See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356718604

Building information modelling (BIM) and the return on investment: a

systematic analysis

Article  in  Construction Innovation · December 2021

DOI: 10.1108/CI-06-2021-0119

CITATIONS READS

4 563

3 authors:

Apeesada Sompolgrunk Saeed Banihashemi

University of Canberra University of Canberra
2 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   1,088 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Saeed Reza Mohandes

The University of Manchester
53 PUBLICATIONS   544 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue "Application of Emerging Artificial Intelligence-Based Technologies and Techniques to Improve the Occupational Health and Safety Management of
Industries: From Singular to Ensemble Approaches" View project

Special Issue "Integration of Building Information Modelling (BIM) into Facility Management: towards Sustainability" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Apeesada Sompolgrunk on 02 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1471-4175.htm

Building
Building information modelling information
(BIM) and the return on modelling

investment: a systematic analysis

Apeesada Sompolgrunk and Saeed Banihashemi
School of Design and Built Environment, University of Canberra,
Canberra, Australia, and Received 3 July 2021
Revised 17 August 2021
10 October 2021
Saeed Reza Mohandes Accepted 4 November 2021
Department of Building and Real Estate,
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to identify and analyse the key measurable returning factors, value
drivers and strategic benefits associated with building information modelling (BIM) return on investment
(ROI). The findings of this study provide researchers and practitioners with up-to-date information in
formulating appropriate strategies to quantify the monetary value of BIM. The suggested research agenda
provided would also advance what is presently a limited body of knowledge relating to the evaluation of BIM
ROI.
Design/methodology/approach – To fill the identified gap, this study develops a comprehensive
systematic review of mainstream studies on factors affecting BIM ROI published from 2000 to 2020. A total of
23 academic records from different sources such as journals, conference proceedings, dissertation and PhD
theses were identified and thoroughly reviewed.
Findings – The reported BIM ROI ranged greatly from
83.3% to 39,900%. A total of 5 returning factors,
namely, schedule reduction and compliance, productivity improvement, request for information reduction, rework
reduction and change orders reduction were identified as the most commonly reported factors that influence BIM
ROI. Four quantification techniques including general assumptions-based theoretical model, perceived BIM ROI
based on survey, factors affecting BIM ROI with no reported ROI and quantified BIM ROI based on a case study
were observed and pointed out in the review, together with their limitations. Finally, three major gaps were raised
as the lack of consideration on the likelihood of BIM assisting in a construction project, intangible returning factors
influencing BIM-based projects and industry standards in benchmarking BIM ROI.
Practical implications – The outcomes of this study would assist practitioners by providing the current
evaluation techniques that address the limitations with BIM investment and present issues relating to the
economic evaluation of BIM in the construction industry. It is also expected that presenting a deeper and
wider perspective of the research work performed until now will direct a more focussed approach on
productivity improvement efforts in the construction industry.
Originality/value – This study identifies and analyses the key measurable returning factors, value drivers and
strategic benefits associated with BIM ROI on an industry scale rather than a particular organisation or a project
scale.
Keywords ROI, BIM, construction industry, building information modelling, return on investment,
architecture, engineering and construction companies
Paper type Literature review

Introduction Construction Innovation

Construction industry is one of the largest sectors in many countries around the world, © Emerald Publishing Limited
1471-4175
where small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) continue to dominate the construction DOI 10.1108/CI-06-2021-0119
CI market (Banihashemi et al., 2019; Love et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2008; Aris, 2007). Like most
other industries, these businesses are being challenged to work in an increasingly digitised
environment (Hosseini et al., 2018). This digital transition is particularly evident with the
rapid development and implementation of building information modelling (BIM) (Hosseini
et al., 2016). Therefore, reliable and empirical evidence on how the technology and software
transition impact these businesses are essential (Oraee et al., 2017). In essence, the failure to
adequately identify and assess these benefits, associate with IT investment, could result in
the system not being appropriately implemented and supported by executive sponsors
(Hosseini et al., 2016; Reza Hosseini et al., 2018). For example, Hosseini et al. (2016) indicates
that only 42.2% of Australian AEC SMEs are engaged with BIM, and as for BIM users,
23.7% of the companies had implemented Level 1 BIM while, 8.1% and 5.2% implementing
Levels 2 and 3, respectively. Among the challenges and barriers, multiple studies have
identified that the lack of initial cost of investment (Gledson et al., 2012; Abubakar et al.,
2014; Azhar et al., 2012; Lam et al., 2017), the lack of demand (Azhar et al., 2012;
Khosrowshahi and Arayici, 2012; Poirier et al., 2015a; Hosseini et al., 2016), the lack of
support from policymakers and research community including; unavailability of standards
and guidelines, the lack of procurement and contractual frameworks that allow more
collaborative and BIM-enabled project environments, the lack of informative material to
different levels of the supply chain through work with organisations (Poirier et al., 2015a;
Abubakar et al., 2014; Australia, 2014; Hosseini et al., 2016) and resistance to change
(Rodgers et al., 2015; Khosrowshahi and Arayici, 2012; Forsythe, 2014; Abubakar et al., 2014;
Poirier et al., 2015a) are among the factors that inhibit construction organisation’s abilities
and willingness to invest in BIM technology for long term benefits. However, among the
challenges and barriers, monetary gain from technological advancement, BIM in particular,
appears to be one of the major concerns among construction business around the world,
SMEs in particular (Hosseini et al., 2016; Poirier et al., 2015b). Hosseini et al. (2016) and
Poirier et al. (2015a, 2015b) have emphasised that without a guaranteed benefit and gains
from the investment, it is very unlikely that SMEs will adopt this technology. Therefore, the
failure to adequately identify and measure these returning factors might result in the system
not being appropriately supported by executive sponsors, who are often looking for hard on
the return on investment (ROI) measurements. In responses to this matter, this study focuses
on the risks associated with the uncertain return on BIM investment (Hosseini et al., 2016;
Reza Hosseini et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2020; McGraw-Hill, 2008; Giel and Issa, 2013) and
investigate the evidence that proves the benefits of BIM for small-sized projects (Rodgers
et al., 2015) which evidently appears to be a very scares academic resources in the research
and construction professional communities around the world.

Definition of building information modelling

There is no single satisfactory definition to the term “Building Information Modelling” or
better known as “BIM”. Rather, the term needs to be analysed as a “multidimensional,
historically evolving, complex phenomenon” (Miettinen and Paavola, 2014). Therefore, in
this context, BIM is “a set of interacting policies, processes and technologies generating a
methodology to manage the essential building design and project data in digital format
throughout the building’s life-cycle” (Penttilä, 2006; Succar, 2009). In this regard, the term
represents more than a “. . .digital representation of physical and functional characteristics
of a facility. . .” (Natspec, 2011). However, whether the term itself is suitable, agreed upon or
contested, BIM continues to proliferate in both industrial and research community as the
“new CAD paradigm” (Ibrahim et al., 2004; Succar, 2009) that provides an emerging new
methodology for construction management or in another word “an emerging technological Building
and procedural shift in the AEC industry” (Succar, 2009; Miettinen and Paavola, 2014). information
To assess and measure the value of BIM, a considerable amount of research has been
performed in the area of BIM performance assessment. As pointed out by Kim et al. (2020),
modelling
many studies have focused on the qualitative aspects of BIM investment. These qualitative
assessments aim to evaluate the technological or organisational maturity of a BIM project
team (i.e. BIM maturity model by Bew and Richards (2008), stages of BIM maturity by
Succar (2012) and the integration paradigm, by Australian Institute of Architects (2009). On
the other hand, the quantitative aspect or the economic assessment of BIM is often under
represented, as it is often difficult to be measured and determined. This is due to many
limitations such as the lack of industry standards, the wide range of intangible economic
effects that cannot be directly quantified as a monetary value and the capabilities of an AEC
organisation to identify and quantify the economic effects associated with BIM
implementation (Giel et al., 2009; Giel and Issa, 2013; Kim et al., 2020; Succar et al., 2012).

Evaluating the monetary value of building information modelling

ROI is among the methods that is consistently cited by academics and practitioners
attempting to evaluate the economic value of BIM. This method measures the profit
gain and loss generated by an investment expressed as a percentage of the amount invested,
adjusted for contributions and withdrawals (Feibel, 2003). In the context of BIM ROI, there
are two predominant ways to measure the return on BIM investment. As shown in
equation (1), the BIM ROI is typically calculated as the gain from investment minus cost of
the investment, divided by the cost of investment, and then multiplying it by 100 to
establish a percentage that can be used as an indicator of performance. In this case, if ROI is
over 0%, the investment is judged as profitable, whereas ROI is less than 0%, the
investment is regarded as a loss. However, Autodesk uses a different approach. ROI is
calculated as the gain/earning divided by investment cost, see equation (2). Therefore, ROI
lower than 100% would be considered as a loss and the ROI value should exceed 100% to be
judged as a profitable investment. The first-year ROI, reported in the Autodesk study was
speculated to be 61%, but since the investment costs were not deducted from the returns in
the given ROI equation, 61% ROI meant negative 39%, which is considered as a loss.
Although, this method of measuring BIM ROI is not wrong, it is, however, uncommon in the
BIM ROI academic literature. Given this as an example, BIM ROI can be easily manipulated
and could mislead a number of BIM adopters:

Gain from investment
Cost of investment

ROI ¼  100 (1)
Cost of investment

Gain from investment

ROI ¼  100 (2)
Cost of investment

The “return” can be referred to as earnings, savings, gains, or benefits. On the other hand, the
“cost of investment” can be referred to as BIM implementation cost. Wood et al. (2011)
developed a simple model on the cost of implementing BIM in a typical construction SME.
Analysis of 32 sample cases revealed that BIM implementation costs were mostly defined by
a range of cost variables, including software acquisition (Love and Irani, 2004) and technical
support, hardware (Love and Irani, 2004), training (Group, 2010), services and
implementation contingencies. Similarly, a case study conducted by Salih (2012) includes
CI hardware, software, training, furniture and IT (Switches, wires) in the BIM implementation
cost. However, Wood et al. (2011) concluded that different organizational models will require
slightly different modules of training and technical supplies such as software, hardware and
services.
In regard to BIM implementation costs, multiples studies have demonstrated the
‘negative consequences’ of BIM implementation. For example, Davies and Harty (2012)
addressed the concerns in regard to the mobilisation of integrated information management
systems, especially around issues of control, surveillance and power. The study draws the
attention to the information systems use and surveillance and its implications for the
division of labour and for control during the construction process (Davies and Harty, 2012).
Human factors were the major area that this study heavily concerned. Similarly, Gledson
(2016) discussed process inefficiencies due to the costly duplications of effort for teams
delivering projects where not all firms are using BIM. That is, during implementation stages
of BIM innovation adoption, organisations may have to make use of hybrid project delivery
methods on initial adopter projects while also working concomitantly with existing systems,
processes and personnel; not yet ready to adapt to BIM methodology (Gledson, 2016).
Given the immaturity of the subject area at this stage and the limitations, there is no
general agreement on the calculation methodologies that properly quantify the value of BIM
and perhaps it would be impractical to have a one model fits all solutions. However, this
study aims to identify and analyse the key measurable returning factors, value drivers and
strategic benefits associated with BIM ROI on an industry scale rather than a particular
project or an organisation. The output of this study would streamline the research in the
area of BIM ROI, presenting a deeper and wider perspective of the research work performed
until now and will direct a more focussed approach on productivity improvement efforts in
the construction industry.

Materials and methods

This study applies a systematic literature review approach in order to provide a clear
picture of the current body of knowledge of the BIM ROI. By systematically mapping all the
records related to BIM ROI, the aim of this study is to provide an overview of a research
area, establish if research evidence exists, and quantify the amount of evidence. All the
findings of previous studies must be presented in a concise and meaningful manner in order
to provide useful insights. The study follows the systematic mapping process described by
Okoli and Schabram (2010). This process is presented in Figure 1, and consists of five
process steps and outcomes.
The study was deliberately conducted within the terms of explicit methodologies and
their underlying philosophies and paradigms. To ensure a rigorous and consistent
approach, these were identified and developed before the processes of the initial review
stated below. However, as it was inevitable that new factors and aspects would emerge as
the process unfolds, various clarifications and amendments were made to the initial
documentation and protocols over the course of the study.
Hence, an extensive documentation was maintained to record both the initial
perspectives and protocols and any subsequent divergence or development. The ‘audit
trails’ of the participants in the study, the data gathered through the various research
instruments and methods, and the analysis of that data have also been comprehensively
documented. The analyses of the literature on a range of topics including the subject on
people, process, technology, critical success factors and ROI results were completed.
Summary data for the systematic literature review was stored in the Microsoft excel spread
 Building
information
modelling

Figure 1.
The process of data
collection and
analysis for the
systematic review

sheet that comprised the main data extraction form (Table 1), along with a subsidiary form
which included additional details such as URL links to connect each resource with its origin.

Definition of research questions

The first stage of the systematic mapping process is the definition of the research questions.
The goal of this study was to provide an overview of the current research on BIM ROI.
Therefore, a total of three research questions have been defined as follows:

Q1. What are the major benefits/factors influencing BIM ROI?

Q2. What are the quantification techniques used in the previous studies?
Q3. What are the current research gaps in BIM ROI?

Searching for the literatures

The second stage of the mapping study is to search for all the relevant scientific papers on
the research topic. A search protocol was created to gather all the relevant articles

ID Data item Description

01 Title Title of the paper

02 Authors Name of the author(s)
03 Country Country of authors
04 Publication info Name of the publication place and year of publication
05 Publication type Type of publication (i.e., conference/workshop/journal)
06 Publication source Academia/Industry
07 Abstract Abstract of the paper
08 Study aim Aim of the paper
09 Research question/goal Research questions/goals defined for the paper Table 1.
10 Study findings Major findings of study (i.e. Factors influencing BIM ROI. ROI results) Data extraction items
CI associated with BIM ROI. A comprehensive desktop search was conducted under the “title/
abstract/keyword” field of the popular search engines. The scope of the search was limited to
three scientific databases namely, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar which were
selected to identify sources that have published the BIM ROI-related articles. This is in light
of the ‘peer review’ credibility and comprehensive indexed platform of these databases. The
following search string were: (“Building Information Modelling” OR “BIM”) AND (“Return
on Investment” OR “ROI”). This stage also includes a reverse search technique or
snowballing technique described by Wohlin (2014). This method allows researchers to look
at the reference lists and citations and complement it with a systematic way of looking at
where papers are actually referenced and where papers are cited (Wohlin, 2014). Additional
papers were sourced from the citations and cross-references in the selected journal papers.
One conference proceeding, namely, International Conference on Research and Innovation in
Information Systems (ICRIIS) and nine additional sources including Thesis and
Dissertations, Industry reports and White Papers were included in this review.

Practical screen
Following the systematic mapping process, practical screen requires the reviewer to be
explicit about what studies were considered for review, and which ones were eliminated
without further examination (Okoli and Schabram, 2010). At this stage, all the articles were
screened based on their titles and excluded studies that were not relevant to the research
topic. Next, the abstracts of all the results were carefully studied. All the records were
independently checked to ensure that they display rigour, depth and authenticity in their
research approaches. Papers that were identified as:
 articles in which the identification of factors impeding evaluation of BIM ROI
appeared not to be a primary focus of study;
 Studies that employed other methods unrelated to ROI;
 Non-English publication; and
 papers that were duplicates.

Also, these were excluded in this review: these papers were clearly out of the scope of this
mapping study, which was a valid reason to exclude them. However, in some cases, it was
difficult to determine the relevancy of the paper on the basis of the title of the paper. In these
situations, all the remaining papers were passed through to the next stage for further
examination.

Quality appraisal
Next, quality appraisal was carried out to assess each article based on a grid system (Fink,
2019). Each quality criterion is phrased as a yes or no answer. If an article does not meet one
of the predetermined quality criteria, then the assessment is finished, and the article is
excluded without further assessment. As recommended by Okoli and Schabram (2010),
rather than deleting any article, those that do not meet the standards of the methodological
screen should be placed in a separate subfolder and categorized by what specific quality
standard they failed to meet. Appraisal methods are very different depending on if the
primary studies are quantitative that is, they obtain knowledge by measuring or qualitative
(that is, use text with discussion and argumentation to attain understanding of the
phenomenon) (Okoli and Schabram, 2010). These classifications can be seen in the Factors
affecting BIM ROI Section where the reliability of the data is ranked from the lowest to the
highest, (Type: 1) to (Type: 4), respectively.
Data extraction Building
A data extraction form (Table 1) was designed to collect the information needed to address information
the research questions of this mapping study. Data items were applied to gather basic
information of the records. These items included i.e. the title of the paper, the name(s) of the
modelling
author(s), and the country of the author(s). The rest of the data items were gathered after
reading the papers. These data items included, i.e. study aim and objectives and major
findings of each record. All the data were collected and extracted to Excel spreadsheet,
which helped to organize and analyse the data.

Results
Table 2 presents an overview of the literature sources. The review covered the period 2000–2020
and was not limited to a particular country. While Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
and Automation in Construction have the highest number of relevant publications having two
records, nine other journals, namely, Procedia Engineering, Journal of Asian Architecture and
Building Engineering, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Leadership and
management in engineering, Malaysian Construction Research Journal, Journal of Applied Science
and Engineering, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Journal of Information Technology in
Construction and Sustainability have one publication each.
Figure 2 provides an overview of the publication year distribution of the selected papers.
Interestingly, all the selected papers were published after the year 2004. This shows that
BIM ROI as a research area is relatively new and continues to grow. When looking at the
publication year distribution more closely, Autodesk was the first to explore and published
the benefits, values and the return associate with BIM investment. Obviously, this
suggested that Autodesk have been extensively marketing their product. Nonetheless, this
particular publication has influenced multiple studies that came after.
Previous studies have primarily adopted empirical research methods for evaluating the
economic impact of BIM investment using the ROI method. Case study was also found to be the
most commonly used method among the BIM ROI academic literature. Several studies have
attempted to measure BIM ROI by statistically analysing multiple cases, comparing several sets of

Sources No. of articles

Journals (13 sources)

Automation in Construction 2
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 2
Journal of Applied Science and Engineering 1
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 1
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 1
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 1
Journal of Information Technology in Construction 1
Leadership and Management in Engineering 1
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 1
Procedia Engineering 1
Sustainability 1
Conference (1 sources)
International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS) 1
Other sources (9 sources)
Thesis/dissertations 4 Table 2.
Industry report 4 BIM ROI Literature
White Paper 1 sources
CI similar construction projects, or using a well-defined ROI equation/s based on the principal
equation (1), (Table 4); however, most studies have been conducted as a single case study. Moreover,
the prevalent research approach adopted by researchers to identify factors affecting BIM ROIs
mainly involves five steps of the identification of a set of factors predominantly based on the review
of existing literature, interviews, focus groups or case studies combined with the literature review.
Some studies apply a pilot stage to test the questionnaire before final survey; identification of
important factors and rankings based on the relative importance index of factors; and sometimes
focus groups, interviews or case studies to validate the findings of survey. On the other hand,
surveys through questionnaires have been found to be predominantly used in industry reports such
as SmartMarket Report series as an alternative method to find the “perceived ROI” as an index,
rather than a calculated monetary ROI value which is often referred as “actual ROI”. This is due to
the high amount of time and cost associated with data collection and unavailability of ROI data
(Table 3).

Quantification techniques and reported building information modelling return on

investment results
As mentioned earlier, identification of the returning factors affecting BIM ROI is the key
principle to ensure that the construction organisation understands the value of BIM. An
accurate BIM ROI is not possible without identifying all the returning factors that influence
ROI. Multiple investigations have been attempted in the past. As a result, a multitude of
factors influencing BIM ROI have been identified. Table 3 summarises all the findings
performed in the past 16 years (2004–2020). The number of returning factors identified in
these studies varied greatly from 1 factor in the USA, Korea and Spain to 17 factors in
Singapore and to a comprehensive list of 19 factors in USA. However, in most of the studies,
around 1–3 factors were analysed to identify the most influential factors affecting BIM ROI.
Moreover, the reported BIM ROI results can be further classified into four types:
(1) (Type: 1) General assumptions-based theoretical model;
(2) (Type: 2) Perceived BIM ROI based on survey;
(3) (Type: 3) Factors affecting BIM ROI with no reported ROI results; and
(4) (Type: 4) Quantified BIM ROI based on a case study.

Key measurable returning factors, value drivers and strategic benefits associated with
building information modelling return on investment
Although there is not a large amount of research that has been undertaken to identify
factors affecting BIM ROI when compared to other fields of research such as construction
25

20

15

10

5
Figure 2.
Publication year of 0
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

the selected primary

papers. Publicaon/s Accumulave total
Country Reported returning factors Type Reported ROI Author/s

USA Productivity gain after training (1)
39%* to 16% (Autodesk, 2004)
*
Clash detection (4) 140% to (Azhar, 2011)
39,900%
Reduced schedule overruns, Fewer Request for Information (RFIs) and; Reduced (3) N/A (Barlish and Sullivan,
Change Orders (COs) 2012)
Visualization, clash detection, building design, As- built model, Building Assemble, (3) N/A (Becerik-Gerber and
construction sequencing, program/Massing studies, Model based estimating, Rice, 2010)
Feasibility studies, Alternative Development, Direct Fabrication, Environmental
Analysis, Code Review, Facilities management, LEED certification and forensic
analysis
Reduced schedule overruns, Fewer RFIs and; Reduced COs (4) 16% to 1654% (Giel et al., 2009)
Reduced schedule overruns, Fewer RFIs and; Reduced COs (4) 16% to 1654% (Giel and Issa, 2013)
Project programming, Budgeting, Design coordination, Clash detection, Work (3) N/A (Gilligan and Kunz,
sequencing, Lean delivery, Off-site material, Pre-fabrication verification, BIM O&M 2007)
data and 3 D digital as-built linked to O&M data
Clash detection (Holder Construction Case study) (4) 300% to 500% (McGraw-Hill, 2008)
Improved project outcomes (such as fewer RFIs and field coordination problems), (2) 11% to (McGraw-Hill, 2008,
Better communication because of 3 D visualization, Productivity improvement of >1000% 2014, 2012, 2009)
personnel, Positive impact on winning projects, Lifecycle value of BIM and Initial
cost of staff training
Better understanding of the scope of work, Higher quality, Design productivity and (2) 1.8% to 10.5% (Stowe et al., 2015)
better documents, Model-based energy and sustainable analysis; facility
performance, Overall design duration, Fewer and quickly resolved RFIs, Fewer
design change orders, Owner satisfaction with greater awareness and more
confidence, Easier, quicker visualization for the general contractor (GC),
subcontractors, inspectors, 3 D and 4 D visualization, logistics/sequencing studies,
field efficiencies, Simple, secure document, design, and data management tools
Smaller, higher-performing project staff, more efficient, focusing on project
excellence Lower costs of printing, packing, shipping, receiving, distributing, and
copying Subcontractors: bids with lower risk, less built-in contingency, confidence
in prefabrication/preassembly, Shorter construction duration: lower cost for GC,
subcontractors in general Field BIM: equipment tracking, safer site, digital survey,
(continued)

reported return

results
Table 3.
Summary of the
information
Building

modelling

factors and ROI

 CI

Table 3.
Country Reported returning factors Type Reported ROI Author/s

machine guidance BIM for safety budget and planning, Earlier certificate of
occupancy and Rich information
Korea Reduced rework costs due to design errors (4) 22% to 97% (Lee et al., 2012)
The design errors: simple design, rework-related that may lead to demolition and (4) 94.41% (Ham et al., 2018)
rework; and delay- related likely to prolong the construction period.
Improvement of productivity, schedule reduction, cost reduction, strategic (4) 145% to 350% (Kim et al., 2020)
superiority of a company and intellectual property with regard to the employees (Max. 2400%,)
and includes the improvement of customer preference by the introduction of BIM,
expansion of the BIM market and increased employee productivity
Preventing rework, Schedule compliance, Improved work efficiency, Safety (4) 167.8% to (Lee and Lee, 2020)
improvement, Quality improvement and Strengthened BIM capability. 476.72%.
Sweden Project Development Savings, Design and Construction Savings, COs Savings and; (4) 735% (Salih, 2012)
Reduced schedule overruns
Singapore Better Company Image, Enhanced Knowledge Management Improved Market (3) N/A (Qian, 2012)
Access, Strategic Competitive Advantage Improved Relations (with Contractors),
Improved Relations (with Consultants) Less Information Bottlenecks, Timely
Decision Captures, Improved Data Availability, Better Information Management,
Enhanced Information Accuracy, Enhanced Decision Making Accuracy, Better
Project Control, Less Mistakes and Errors, Lower Material Expenditures, Lower
RFIs, Less Service Works, Reduced Litigations and Enhanced Staff Recruitment.
Spain Productivity gain after training (4)
83.3%* (Conde et al., 2020)
Taiwan Requests for information, rework, change orders, and schedule compliance (3) N/A (Fan et al., 2014)
Poland Visualization, productivity increase, process improvement (less duplication of work (1)
31.4% (Reizgevicius et al.,
and fewer coordination problems), competitive advantage, improvement of 2018)
communication, and collaboration.
Energy efficiency analysis, Facility Maintenance, Reduction in rework and RFIs, (3) N/A (Walasek and Barszcz,
and clash detection 2017)
Malaysia Clash detection, reduce rework, reduce the cost and shorten the time during the (3) N/A (Latiffi and Tai, 2017)
design stage

Note: *Adjusted value based on the equation (1)

 Building
Equation/s Author



information
B

B
 ð12
C Þ
modelling
1þE
First year ROI ¼  100
A þ ð B  C  DÞ
Where:
A= cost of hardware and software ($) B= monthly labour cost ($): in the design world, (Autodesk, 2004)
the monthly labour cost is usually defined as Direct Personnel Expense (DPE) which is
the hourly wage of an employee plus 30–40% to account for benefits and other employee
specific overheads. C= training time (months) D= productivity lost during training (%)
E= productivity gain after training (%)

Xn   Xk   (G. Lee et al., 2012)
d p  c p  ð1 þ idc þ hocÞ
i þ l q  m q
p¼0 q¼1
ROIr ¼ Xk  
iþ l  mq
q¼1 q
Where:
ROIr= BIM ROI based on prevented rework costs, i = initial outsourcing fee that
includes software and hardware costs, training, and architectural-BIM-to-construction-
BIM conversion fee, l = monthly salary of a BIM coordinator (each BIM coordinator
may have a different monthly salary), q = BIM coordinator serial number, k = total
number of BIM coordinators, m = total work months of a BIM coordinator, d =
estimate of the direct costs potentially caused by an error, c =likelihood of not being able
to identify the error in the traditional drawing-based approach, p = error number, n =
total number of design errors , idc = ratio of indirect costs relative to direct costs in the
contract costs, hoc =ratio of home office costs relative to direct
costs in the contract

costs
Xn   Xn  Xk  
d  cp  ð1 þ idc þ hocÞ þ
p¼0 p p¼0
ð jocw þ binw þ liqw Þ
i þ l  mq
q¼1 q
ROIs ¼ Xk  
iþ q¼1 q
l  mq
Where additional variables are:
ROIs = BIM ROI based on a potential schedule delay, jocw = weekly increase in the job
overhead costs including indirect costs and home office costs, binw = weekly paid
additional bank interest liqw = weekly paid liquidated damages for delayed delivery and;
j = week number and w= delayed number of weeks
ðð12
CÞ  ð1 þ E Þ  ð B  F  GÞ
ð A þ ð B  C  DÞÞ (Reizgevicius et al.,
First year ROI DC ð first yearÞ ¼  100
A þ ð B  C  DÞ 2018)
Where:
A= cost of hardware and software ($) B= monthly labour cost ($): in the design world,
the monthly labour cost is usually defined as Direct Personnel Expense (DPE) which is
the hourly wage of an employee plus 30–40% to account for benefits and other employee
specific overheads. C= training time (months) D= productivity lost during training (%)
E= productivity gain after training (%) F = direct design work (times) G = company
works specificity
Xn (times) Xn
ðmr þ lr þ or Þ  c (Lee and Lee, 2020)
r¼1 r
ROIpr ¼ r¼1
Xt
sf þ ðms  ws  ds Þ
s¼1
Where:
BIM ROIpr, = BIM ROI based on preventing rework; r = item number of design review
report; n = total items of design review report; mr = material costs; lr = labour costs; or –
overhead costs; cr = BIM contribution level. The investment variables are as follows:
sf = BIM service fee paid by the construction firm; mss = monthly salary of a BIM
coordinator assigned from the construction firm; t = total number of BIM coordinators
assigned from the construction firm; ws = total work months of a BIM coordinator Table 4.
assigned from the construction firm; s = serial number of a BIM coordinator assigned ROI Equations
identified in the
(continued)
literature
CI
Equation/s Author

from the construction firm; ds = input work ratio of BIM coordinator assigned from the
construction firm.
wvn  EIpr
EIn ¼
wvpr
Where additional variables are:
n – the defined effect number; EIn – economic impact of effect n; wvn – weighting value
of effect n; EIpr – economic impact of the pre- venting rework; wvpr, weighting value of
the preventing rework Xn
Table 4. EI
1 n
Integrated BIM ROI ¼ Xt
sf þ ðms  ws  ds Þ
s¼1

productivity, similarities and differences in the returning factors affecting BIM ROI could be
observed. It appears that some of the factors repeatedly appear in various studies
undertaken in different regions, from north America, Europe and Asia, in successive
decades since 2004. The high number of citations of these factors amongst various studies
reflects both their significance and persistence as factors impeding BIM ROI in construction
projects over the past 16 years. Table 5 lists the five most cited factors affecting BIM ROI on
a global scale. Due to their relative significance among different studies and varied project
environment, it is reasonable to conclude that the most common and influential factors
impeding BIM ROI, in the decreasing order are as follows: schedule reduction and
compliance, productivity improvement, request for information (RFI) reduction, rework
reduction and change orders reduction.

Schedule reduction and compliance

Schedule reduction and compliance have been identified as a the most common returning
factor affecting BIM ROI. Schedule refers to the logical sequencing and timing of the work to
be performed. The quality of a project must meet the owner’s satisfaction and is an integral
part of project management. Schedule reduction and compliance associated with BIM use
have been repeatedly reported in multiple phases of a construction project particularly, pre-
construction and construction phases. This returning factor is often measured in the unit of
time (i.e. hourly or daily). It is then converted into monetary value by multiplying the unit of
time by its economic factor. However, the problem lies as to how these reduction schedule
metrics are being conducted. Due to the nature of a construction project (i.e. unique,
prototype, “one-off” projects) measuring and verifying these reductions can be a challenging
and problematic. As can be seen in Table 6, the studies that have successfully quantified the
reductions uses one of the two methods: as a per cent of Planned duration/standard duration
vs Actual duration and the sum of daily cost of the contractor’s general conditions, daily
costs for developer administration based on the contract size, daily costs of the architect’s
contract administration based on the contract size and daily costs of interest on the
owner’s construction loan proposed by Giel et al. (2009). As to how BIM affects the sum of
daily costs, Giel et al. (2009) and Giel and Issa (2013) concluded that due to the uniqueness of
each construction project (staffing, location, productivity, client and architect) “it was
difficult to quantify which benefits were directly associated with BIM and which were
merely the result of improved work ethic, better relationships, and additional variables”.
Return factors across Country (number of
studies studies) Author/s

Schedule reduction/ USA (6) (Barlish and Sullivan, 2012, Becerik-Gerber and Rice, 2010, Giel and Issa,
compliance (12 2013; Giel et al., 2009, Gilligan and Kunz, 2007, Stowe et al., 2015)
studies) Korea (2) (Kim et al., 2020; Lee and Lee, 2020)
Malaysia (1) (Latiffi and Tai, 2017)
Singapore (1) (Qian, 2012)
Sweden (1) (Salih, 2012)
Taiwan (1) (Fan et al., 2014)
Productivity USA (7) (Autodesk, 2004, Gilligan and Kunz, 2007, McGraw-Hill, 2008, Stowe et al.,
improvement (10 2015, McGraw-Hill, 2009; McGraw-Hill, 2012; McGraw-Hill, 2014)
studies) Korea (1) (Kim et al., 2020)
Poland (1) (Reizgevicius et al., 2018)
Spain (1) (Conde et al., 2020)
RFI reduction (10 USA (7) (McGraw-Hill, 2008; Giel and Issa, 2013; Giel et al., 2009, Barlish and
studies) Sullivan, 2012, McGraw-Hill, 2009; McGraw-Hill, 2012; McGraw-Hill, 2014)
Taiwan (1) (Fan et al., 2014)
Singapore (1) (Qian, 2012)
Poland (1) (Walasek and Barszcz, 2017)
Rework reduction (8 Korea (4) (Kim et al., 2020; Lee and Lee, 2020, Ham et al., 2018, Lee et al., 2012)
studies) Taiwan (1) (Fan et al., 2014)
Singapore (1) (Qian, 2012)
Poland (1) (Walasek and Barszcz, 2017)
Malaysia (1) (Latiffi and Tai, 2017)
Change orders USA (4) (Barlish and Sullivan, 2012, Giel and Issa, 2013; Giel et al., 2009, Stowe
reduction (6 studies) et al., 2015)
Taiwan (1) (Fan et al., 2014)
Sweden (1) (Salih, 2012)

Five most frequently

factors
reported return
Table 5.
information
Building

modelling
 CI

Table 6.

the identified
returning factor/s
Reported schedule
reduction based on
Study Classification of schedule reduction Unit Phase Country

(Barlish and Sullivan, 2012) Actual duration/standard duration % N/A USA

(Becerik-Gerber and Rice, 2010) Did not specify N/A N/A
(Giel et al., 2009; Giel and Issa, 2013) Daily cost of the contractor’s general conditions $ Construction
Daily costs for developer administration based $
on the contract size
Daily costs of the architect’s contract $
administration based on the contract size
Daily costs of interest on the owner’s $
construction loan.
(Gilligan and Kunz, 2007) Did not specify N/A N/A
(Stowe et al., 2015) Did not specify N/A N/A
(Kim et al., 2020) Planned duration vs. Actual duration (Design N/A Pre-construction and Construction Korea
phase-conceptual, design phase-detail,
construction phase, etc.)
(Lee et al., 2012) Avoidance costs of rework during the design $ Pre- construction
phase.
(Latiffi and Tai, 2017) Did not specify N/A N/A Malaysia
(Qian, 2012) Did not specify N/A N/A Singapore
(Salih, 2012) Daily cost of the contractor’s general conditions $ Construction Sweden
Daily costs for developer administration based $
on the contract size
Daily costs of the architect’s contract $
administration based on the contract size
Daily costs of interest on the owner’s $
construction loan.
(Fan et al., 2014) Did not specify N/A N/A Taiwan
Therefore, this have raised many concerns among academics and practitioners especially Building
BIM adopters. information
It can be observed that this returning factor is closely related to the utilisation of 4 D BIM.
The dynamic and virtual analysis of construction scheduling (4 D BIM) (Stanley and
modelling
Thurnell, 2014; McGraw-Hill, 2014, 2012) enable BIM users to incorporate time into the 3 D
BIM model (Group, 2011). Information can be accessed by stakeholders via individual BIM
platform and software tools (Banihashemi et al., 2018). By modelling building elements in
3 D and linking 4 D construction program data to the federated model, architects, engineers
and contractors can simulate the coordination of trade elements in both space and time
(McGraw-Hill, 2012, 2009). Therefore, i.e. a coordination between two trades scheduled to be
working in the same location at the same time can also be detected and resolved. Table 6
provides an overview of the metric that was used to calculated schedule reduction that are
associated with the implementation of BIM technology.

Productivity improvement
Productivity Improvement was identified as the second most common factor having an
influence over BIM ROI. Construction productivity is widely measured in the form of unit
rate which is the number of actual work hours required to perform the appropriate units of
work (OECD, 2001; Jang et al., 2011). However, units of measurement change with the
construction activity depending upon the types of input and output (Rojas and
Aramvareekul, 2003; Kaming et al., 1998; Makulsawatudom et al., 2004; Kadir et al., 2005;
Lim and Alum, 1995; Hughes and Thorpe, 2014; Hasan et al., 2018; Teicholz et al., 2001). In
the context of BIM ROI, productivity improvement is often measured in percentage.
Furthermore, it can be observed that productivity improvement associated with BIM
implementation is commonly reported during the pre-construction phase, particularly in the
design process (Fazeli et al., 2019). Table 7 elaborates the metric that was used to calculated
productivity improvement associate with BIM implementation.
A total of 10 studies have identified that productivity improvements associate with BIM use
have a significant effect on BIM ROI. However, only 4 studies have provided the quantified
evidence. Reizgevicius et al. (2018) and Conde et al. (2020) reported productivity enhancement

Classification of productivity
Study improvement Unit Phase Country

(Autodesk, 2004) Productivity loss during training and % Pre-construction USA

Productivity gain after training
(Gilligan and Kunz, Did not specify N/A N/A
2007)
(McGraw-Hill, 2008; Did not specify N/A N/A
McGraw-Hill, 2009;
McGraw-Hill, 2012;
McGraw-Hill, 2014)
(Stowe et al., 2015) Did not specify N/A N/A Table 7.
(Kim et al., 2020) Improvement of labour productivity N/A Pre-construction and Korea
Reported
and productivity gain in general construction
(Reizgevicius et al., Productivity loss during training and % Pre-construction Poland productivity
2018) Productivity gain after training improvement based
(Conde et al., 2020) Productivity loss during training and % Pre-construction Spain on the identified
Productivity gain after training returning factor/s
CI associate with BIM use based on the equation (3). In calculating BIM ROI, Autodesk found that it
is relevant to consider the changes in user productivity. As described by Autodesk (2004), when a
new information system is deployed, a sharp decline in productivity is noticeable as there is a
significant learning curve and users have to learn to use a new program. After training and the
time needed to master the software, the curve of productivity noticeably increases. Hence, there is
the productivity loss during training and productivity gain after training. Nonetheless, this
calculation method is best applied in an architectural firm setting in which multiple modelers are
utilizing the software (Autodesk, 2004):
  
B
1þEB
 ð12
C Þ
First year ROI ¼  100 (3)
A þ ð B  C  DÞ

Where:
A = cost of hardware and software ($)
B = monthly labour cost ($): in the design world, the monthly labour cost is usually defined
as Direct Personnel Expense (DPE) which is the hourly wage of an employee plus 30–
40% to account for benefits and other employee specific overheads.
C = training time (months)
D = productivity lost during training (per cent)
E = productivity gain after training (per cent)

Request for information reduction

A RFI is a formal written process in which parties clarify information gaps in construction
documents (McGraw-Hill, 2008). Incomplete, unclear or outdated technical specifications, and the
lack of buildability result in continuous RFIs thereby, interruptions to the work progress (Jarkas
and Bitar, 2012; Rivas et al., 2011; Hasan et al., 2018). This creates friction between the architect/
engineers and the contractor (Hasan et al., 2018; McGraw-Hill, 2008). Table 8 elaborates the metric
that was used to calculate the RFI reduction associate with BIM use.
RFI reduction metrics also suffers from the same problem as schedule compliances.
However, unlike schedule compliances, Brittany K Giel and Issa (2013) pointed out 5
elements that lead to RFIs reduction and can be solved by BIM:
 Dimensional inconsistency due to AutoCAD rounding errors and discrepancies
between drawing sheets.
 Document discrepancies between drawing sheets from different disciplines. The use of
segregated 2D documents prepared by each discipline naturally lends itself to greater error.
 Two-dimensional AutoCAD errors and omissions were also found to be a common
RFI issue discoverable by using BIM. There was, frequently, a lack of information
needed to construct the model accurately from the 2D documentation as well as a
great number of drafting errors present in the annotations.
 Grid line and column alignment issues: There were often major discrepancies
between floors and sometimes between disciplines that led to difficulties in placing
columns accurately.
 Direct clashes: RFIs pertaining to direct conflicts between systems and disciplines
were also frequently discovered using BIM.

In addition, RFIs associated with field coordination problems and VDC-RFIs submitted by
BIM subcontractors are also identified in the report, however the number of RFI logs are
insignificant when compared to the elements in Table 8. Barlish and Sullivan (2012) reported Building
RFI reduction associate with BIM implementation based on the Quantity of RFIs/assembly information
or tool quantity. However, there were no further classification of RFI types specifically
related to BIM. Moreover, a combined total of 7 studies did not provide any clarification of
modelling
the RFIs type specifically related to BIM and therefor compromises the reliability of the
reported ROI (Table 8).

Rework reduction
Rework results in the unnecessary effort of redoing an activity that was incorrectly
implemented for the first time. It can result from an array of factors such as construction
error or omission, unclear drawings and specifications, insufficient working skills and
knowledge of drawings, buildability issues, design complexity and overtime work, poor
communication, change orders, poor material quality, improper planning and poor
coordination (Hughes and Thorpe, 2014; Makulsawatudom et al., 2004; Hasan et al., 2018). In
order to analyse the rework reduction, which is associate with BIM implementation, it is
important to distinguish the errors that can be easily identified, even without using BIM,
from the ones that cannot be easily discovered in the absence of BIM application.
It is also important to point out that G. Lee et al. (2012) and M. Lee and Lee (2020) are the only
2 studies that have considered the probability of design errors and each design error was
categorized according to its cause and the likelihood of detecting it before construction. The
causes of design errors were identified as illogical designs, discrepancies between drawings, and
missing items. Considering the likelihood of identifying errors, even when the traditional
drawing-based approach was taken, the ROI was analysed in three different ways: without
considering the chance of identifying design errors in the traditional drawing-based method,
applying the identification chance of each error as the static numbers in calculating ROI, and
taking a probabilistic approach in predicting the likelihood of identifying errors (Table 9).

Change orders reduction

Often during the construction phase, numerous changes are made to the design as a result of
previously unknown errors and omissions, unanticipated site conditions, changes in
material availabilities, questions about the design, new client requirements, and new
technologies (Jarkas and Bitar, 2012; Hasan et al., 2018). These need to be resolved by the
project team. For each change, a procedure is required to determine the cause, assign
responsibility, evaluate time and cost implications, and address how the issue will be
resolved (Shourangiz et al., 2011). This procedure, whether initiated in writing or with the
use of a Web-based tool, involves an RFI, which must then be answered by the architect or
other relevant party. Next, a Change Order (CO) is issued, and all impacted parties are
notified about the change, which is communicated together with needed changes in the
drawings (Eastman et al., 2011). These changes and resolutions frequently lead to legal
disputes, added costs, and delays (Eastman et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2012) (Table 10).
A total of 6 studies have investigated how BIM can reduce the number of change orders
in a construction project. The studies that have successfully quantified the reductions use
one of the three methods:
(1) as a percentage of standard costs vs actual cost;
(2) the sum of change orders which is then directly compared to non-BIM assisted
project that has a similar characteristic such as size, types, costs etc.; and
(3) the sum of a specific trades including installation, painting, material base and
other additional work.
 CI

Table 8.

the identified
Reported RFI

returning factor/s
reduction based on
Study Classification of RFI reduction Unit Phase Country

(Giel et al., 2009; Giel and Issa, Dimensional inconsistencies in Num./$ Pre-construction and construction USA
2013) the construction documents;
Document discrepancies Num./$
between disciplines;
2D errors and omissions; Num./$
Grid and column alignment Num./$
issues
Direct clashes Num./$
Field coordination problems Num./$
VDC-RFIs submitted by the Num./$
BIM subcontractor
(Barlish and Sullivan, 2012) Quantity of RFIs/assembly or Num. N/A
tool quantity (no classification
of RFI type specifically related
to BIM)
(McGraw-Hill, 2008; McGraw- Did not specify N/A N/A
Hill, 2014; McGraw-Hill, 2012;
McGraw-Hill, 2009)
(Fan et al., 2014) Did not specify N/A N/A Taiwan
(Qian, 2012) Did not specify N/A N/A Singapore
(Walasek and Barszcz, 2017) Did not specify N/A N/A Poland
Study Classification of Rework reduction Unit Phase Country
Building
information
(Ham et al., 2018) Design errors for error prevention $ Pre-construction Korea modelling
simple design (Type 1)
Rework-related that may lead to $
demolition and rework (Type 2)
Delay- related likely to prolong the $
construction period (Type 3)
(Kim et al., 2020) Did not specify N/A N/A
(Lee et al., 2012) Illogical designs Num./$ Pre-construction
Discrepancies between drawings Num./$
Missing items Num./$
(Lee and Lee, 2020) Architecture $ Pre-construction
Structure $
Between architecture and structure $
Table 9.
Other works $
(Fan et al., 2014) Did not specify N/A N/A Taiwan Reported rework
(Qian, 2012) Did not specify N/A N/A Singapore reduction based on
(Walasek and Barszcz, 2017) Did not specify N/A N/A Poland the identified
(Latiffi and Tai, 2017) Did not specify N/A N/A Malaysia returning factor/s

Classification of Change
Study orders reduction Unit Phase Country

(Barlish and Sullivan, 2012) Change orders as a % of % Construction USA

standard costs
(Giel et al., 2009; Giel and Issa, 2013) Total number of change orders Num/$ Construction Table 10.
(Stowe et al., 2015) Did not specify N/A N/A
Reported change
(Fan et al., 2014) Did not specify N/A N/A Taiwan
(Salih, 2012) Installation $ Construction Sweden orders reduction
Painting $ based on the
Material base $ identified returning
Additional work $ factor/s

The other two studies did not specify as to where and how change orders reductions are
measured and verified. Nonetheless, as mentioned earlier in the schedule reduction/
compliances and RFI reduction sections, the reliability of the ROI results suffers heavily
from other external variables that could potentially affect the reported BIM ROI.

Gap analysis and future research agenda

This systematic literature review investigated the implications of various economic
returning factors influencing BIM ROI on a global scale and by doing so, it has revealed 3
major gaps in the body of knowledge. These gaps can be mainly identified as:
(1) the lack of consideration on the likelihood of BIM assisting in a construction
project;
(2) the lack of consideration of intangible returning factors influencing BIM-based
projects; and
(3) the lack of industry-standards in benchmarking BIM ROI.
CI With respect to the first gap, in principle, the review indicates that the previous studies have largely
ignored the details about data collection and analysis methods, particularly in Types 1, 2 and 3.
These studies reported a very wide ranges of returning factors, ROI values, vague assumptions
without any clarification and non-specific details as to where exactly BIM could economically
benefit the users. Such results may cause confusion in the interpretation of the effects of BIM
application and, thereby, jeopardize their reliability. Although Type 4 studies have provided
quantitative evidence and statistical analysis (Kim et al., 2020) for BIM ROI problem, comparing
several sets of similar construction cases (Giel et al., 2009; Giel and Issa, 2013), or using a well-
defined ROI equation/s (Autodesk, 2004; Lee et al., 2012; Reizgevicius et al., 2018; Lee and Lee, 2020;
Conde et al., 2020; Salih, 2012), most of the results and methods have the limitation in clearly
distinguishing the benefits associate with BIM-use in BIM and non BIM-based projects. This is
mainly due to the nature of the construction project and the external variables that cannot be
isolated from a construction project. Furthermore, ROI results in multiple Type 4 studies have been
proposed based on the assumption that the economic returning factors such as the number of RFIs,
the number of days a project is delayed, the total cost of change orders and the number of rework
reduction were directly correlate to the BIM implementation (Giel et al., 2009; Giel and Issa, 2013;
Lee and Lee, 2020). In actuality, other variables also contribute to each project’s success or failure
(Khanzadi et al., 2018). Therefore, it is suggested that future research should have a more
comprehensive consideration on the likelihood of BIM assisting in a construction project, similar to
G. Lee et al. (2012) and M. Lee and Lee (2020).
In addition, it can be observed that the returning factors identified in the previous studies are
interrelated and one factor appears to influence other/s and vice versa, for example, RFIs and COs.
The analysis of how these returning factors influence the value of BIM, separately and collectively,
could be a possible area for future research. Moreover, most of the previous studies are based on
architects’ and contractors’ business point of views. It is suggested that future research should
consider the perceptions of other key stakeholders when identifying factors affecting BIM ROI.
Furthermore, as various BIM applications can be utilized across the entire construction project
lifecycle, the revenue structure can differ depending on the scale, type of projects, type of contracts
and the phase in which BIM is utilized. Further investigation into how the relative importance of
factors change with the types of construction projects and users remains of central interest.
Another significant gap noticed in the review is that most of the studies do not incorporate all
possible economic returning factors into their ROI results, particularly the wide range of
intangible returning factors that cannot be directly quantified into monetary values such as
safety improvement, quality improvement and strengthened BIM capability. Further
investigation into how the relative intangible returning factors influencing BIM-based projects
would provide a clearer picture of the BIM ROI body of knowledge. Overall, it can be argued that
these limitations can be traced back to the lack of industry-standards in benchmarking BIM ROI,
resulting in multiple variations of evaluation methods and the lack of reliability of the ROI results.
The primary goal of the future study is to enhance understanding of the nature of BIM
evaluation. This study proposes that there are significant intangible benefits provided by
BIM, and that these should be considered closely in any BIM evaluation. Figure 3 outlines
the intended research strategy for investigating this area.

Conclusion
This study presented a systematic literature review of 23 articles with the purpose to identify and
analyse the key measurable returning factors, value drivers and strategic benefits associated with
BIM ROI on an industry scale. These key findings provide an up-to-date information in
formulating appropriate strategies to quantify the monetary values of BIM. Below addresses the
answer to the research questions raised earlier.
 The Identified Gaps and Limitations
Building
information
The lack of industry standards in modelling
benchmarking BIM ROI

The penetration rate of
BIM in a project
Intangible returning
Relationship between
factors influencing
returning factors
BIM-based projects

Exploratory/ Explanatory Theory/ Model/ Framework

• Identifying the factors

influencing BIM ROI • Returing factors
connections
Review Framework
Development • Intangible returning
• Analysing the current factors models
interconnections

• Evaluating the size and

effect of each returning • Reciprocal models of Figure 3.
factor tangible and intangible
Survey Model Development
factors Proposed future
• Analysing the penetration
rate of BIM in projects research strategy for
BIM ROI

Firstly, this study identified that the reported BIM ROI ranges greatly from
83.3% to 39,900%.
A total of 5 returning factors namely, schedule reduction and compliance, productivity
improvement, RFI reduction, rework reduction and change orders reduction were identified as the
most commonly reported factors that influence BIM ROI. Upon further analysis, returning
factors, especially those that associate with reduction metrics including schedule, RFI, rework
and change orders require a more robust quantification methods that address the issues related to
the nature of the construction project and other external variables, hence, increasing the reliability
of the ROI results. The above observation concludes the statement that every project is unique in
nature and a number of stakeholders associated with each. There are situations that external
variables (i.e. work ethic, better relationships between parties etc.) may influence the BIM ROI of a
project. Therefore, it is impossible to provide a generalised list of factors for all construction
projects in any context. This may be resolved by sub-dividing a construction project according to
its characteristics such as scope (i.e. building, infrastructure, commercial, or any other special
construction), location (i.e. urban or remote area), size (i.e. area or budgets) and phases of a
construction project (i.e. pre- construction, construction or post construction) etc. However, an
overall reasonable consensus exists on few significant factors and a meaningful pattern could be
drawn as discussed earlier. Secondly, 4 quantification techniques used in the previous studies
including; (Type: 1) General assumptions-based theoretical model, (Type: 2) Perceived BIM ROI
based on survey, (Type: 3) Factors affecting BIM ROI with no reported ROI results and (Type: 4)
Quantified BIM ROI based on a case study were addressed, together with their limitations.
Thirdly, 3 major gaps from the previous studies were raised. These gaps are as follows:
 the lack of consideration on the likelihood and penetration rate of BIM in a
construction project;
 the lack of consideration of intangible returning factors influencing BIM-based
projects; and
 the lack of industry-standards in benchmarking BIM ROI.
CI Overall, the outcomes of this study would assist researchers and practitioners by providing
an up-to-date information in formulating appropriate strategies to quantify the monetary
value of BIM in a concise manner. It is also expected that presenting a deeper and wider
perspective of the research work performed until now will direct a more focussed approach
on productivity improvement efforts in the construction industry.
Despite its contribution, this study has some limitations. Firstly, it does not consider
papers in progress, or studies that are not in the databases mentioned in the methodology
section. Secondly, although it is believed that the right search terms were used, the choice of
these terms could be also a further limitation. It may be those other articles covering this
topic exist under different keywords. Nonetheless, such updates would benefit for further
theoretical and empirical development of the subject area.
Finally, based on the identified gaps and limitations, this study proposed a future
research agenda to advance what is presently a limited body of knowledge. Therefore, a
strong need to develop innovative solutions to overcome this reliability and the
aforementioned limitations remain to be solved in future study. These keys developments
are as follows:
 A more comprehensive consideration on the likelihood of BIM assisting in a
construction project.
 The analysis of how the returning factors influence the value of BIM, separately and
collectively.
 The consideration of other key stakeholders when identifying factors affecting BIM
ROI.
 The relative importance of factors changes with the types of construction projects
and users.
 The effect of intangible returning factors influencing on BIM-based projects would
provide a clearer picture of the BIM ROI body of knowledge.

Nonetheless, identification of critical global factors and evaluation techniques impeding on

BIM ROI to direct focussed efforts towards productive, efficient, quality and sustainable
construction projects is a step towards the right direction, and as part of a larger research
project, this study is a step forward in addressing these innovative solutions.

References
Abubakar, M., Ibrahim, Y., Kado, D. and Bala, K. (2014), “Contractors’ perception of the factors
affecting building information modelling (BIM) adoption in the nigerian construction industry”,
Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, [doi: 10.1061/9780784413616.022].
Architects, A.I.O. (2009), “Towards integration”, National Building Information Modelling (BIM)
Guidelines and Case Studies, (16 November 2021).
Aris, N.M. (2007), “SMEs: building blocks for economic growth”, Department of National Statistics,
Malaysia.
Australia, E. (2014), “Driving building information modelling (BIM) uptake”.
AUTODESK (2004), “Return on investment with autodesk revit autodesk”.
Azhar, S. (2011), “Building information modeling (BIM): trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the
AEC industry”, Leadership and Management in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 241-252.
Azhar, S., Khalfan, M. and Maqsood, T. (2012), “Building information modelling (BIM): now and
beyond”, Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 15-28.
Banihashemi, S., Sarbazhosseini, H., Adikari, S., Hosseini, F. and Hosseini, M.R. (2019), “Multi-sided Building
platforms: a business model for BIM adoption in built environment SMEs”, HCI in Business,
Government and Organizations. Information Systems and Analytics. HCII 2019. Lecture Notes in
information
Computer Science, Springer. modelling
Banihashemi, S., Tabadkani, A. and Hosseini, M.R. (2018), “Integration of parametric design into
modular coordination: a construction waste reduction workflow”, Automation in Construction,
Vol. 88, pp. 1-12.
Barlish, K. and Sullivan, K. (2012), “How to measure the benefits of BIM–A case study approach”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 24, pp. 149-159.
Becerik-Gerber, B. and Rice, S. (2010), “The perceived value of building information modeling in the US
building industry”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), Vol. 15 No. 15,
pp. 185-201.
Bew, M. and Richards, M. (2008), “BIM maturity model”, Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)
Publishing, London.
Conde, A.J.L., García-Sanz-Calcedo, J. and Rodríguez, A.M.R. (2020), “Use of BIM with photogrammetry
support in small construction projects. Case study for commercial franchises”, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 513-523.
Davies, R. and Harty, C. (2012), “Control, surveillance and the ‘dark side’ of BIM”, Proceedings of the
28th Annual ARCOM Conference, Edinburgh, UK (Smith SD (ed.)). Association of Researchers
in Construction Management, London, UK.
Eastman, C.M., Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K. (2011), BIM Handbook: A Guide to
Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors,
John Wiley and Sons.
Fan, S.-L., Skibniewski, M.J. and Hung, T.W. (2014), “Effects of building information modeling during
construction”, Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 157-166.
Fazeli, A., Jalaei, F., Khanzadi, M. and Banihashemi, S. (2019), “BIM-integrated TOPSIS-Fuzzy
framework to optimize selection of sustainable building components”, International Journal of
Construction Management, pp. 1-20.
Feibel, B.J. (2003), Investment Performance Measurement, John Wiley and Sons.
Fink, A. (2019), Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, Sage publications.
Forsythe, P. (2014), “The case for BIM uptake among small construction contracting businesses”,
ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in
Construction, IAARC Publications, p. 1.
Giel, B.K. and Issa, R.R. (2013), “Return on investment analysis of using building information
modeling in construction”, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 511-521.
Giel, B.K., Issa, R. and Olbina, S. (2009), Return on Investment Analysis of Building Information
Modeling in Construction, University of Florida.
Gilligan, B. and Kunz, J. (2007), “VDC use in 2007: significant value, dramatic growth, and apparent
business opportunity”, TR171, Vol. 36.
Gledson, B.J. (2016), “Hybrid project delivery processes observed in constructor BIM innovation
adoption”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 16 No. 2.
Gledson, B. Henry, D. and Bleanch, P. (2012), “Does size matter? Experiences and perspectives of BIM
implementation from large and SME construction contractors”.
Group, A.C. (2010), “Productivity in the buildings network: assessing the impacts of building information
models”, Report To The Built Environment Innovation And Industry Council Sydney.
Group, B.I.W. (2011), “A report for the government construction client group building information
modelling (BIM) working party strategy paper”, Communications, London.
CI Ham, N., Moon, S., Kim, J.H. and Kim, J.J. (2018), “Economic analysis of design errors in BIM-based
high-rise construction projects: case study of Haeundae L project”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 144 No. 6, p. 05018006.
Hasan, A., Baroudi, B., Elmualim, A. and Rameezdeen, R. (2018), “Factors affecting construction
productivity: a 30 year systematic review”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 25 No. 7.
Hosseini, M.R., Banihashemi, S., Chileshe, N., Namzadi, M.O., Udaeja, C., Rameezdeen, R. and Mccuen,
T. (2016), “BIM adoption within Australian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): an
innovation diffusion model”, Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 71-86.
Hosseini, M.R., Martek, I., Papadonikolaki, E., Sheikhkhoshkar, M. and Banihashemi, S. (2018),
“Viability of the BIM manager enduring as a distinct role: association rule mining of job
advertisements”, Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 144, pp. 1-11.
Hughes, R. and Thorpe, D. (2014), “A review of enabling factors in construction industry productivity
in an Australian environment”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 2.
Ibrahim, M.M. Krawczyk, R.J. and Schipporiet, G. (2004), “A web-based approach to transferring
architectural information to the construction site based on the BIM object concept”.
Jang, H., Kim, K., Kim, J. and Kim, J. (2011), “Labour productivity model for reinforced concrete
construction projects”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 11 No. 1.
Jarkas, A.M. and Bitar, C.G. (2012), “Factors affecting construction labor productivity in Kuwait”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 138 No. 7, pp. 811-820.
Kadir, M.A. Lee, W. Jaafar, M. Sapuan, S. and Ali, A. (2005), “Factors affecting construction labour
productivity for Malaysian residential projects”, Structural survey.
Kaming, P.F., Holt, G.D., Kometa, S.T. and Olomolaiye, P.O. (1998), “Severity diagnosis of
productivity problems–a reliability analysis”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 107-113.
Khanzadi, M., Sheikhkhoshkar, M. and Banihashemi, S. (2018), “BIM applications toward key
performance indicators of construction projects in Iran”, International Journal of Construction
Management, pp. 1-17.
Khosrowshahi, F. and Arayici, Y. (2012), “Roadmap for implementation of BIM in the UK construction
industry”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 19 No. 6.
Kim, H.-S., Kim, S.-K. and Kang, L.-S. (2020), “BIM performance assessment system using a K-means
clustering algorithm”, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, pp. 1-10.
Lam, T.T., Mahdjoubi, L. and Mason, J. (2017), “A framework to assist in the analysis of risks and
rewards of adopting BIM for SMEs in the UK”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,
Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 740-752.
Latiffi, A.A. and Tai, N.H. (2017), “Exploring developers’ understanding on building information
modelling (BIM) and its impact on return on investment (ROI)”, Paper presented at the 2017
International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS).
Lee, G., Park, H.K. and Won, J. (2012), “D3 city project – economic impact of BIM-assisted design
validation”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 22, pp. 577-586.
Lee, M. and Lee, U.-K. (2020), “A framework for evaluating an integrated BIM ROI based on preventing
rework in the construction phase”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 410-420.
Lim, E.C. and Alum, J. (1995), “Construction productivity: issues encountered by contractors in
Singapore”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 51-58.
Love, P.E. and Irani, Z. (2004), “An exploratory study of information technology evaluation and benefits
management practices of SMEs in the construction industry”, Information and Management,
Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 227-242.
Love, P.E., Irani, Z., Standing, C., Lin, C. and Burn, J.M. (2005), “The enigma of evaluation: benefits, Building
costs and risks of IT in Australian small–medium-sized enterprises”, Information and
Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 947-964.
information
Makulsawatudom, A., Emsley, M. and Sinthawanarong, K. (2004), “Critical factors influencing
modelling
construction productivity in Thailand”, The Journal of KMITNB, Vol. 14, pp. 1-6.
MCGRAW-HILL (2008), “Building information modeling (BIM), transforming design and construction
to achieve greater industry productivity”, SmartMarket Report: Design and Construction
Intelligence. McGraw Hill Construction.
MCGRAW-HILL (2009), The Business Value of BIM: Getting Building Information Modeling to the
Bottom Line; Smart Market Report, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
MCGRAW-HILL (2012), “The business value of BIM in North America: multi-year trend analysis and
user ratings (2007-2012)”, Smart Market Report.
MCGRAW-HILL (2014), The Business Value of BIM in Australia and New Zealand, McGraw Hill
Construction, Bedford, MA.
Miettinen, R. and Paavola, S. (2014), “Beyond the BIM utopia: approaches to the development and
implementation of building information modeling”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 43, pp. 84-91.
Natspec, B. (2011), NATSPEC National BIM Guide, Construction Information System.
OECD (2001), “Measuring Productivity - OECD manual”.
Okoli, C. and Schabram, K. (2010), “A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information
systems research”.
Oraee, M., Hosseini, M.R., Banihashemi, S. and Merschbrock, C. (2017), “Where the gaps lie: ten years of
research into collaboration on BIM-Enabled construction projects”, Construction Economics and
Building, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 121-139.
Penttilä, H. (2006), “Describing the changes in architectural information technology to understand
design complexity and free-form architectural expression”, Journal of Information Technology in
Construction (ITcon), Vol. 11, pp. 395-408.
Poirier, E.A., Staub-French, S. and Forgues, D. (2015b), “Measuring the impact of BIM on labor
productivity in a small specialty contracting enterprise through action-research”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 58, pp. 74-84.
Poirier, E., Staub-French, S. and Forgues, D. (2015a), “Embedded contexts of innovation: BIM adoption and
implementation for a specialty contracting SME”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 42-65.
Qian, A.Y. (2012), “Benefits and ROI of BIM for multi-disciplinary project management”, National
University of Singapore, Mar.
Reizgevicius, M., Ustinovicius, L., Cibulskien_e, D., Kutut, V. and Nazarko, L. (2018), “Promoting
sustainability through investment in building information modeling (BIM) technologies: a
design company perspective”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 3, p. 600.
Reza Hosseini, M., Pärn, E.A., Edwards, D.J., Papadonikolaki, E. and Oraee, M. (2018), “Roadmap to
mature BIM use in Australian SMEs: competitive dynamics perspective”, Journal of
Management in Engineering, p. 34.
Rivas, R.A., Borcherding, J.D., Gonzalez, V. and Alarcon, L.F. (2011), “Analysis of factors influencing
productivity using craftsmen questionnaires: case study in a Chilean construction company”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137 No. 4, pp. 312-320.
Rodgers, C., Hosseini, M.R., Chileshe, N. and Rameezdeen, R. (2015), “Building information modelling
(Bim) within the Australian construction related small and medium sized enterprises:
Awareness, practices and drivers”, Proceedings of the 31st Annual Association of Researchers in
Construction Management Conference, ARCOM 2015, 691-700.
Rojas, E.M. and Aramvareekul, P. (2003), “Is construction labor productivity really declining?”, Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129 No. 1, pp. 41-46.
CI Salih, S. (2012), “The impact of BIM/VDC on ROI: developing a financial model for savings and ROI
calculation of construction projects”.
Shourangiz, E., Mohamad, M.I., Hassanabadi, M.S. and Banihashemi, S. (2011), “Flexibility of BIM
towards design change”, 2nd International Conference on Construction and Project
Management, IPEDR ACSIT Press, Singapore, pp. 79-83.
Singh, R.K., Garg, S.K. and Deshmukh, S. (2008), “Strategy development by SMEs for competitiveness:
a review”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 525-547.
Stanley, R. and Thurnell, D. (2014), “The benefits of, and barriers to, implementation of 5D BIM for
quantity surveying in New Zealand”.
Stowe, K., Zhang, S., Teizer, J. and Jaselskis, E.J. (2015), “Capturing the return on investment of all-in
building information modeling: structured approach”, Practice Periodical on Structural Design
and Construction, Vol. 20 No. 1, p. 04014027.
Succar, B. (2009), “Building information modelling framework: a research and delivery foundation for
industry stakeholders”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 357-375.
Succar, B., Sher, W. and Williams, A. (2012), “Measuring BIM performance: ffive metrics”, Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 120-142.
Teicholz, P., Goodrum, P.M. and Haas, C.T. (2001), “US construction labor productivity trends, 1970–
1998”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127 No. 5, pp. 427-429.
Walasek, D. and Barszcz, A. (2017), “Analysis of the adoption rate of building information modeling
[BIM] and its return on investment [ROI]”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 172, pp. 1227-1234.
Wohlin, C. (2014), “Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in
software engineering”, Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and
assessment in software engineering, pp. 1-10.
Wood, G., Davis, P. and Olatunji, O.A. (2011), “Modelling the costs of corporate implementation of
building information modelling”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 211-231, doi: 10.1108/13664381111179206.

Corresponding author
Saeed Banihashemi can be contacted at: Saeed.Banihashemi@canberra.edu.au

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

View publication stats