construction process, time management, labor
management, poor communication and design alteration, which could be mostly be
overcome by BIM implementation (Table XI). In current status, BIM-implemented projects
in Pakistan were found to be of XL and L scales (Table VIII), regardless of project types
(Table IX). Therefore, the implementation of BIM for XL and L scale projects was having
priority. However, BIM was also found promising for M and S project scales due to its 6D
facilities, including sustainability analysis, structural tests and facility management, which
would meet the advancing technical specifications in new projects. For further adoption and
implementation of BIM, the main issue was found to be lack of professional BIM users
(94 percent), followed by education and training issues (83 percent) (Figure 11). With more
trained and skilled professionals in the sector, lacking 4D, 5D, 6D and even 3D facilities of
BIM (Figures 8 and 9) could be employed to a greater extent and in all scales; hence,
sustainability in design process could be ensured by Pakistani architects.

4.1 A roadmap for BIM implementation in Pakistan: education and training

The limitations for BIM adoption and implementation in developing countries such as
Pakistan point out to two critical issues: need for BIM professionals and BIM education and
training. According to survey results, in academic syllabus of Pakistan universities, BIM
education was limited and more common for civil engineering departments rather than
architecture. According to Autodesk website, in 2018, there was only one certified institute
for Revit training in Lahore. These justified the low levels of BIM awareness and
implementation levels discovered in the research. Most architects with knowledge of BIM BIM adoption
were those who had studied abroad. However, they could not implement it in professional and
practice since other AEC professionals lacked BIM skills. Other architects, who had implementation
acquired their degrees from Pakistan, did not own a clear idea about BIM and its potential
benefits. The lack of knowledge revealed the need for more intensive BIM training in the
curriculum via lectures, seminars and workshops with BIM professionals in order to
develop interest for BIM adoption and implementation (Plate 1). 127
A roadmap of 10 years’ timeline was concluded for education and training institutions in
Figure 12. The strategy for BIM implementation in education was divided into two parts on
the basis of linear timelines: “First Level of Strategy (2019–2024)” and “Second Level of
Strategy (2024–2029).” They both cover five years of estimated time for undergraduate
programs of architectural design departments.
4.1.1 First level. The first level of BIM implementation strategy will be aimed to achieve
Level of Detail 2 (LOD-2) in the first five years (2019–2024). This part will be implemented
for pilot projects with BIM in professional practice, considering five prior applications: Cost
Estimation (CE-5D), Design Visualization (DV-3D), Scheduling and Sequencing (SS-4D),
Design Assistance and Construction Review (DACR-3D), Site Planning and Site Utilization
(SPSU-3D), at two recommended scales (L and XL) with two most common software. This
will work as a foundation for the second level.
4.1.2 Second level. After achieving LOD-2, market dimensions will expand and there will
be demand for LOD-3. In this second level of BIM implementation strategy, remaining
applications (System Coordination SC-6D, Layout, and Fieldwork LF-5D, Prefabrications
PREFAB-3D, Integration of “Subcontractors and Suppliers” Models ISSM-6D, Operation
and Maintenance OM-6D) will be considered in S and M scales through less common
software. Software trends may be altered in the second level of strategy depending on the
requirements from the market and development of BIM software.

4.2 A roadmap for BIM implementation in Pakistan: supporting organizations and

institutions
To widen BIM implementation in developing countries such as Pakistan, BIM supporting
organizations and institutions should be established at the government and private level.
They shall be covering all the AEC industry since BIM workflows are interdisciplinary.

Plate 1.
BIM training at
universities in
Pakistan (NEDUET
Department of
Architecture and
Planning website)
ARCH STRATEGY APPLICATIONS SCALES SOFTWARE LEVEL OF
DEVELOPMENT LOD
14,1 STAGES 1ST PHASE 2ND PHASE 3RD PHASE

Cośt Eśtimation
93.06%
CE-5D
Extra
Design Visualization 90.28% Large
DV-3D (XL)
Autodesk
128 1st LEVEL OF
STRATEGY
Scheduling and Sequencing
SS-4D
77.78% REVIT
2019 – 2024
Design Assiŝtance and Conŝtruction
Review 75.00%
Large (L)
DACR-3D Digital LOD
Project Level 2
Site Planning and Site Utilization 70.83%
SPSU-3D

Syŝtem Coordination
58.34%
SC-6D
Vector works LOD
Layout and Fieldwork Architects Level 3
38.89% Medium (M)
LF-5D

2nd LEVEL OF Prefabrications 38.89%

STRATEGY PREFAB-3D Navis Work
Figure 12. 2024 – 2019
10-year BIM Integration of Subcontractor and
36.12%
implementation Suppliers Models
Small (S)
ISSM-6D
roadmap for education
and training Operation and Maintenance
institutions OM-6D
31.95%

These institutions should be developing policies, roadmaps, strategies and guidelines for
Pakistan case, as indicated in Table XII and Figure 13.
Detailed roles of supporting organizations and institutions are given below:
• They will be required to set targets for achieving LOD. Currently, there are no
obligations for the content and reliability of BIM elements for different project stages.
• They will help to create roadmaps and strategies for all stakeholders of AEC
industries, which are directly or indirectly connected with BIM process.
• These organizations will develop guidelines and standards for BIM implementation
in Pakistan in co-operation with international organizations.
• Regulatory bodies, which would guide the implementation of BIM in AEC sector,
could be developed. These regulatory bodies could provide sample contracts for BIM
implementation between all stakeholders, in order to make BIM process safe and
reliable. Such legal measures are important; hence, they would provide trust toward
BIM process.
• Within current constraints of environment (global warming), energy crisis and
economic depression in developing countries such as Pakistan, a higher emphasis
should be laid upon achieving sustainable design process through BIM.
• Each project should be checked according to sustainability measures, which could only be
achieved through BIM applications as it is already under practice in developed countries.
• Organizations should focus on spreading BIM culture through education systems,
seminars, workshops, etc. Such institutions should become a body of knowledge for all
firms that desire to implement BIM in their projects of varying different sizes and budgets.
 BIM implementation Role of BIM in private sector
Target BIM Initiator Research and
Organization/ and implementation BIM standards and and BIM development
NGO promises projects guidelines drivers regulatory Education Funding Demonstrator (R&D)

PIBIM Level 2
Database and road PIBIM guideline for BIM BIM road Pakistan BIM BIM training PIBIM Pilot projects in PIBIM R&D
maps for all AEC implementation in AEC map 2019– protocols for workshops and funding XL, L scales department
sectors projects 2024 LOD-2 courses
PIBIM Level 3 Database and road PIBIM guideline for BIM BIM road Pakistan BIM BIM awareness PIBIM Pilot projects in PIBIM R&D
maps for all AEC implementation in map 2024– protocols for symposiums for funding XL, L, M and S department
sectors organizations 2029 LOD-3 sustainability scales
Note: PIBIM, Pakistan Institute of Building Information Modeling
129

implementation
Organizations for
Table XII.

in Pakistan
future BIM
implementation
and
BIM adoption
ARCH
14,1 Policies
making

Guidelines and Cooperation Private-and Impact Impact

130 regulations
for BIM
with
international
government-
based
of BIM on
XL and L
of BIM on
XL, L, M, S
implementation organizations organizations scale projects scale projects

Awareness
toward
sustainability
via BIM

Figure 13.
A roadmap for Solutions for
environmental
supporting and energy
organizations and crises
institutions

• Extensive research on several pilot projects, covering different project scales, is

required. The data collected by surveys within this research could be broadened with
objective facts and figures from the market.
• Roadmaps and strategies for BIM adoption and implementation would be a success
as long as BIM becomes a mandatory process imposed by government authorities.

References
AIA (2014), “The business of architecture”, American Institute of Architects, New York, NY.
Ali, B., Zahoor, H., Mazher, K.M. and Maqsoom, A. (2018), “BIM implementation in public sector of
Pakistan construction industry”, ICCREM 2018, International Conference on Construction and
Real Estate Management 2018, Charleston, August 9-10.
Arayici, Y., Khosrowshahi, F., Marshal Ponting, A. and Mihindu, S. (2009), “Towards implementation
of building information modelling in the construction industry”, Fifth International Conference
on Construction in the 21st Century (CITC-V ) “Collaboration and Integration in Engineering,
Management and Technology”, Istanbul, May 20–22.
Azhar, S. (2011), “Building information modeling (BIM): trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the
AEC industry”, Leadership and Management in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 241-252.
Bargstädt, H.J. and Tarigan, R.S. (2015), “Rule based expansion of standard construction processes”,
Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on the Applications of Computer Science and
Mathematics in Architecture and Civil Engineering, Weimar, July 20-22, pp. 194-199.
Bernstein, P.G. and Pittman, J.H. (2005), “Barriers to the adoption of building information modeling in
the building industry”, Autodesk Building Solutions Whitepaper, Autodesk Inc., CA.
Construction Industry Council (2013), “Building information model (BIM) protocol”, Construction
Industry Council, London.
Davies, R. and Harty, C. (2011), “Building information modelling as innovation journey: BIM
experiences on a major UK healthcare infrastructure project”, 6th Nordic Conference on
Construction Economics and Organisation – Shaping the Construction/Society Nexus, Vol. 2,
Copenhagen, April 13-15, pp. 233-245.
Eastman, C.M., Eastman, C., Teicholz, P. and Sacks, R. (2011), BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building BIM adoption
Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors, John Wiley and
& Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
implementation
Egan, J. (1998), “Rethinking construction”, The Egan Report, HMSO, London, available at: http://
constructingexcellence.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/rethinking_construction_report.pdf/
(accessed May 12, 2018).
Erin, R.H. (2016), “Achieving strategic ROI in your firm, Autodesk”, available at: https://damassets. 131
autodesk.net/content/dam/autodesk/www/solutions/pdf/Is-it-Time-for-BIM-Achieving-Strategic-
ROI-in-Your-Firm%20_ebook_BIM_final_200.pdf (accessed March 5, 2017).
Haron, A.T., Marshall-Ponting, A.J. and Aouad, G.F. (2010), “Building information modelling: literature
review on model to determine the level of uptake by the organisation”, Proceedings of the CIB
World Building Congress 2010, Salford Quays, Salford, May 10-13.
Howell, I. and Batcheler, B. (2005), “Building information modeling two years later – huge potential,
some success and several limitations”, Newforma BIM white paper, The Laiserin Letter,
available at: www.laiserin.com/features/bim/newforma_bim.pdf (accessed February 2017).
Jung, W. and Lee, G. (2015), “The status of BIM adoption on six continents”, International Journal of Civil,
Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 444-448.
Khanzode, A., Fischer, M. and Reed, D. (2008), “Virtual design and construction (VDC) technologies for
coordination of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems on a large healthcare
project”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Special Issue: Case Studies of BIM
Use, Vol. 13, pp. 324-342.
Khemlani, L. (2006), “The AGC’s BIM initiatives and the contractor’s guide to BIM”, AECbytes,
October 11, available at: www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2006/AGC_BIM.html
Kumar, J.V. and Mukherjee, M. (2009), “The scope of building information modeling (BIM) in India”,
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 165-169.
Lee, S.K., Kim, K.R. and Yu, J.H. (2014), “BIM and ontology-based approach for building cost
estimation”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 41 pp. 96-105.
Leicht, R., Fox, S., Mäkelainen, T. and Messner, J. (2007), “Building information models, display media
and team performance: an exploratory study”, VTT working paper, Technical Research Centre of
Finland, available at: www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/workingpapers/2007/W88.pdf (accessed February 2017).
McGraw-Hill Construction (2012), “The business value of BIM for infrastructure: addressing
America's infrastructure challenges with collaboration and technology”, Smart Marker Report,
McGraw-Hill Construction, Bedford, MA.
McGraw-Hill Construction (2014), “The business value of BIM for construction in major global markets:
how contractors around the world are driving innovation with building information modelling”,
McGraw-Hill Construction, Bedford, MA.
Manning, R. and Messner, J.I. (2008), “Case studies in BIM implementation for programming of healthcare
facilities”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 13 No. 18, pp. 246-257.
Masood, R., Kharal, M.K.N. and Nasir, A.R. (2014), “Is BIM adoption advantageous for construction
industry of Pakistan”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 77, pp. 229-238.
Nanajkar, A. (2014), “Implementing building information modeling (BIM) at AEC firms in India”, Msc
thesis, Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science,
available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e978/e17251b5518c6a5db652da13bd3f0c9446b9.pdf?
_ga=2.85253273.1856932391.1566909404-1007878957.1565696546 (accessed July 2017).
Oberoi, S. and Holzer, D. (2016), “Mechanical contractors: the key for supply chain integration in
lifecycle BIM”, International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 219-237.
Olofsson, T., Lee, G. and Eastman, C. (2008), “Case studies of BIM in use”, Electronic Journal of
Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 13, pp. 244-245.
OMA, Koolhaas, R. and Mau, B. (1995), S,M,L,XL, The Monacelli Press, NY.
ARCH Richards, M. (2010), “Building information management: a standard framework and guide to BS 1192
14,1 BSI Standards”, London.
RICS Professional Guidance (2014), Global International BIM Implementation Guide, 1st ed., London,
available at: https://media.thebimhub.com/user_uploads/international_bim_implementation_
guide_1st_edition_pgguidance_2014_optimized.pdf (accessed January 2017).
Riese, M. and Peake, D. (2007), “3D BIM – virtual design and construction – Gehry technologies
experience”, SimTecT 2007 Simulation Conference, Brisbane, June 4-7.
132
Sawhney, A. (2014), International BIM Implementation Guide, RICS Books (Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors), London.
Saxon, R.G. (2013), “Growth through BIM”, Construction Industry Council, London.
Sebastian, R., Haak, W. and Vos, E. (2009), “BIM application for integrated design and engineering in
small-scale housing development: a pilot project in the Netherlands”, Proceedings of International
Symposium CIB-W096: Future Trends in Architectural Management, Tainan, November 2-3.
Smith, D.K. and Tardif, M. (2009), Building Information Modeling: A Strategic Implementation Guide for
Architects, Engineers, Constructors, and Real Estate Asset Managers, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Sohu, S., Larkano Mari, H.B., Abdullah, A.H., Nagapan, S. and Keerio, M.A. (2017), “A theoretical review
of the critical factors of cost overrun in Pakistan construction projects”, Proceedings of The First
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Applications, Mehran
University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, February 20–22, pp. 441-446.
Teicholz, E. (2004), “Bridging the AEC technology gap”, IFMA Facility Management Journal,
Vol. 587, pp. 588-595, available at: www.graphicsystems.biz/gsi/articles/Bridging%20the%
20AEC_FM%20Gap_r2.pdf (accessed January 2017).
Throssell, D. (2012), “Investing in BIM: a guide for architects”, Building Design White Papers, No. 1,
pp. 90-92, available at: https://docplayer.net/45857364-Investing-in-bim-a-guide-for-architects.
html (accessed January 2017).
Won, J., Lee, G., Dossick, C. and Messner, J. (2013), “Where to focus for successful adoption of building
information modeling within the organization”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 139 No. 11, pp. 04013014-1-04013014-10.
Yan, H. and Demian, P. (2008), “Benefits and barriers of building information modelling”, in Ren, A.,
Ma, Z. and Lu, X. (Eds), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computing in Civil
and Building Engineering (ICCCBE XII) & 2008 International Conference on Information
Technology in Construction (INCITE 2008), Beijing, pp. 1-6.

Further reading
Autodesk, “Authorized Training Centers”, available at: www.autodesk.com/training-and-certification/
authorized-training-centers (accessed March 2018).
Dimensions of BIM (2018), “Dimensions of BIM”, available at: www.bimcommunity.com/news/load/
490/why-don-t-we-start-at-the-beginning (accessed September 2018).
National BIM Services, “BIM dimensions – 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D BIM explained”, available at: www.thenbs.
com/knowledge/bim-dimensions-3d-4d-5d-6d-bim-explained (accessed April 2018).
SurveyMonkey. available at: www.surveymonkey.com (accessed March 2018).
The Pakistan Council of Architects and Town Planners (PCATP), “List of architectural firms registered
with PCATP”, available at: www.pcatp.org.pk/images/images/pdf/architects%20registration%
20form.pdf/Firm%20List%20For%20Web%2025-7-2019.pdf (accessed September 2018).

Corresponding author
Suzan Girginkaya Akdag can be contacted at: suzan.girginkayaakdag@arc.bau.edu.tr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com