Case Study

Longitudinal Study of BIM Adoption by

Public Construction Clients
Ury Gurevich 1 and Rafael Sacks 2

Abstract: Building information modeling (BIM) adoption is driven in part by the government and other large public procurement agencies
mandating its use. A longitudinal study of BIM adoption in three major public agencies (two in the United Kingdom and one in Israel) tracked
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

their BIM adoption actions and outcomes over a 3-year period, using a formal BIM adoption impact map (BIM-AIM) to structure the
observations and to record and measure the outcomes. Detailed case studies of these organizations and 17 of their individual projects reveal
the actions taken and their effects. The agencies’ project managers varied greatly in their perceptions of the purpose and the value of BIM
implementation. Nevertheless, two of the organizations have made significant progress in compiling the information backbone necessary to
integrate as-designed and as-made BIM models in digital twin information systems that can enhance their operations and achieve long-term
organizational goals. The results emphasize that public agencies stand to reap significant value from system-wide asset information models in
addition to the benefits of BIM application in isolated projects. An updated (BIM-AIM), which can guide agencies in their BIM adoption
efforts, is a central contribution of the research. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000797. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Asset management; Building information modeling (BIM); BIM adoption; Occupant value; Public construction
clients.

Introduction
With the realization that building information modeling (BIM) re-
quires deep changes to processes and organizations, the topic of
BIM adoption has become a central subject of research in the field
of engineering management. Indeed, a formal unified taxonomy of
the drivers of BIM adoption and the factors that affect it have been
proposed to facilitate such research (Ahmed and Kassem 2018).
The extant research can be broadly categorized as focusing on the
following four levels, with increasing degree of resolution:
1. Individual adoption and proficiency with BIM tools and meth-
ods (e.g., Jin et al. 2017; Ma et al. 2020), exploring issues such
as skills training, proficiency, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation,
and the social and organizational aspects of the transformation
from the perspective of the people involved (Liao and Ai Lin
Teo 2018);
2. Adoption at the level of construction projects (e.g., Cao et al.
2018; Davies and Harty 2013; Papadonikolaki 2018). The
project-level benefits of BIM are now fairly well understood
(Chan et al. 2019), and the potential cost savings in the construc-
tion process have been documented (Azhar 2011; Bryde et al.
2013; Giel and Issa 2013);
3. Adoption within companies, both design firms (architects and
engineers) and construction companies. This work highlights
both successes and difficulties, such as the disenfranchisement
1 Department of Veterans Affairs (Tiejten 2010) prepared BIM guides
Ph.D. Graduate, Virtual Construction Lab, Faculty of Civil and Envir-
onmental Engineering, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa
3200003, Israel (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0003-1559-4676. Email: Ury.gurevich@gmail.com
2
Professor, Virtual Construction Lab, Faculty of Civil and Environmen-
tal Engineering, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003,
Israel. Email: Cvsacks@technion.ac.il
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 13, 2019; approved
on January 29, 2020; published online on May 7, 2020. Discussion period
open until October 7, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X.
of small firms (Dainty et al. 2017; Lee et al. 2013; Tulubas
Gokuc and Arditi 2017); or
4. Construction industry sector or nation-wide reviews of BIM
policy and standardization efforts mostly conducted by govern-
ments (Aksenova et al. 2019; Cheng and Lu 2015; Kassem and
Succar 2017; Sacks et al. 2016).
In contrast, scant attention has been paid to BIM adoption by
construction clients, neither public nor private. Public construction
clients are of special interest because given their role as decision-
makers, the very large scales of their projects and their portfolios,
and their exposure to public scrutiny, they strongly influence their
design and construction service provider supply chains. As such,
they are drivers of BIM adoption across construction markets.
Public construction procurement agencies began demanding
BIM over a decade ago (Sacks et al. 2018), primarily to improve
project-level outcomes. Most, if not all, seek to improve construc-
tion processes and achieve better buildings. More sophisticated
owners seek better control over the assets and systems they operate
(Al Sayed et al. 2015; Bew et al. 2015). Creating the right condi-
tions for effective adoption requires motivation, resources, and
coordinated action across a range of interdependent organizations
and disciplines (among them owners, project managers, designers,
builders, permit agencies, suppliers, and occupants) and public con-
struction procurement agencies have established a variety of BIM
adoption strategies. Among the early adopters, agencies such as
the General Services Administration (Matta et al. 2007) and the
for their service providers (Sacks et al. 2016). As time passed and
more organizations mandated the use of BIM for their projects, fo-
cus moved from project-level implementation issues to questions
regarding the information itself: What are public clients’ goals and
priorities regarding the information? How should it be delivered?
What skills do suppliers need to meet public clients’ information
needs? How can public clients support their supply chains to better
fulfill their needs?
In general, public clients operate in one of two modes: through
in-house construction procurement departments or using outsourced

© ASCE 05020008-1 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008

 construction management services that act as client representatives.
In this research, we focus on the former. For all of the case studies
involved clients of this type, and in the remainder of the paper, the
term construction procurement agency refers to this client type.
Despite the wealth of research on BIM adoption, including that
cited presented, none was found that elucidated the relationships
between specific BIM adoption actions on project outcomes or
long-term asset management. This lack of evidence for the long-
term impacts of BIM adoption on the value achieved by public pro-
curement agencies motivated the pursuit of the longitudinal study
presented in this paper. By studying agencies’ adoption processes
in detail, following them for 3 years, and subsequently revisiting
them for a detailed review of their development and outcomes, the
authors learned about the successes, failures, and mechanisms at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
work. Case studies of three major public agencies in Israel and the
United Kingdom—Israel Ministry of Defence (IMOD), Transport
for London (TfL), and Environment Agency (EA)—provided the
bulk of the data. The goal was to codify the experience gained by
the case study agencies in a form useful to similar public clients in
formulating their future BIM adoption paths. This knowledge is
formalized in a BIM adoption impact map (BIM-AIM). The first
version of the BIM-AIM (Gurevich et al. 2017) served both as
a research tool and as the foundation for the development of the
BIM-AIM 2.0, which is the practically applicable contribution
of the research.
The following section reviews the background of research on
BIM adoption, the long- and short-term goals of BIM adoption, and
the BIM-AIM (which facilitates mapping of adoption processes
within and between organizations). Section Aims and Methods de-
scribes the research methodology, tool development, measurement
parameters, and case study methods. Section Case Study Results
summarizes the case studies, and they are discussed in Section
Discussion. Sub-section BIM-AIM 2.0 presents the new BIM-
AIM-2.0, and Section Conclusions provides conclusions and rec-
ommendations for procurement agencies that plan to adopt BIM.
BIM Adoption Research
BIM adoption is a subject of interest for researchers primarily due
to its potential impacts on construction organizations and construc-
tion projects. The scope of interest in IT adoption in the construc-
tion industry extends beyond the technology to cover business,
engineering process, human resources, and information aspects
(Amor et al. 2002). The first port of call for most researchers is
to examine the project level benefits of BIM, and examples abound,
which some are listed in the introduction. However, from the per-
spective of large public construction clients, patterns of adoption at
the organizational level must be considered as well as those at the
project level, and long-term benefits that extend beyond the project
level are also of central interest.
Gu and London (2010) explored the product, process, and peo-
ple aspects at the organizational level using a holistic approach,
but the conclusions of this work do not offer any specific recom-
mendations nor explanations regarding the BIM adoption process.
Arayici et al. (2011) focused on the impacts of BIM adoption on
architects, specifically on the use of common design team BIM au-
thoring tools (e.g., Revit, Archicad, and Allplan). Other research
efforts regarding strategies for BIM implementation have also con-
centrated on a single type of design organization (Arayici et al.
2011; Eadie et al. 2013; Liao and Ai Lin Teo 2018; Smith 2014;
Wong et al. 2011). McAuley et al. (2017), in contrast, took a
broader view and studied the global BIM effort. They concluded
that the most important issues were: (1) contracts and procurement,
© ASCE 05020008-2
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008
(2) pilot or pathfinder projects, (3) national BIM guidelines,
(4) funding, (5) national training programs, and (6) international
Standards. Using information about BIM adoption in construction
projects from a Shanghai municipality database, Cao et al. (2018)
conducted a longitudinal study from 2007 to 2015 to explore the
relationship between the project-based networks in which the firms
function to their long-term competitiveness. However, none of
these shed light on the effects of owner or client organizations on
BIM adoption, and by extension, none offer recommendations for
specific adoption actions and their implications for construction
agencies.
Organizations frequently limit their aspirations for BIM adop-
tion to the short-term goals of project delivery—i.e., optimization
of time, budget, quality, safety, and sustainability within the scope
of specific design and construction projects. McAuley et al. (2017)
studied public organizations and found that 80% of the 100 sur-
veyed reported increased demand for BIM from their clients,
representing individual projects. Lam et al. (2017) developed a
framework for assessing the rewards and the risks associated with
BIM adoption from the point of view of small- and medium-sized
enterprises, suggesting inter alia that such firms respond to client
demands rather than initiating BIM adoption themselves. The focus
on project goals is also reflected in the BIM guides of many public
procurement agencies. All of the ten guides reviewed by Sacks et al.
(2016) primarily listed project-level goals; the only long-term goals
that appeared dealt with maintenance, albeit solely on a project
level rather than system wide.
However, project goals are short-term in the context of the
broader purposes of public procurement agencies. Issues such as
client end occupant satisfaction, system-wide operational and main-
tenance efficiency for an agency’s assets, better control over the sys-
tem and facility life-cycle cost (LCC), personnel development, and
environmental concerns are all long-term goals (MOD 2016). TfL,
for example, includes “Define, manage and continually improve the
information that supports decisions, ensuring it is controlled, acces-
sible and of the required quality” as one of 13 strategic asset man-
agement objectives (TfL 2018). Some researchers have identified
the potential for BIM to support the long-term management of an
agency’s asset information and thus to achieve far-reaching benefits
not only for the organization but also for its clients—the end users
of facilities (Enache-Pommer et al. 2010; Gerrish et al. 2017;
Shoolestani et al. 2015). Dakhil et al. (2016) emphasized the value
of information among the long-term benefits of BIM adoption.
Of their list of 16 drivers that motivate clients of all kinds to adopt
BIM, 13 relate primarily to the project phase, while three relate to
the value of information—its availability, accessibility, accuracy,
control, and validity. All of these authors suggest that the use of the
information models provide end users with more suitable, healthier,
and higher-quality facilities and infrastructure systems. Yet, in prac-
tice, there are limited examples of public procurement agencies that
have made such long-term goals explicit within their BIM adoption
policies.
Aims and Methods
The aim of the research is to elucidate BIM adoption as it occurs
within public construction clients. Questions included: What ac-
tions were taken to promote BIM adoption? Were there any causal
relationships between the agencies’ actions and the project and
organizational level outcomes? What was achieved, and what ac-
tions failed to deliver expected results?
The basic research method was longitudinal case-study re-
search. The method required continuous access over a long period
J. Manage. Eng.
 of time, and as a result, the number of case studies was limited.
Initially, six agencies were selected, and their adoption patterns
were assessed in a series of interviews with senior management.
Five of these six were public construction agencies adopting BIM
within the framework of the UK government BIM mandate, and
the sixth was the engineering and construction division of the
Israel Ministry of Defense. The five UK agencies were Highways
England (HE), Defence Infrastructure Organization (DIO), EA,
Ministry of Justice (MoJ), and Transport for London/London
Underground (TfL). These five were selected for study due to their
participation in the UK government BIM task force effort. They are
large government construction agencies, active in planning, design,
execution, development, and maintenance of building and infra-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
companies, designers, regulatory authorities, contractors, operators,
and end-users.
The BIM-AIM was used as a research tool through longitudinal
case studies. Interviewees at all levels (project and organization)
were periodically asked to evaluate its actions and relationships to
clarify which actions were and were not performed, what their im-
pact was, and what if anything was lacking. This supplemented the
other research tools, enabling rigorous data collection. It informed
all aspects of the study and eventually provided the evidence for
substantial revision of the BIM-AIM once the longitudinal studies
were completed.
Measuring Agency Level Actions

structure projects. The agencies’ portfolios represent a diverse cross

section of public project types, providing a broad perspective on
BIM implementation.
Given the limited research resources available for long term fol-
low up after the initial round of interviews (conducted in January
2016), the number of subjects was narrowed to the four whose
agency-level efforts were most advanced: IMOD, TfL, the UK EA,
and the UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Over the course of the study,
personnel changes at MoJ prevented continued access to study the
agency, thus leaving three: IMOD, TfL, and EA. They were fol-
lowed over a period of 2¾ years (33 months), with a review com-
prising: (1) the adoption actions implemented, and (2) a set of
17 project case studies. Nine detailed case studies were collected
from IMOD, and four were collected from both EA and TfL. The
projects were followed through a series of semi-structured inter-
views with project managers, designers, and contractors. Finally, in
November 2018, concluding interviews were held with the BIM
adoption leaders of each agency.
BIM Adoption Impact Map (BIM-AIM)
In the first stage of this work, the authors developed and published a
BIM-AIM (Gurevich et al. 2017) based on the interviews with the
initial six case study agencies. The BIM-AIM presents a set of pos-
sible relationships between the actions taken by public construction
agencies to promote BIM adoption, the immediate and intermediate
consequences of their actions, and the eventual achievement of
value for the occupants of the facilities they build. The BIM-AIM
was designed to support public agencies to consciously design their
routes to BIM adoption based on the collective experience of the
agencies studied in the research. The resulting first version of the
BIM-AIM included 118 diverse activities performed by seven actor
types: owners (public procurement agencies), project management
The data collected to measure the agencies’ adoption actions were
measures of the eight organizational actions defined in the BIM-
AIM and are listed in Table 1. The measurements were made using
a standard form in interviews with the leaders of BIM adoption
within each of the three agencies. The interviewees were asked to
assess the degree to which each of the adoption actions listed in
Table 1 had been implemented using a four-point scale: none (0),
partial (1), thorough (2), and full implementation (3). A composite
numeric score was calculated, giving equal weight to the score of
each aspect, and the scores were normalized to 100%. These data
collected refer to different points in time throughout the longitudi-
nal study so that the status of each agency could be traced.
Assessing BIM Adoption
The agencies studied operate on two levels: that of the administra-
tion, including their head-office departments; and that of the projects
through which they deliver services to their clients and the end-users
of the facilities they build, operate, and maintain. The projects them-
selves have distinct identities and organizations, often setting their
own policies and practices. As such, one cannot simply refer to a
level of BIM adoption achieved within an agency as each of its proj-
ects may achieve a level different from that of the others. Therefore,
BIM adoption outcomes were assessed using two measures:
1. The maturity of each agency’s BIM adoption progress was mea-
sured using a composite questionnaire based on the BIM-AIM.
This questionnaire was administered with the project-level inter-
viewees in all 17 projects. This resulted in a composite normal-
ized score that reflected the project teams’ perceptions of the
support the agency provided to their project.
2. The maturity of BIM use in each project based on project
managers’ evaluation of the project’s use of BIM tools and
processes.

Table 1. Agency adoption actions

Name
Fund training
Fund hardware and software
Provide senior management leadership
Prepare BIM object libraries
Provide BIM management training
Prepare a BIM guide
Motivate project managers
Prepare a BIM execution plan (BEP)
template
Financial incentives
Description
Provide funding for in-house training, creating data resources, outsourcing, and other components.
Software and hardware purchase, software operation training programs.
Senior managers of the agency direct themselves and their employees to invest time in training and developing
personal BIM abilities.
Create organizational BIM object libraries to be used by the supply chain.
Outsourced training of project managers for BIM specific organizational needs.
Preparation of BIM guides that define the agency’s processes and information requirements.
Enhance the perception of the potential benefits and the BIM actions needed to achieve project goals: preparation
of contracts, Owners’ Information Requirements documents, and other components.
Define the desired modes of collaboration and information sharing, covering the roles and responsibilities of
project partners, software and level of development (LOD) of the different aspects of the model, the management of
the model itself, quality control procedures, object composition, naming conventions, and other components.
Align remuneration of design teams with project design requirements.

© ASCE 05020008-3 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008

 The BIM Handbook lists many models for measuring BIM
maturity (Sacks et al. 2018, Ch. 8). Among the better-known mod-
els are the BIM maturity matrix (BIm) and competency sets (Succar
et al. 2013), TNO’s BIM QuickScan (van Berlo et al. 2012), own-
er’s BIMCAT (Giel and Issa 2013), BIM Scorecard (Kam et al.
2013), and Penn State’s Organizational BIM Assessment Profile
(CIC 2013). The ARUP BIM Maturity Measure (Arup 2014;
Azzouz et al. 2016), selected for this research, is based on the Penn
State model.
The measurement methods are defined in the following
subsections.
Project Perception of Agency BIM Maturity
Agency BIM maturity was evaluated using a set of 21 questions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with values for performance ranging from nonexistent (0) to initial
(1), managed (2), defined (3), measured (4), and optimized (5).
Case Study Results
In this chapter, we summarize the background, agency level mea-
surements, and results of case studies of three public construction
agencies (IMOD, TfL, and EA) and 17 of their projects (nine for
IMOD, four for TfL, and four for EA). The projects are listed in
Table 2. The documents collected, together with the interview and
questionnaire results, are unique records of the developments in
the agencies over the 33-month research period. All three agencies
began their adoption with pilot projects. In parallel to the pilot

that probed the project personnel’s perception of the support pro-
vided to their project by the agency. The answer to each question
was scored on a scale from 1 to 5 according to a predetermined set
of five possible responses for each question. The scores for each
question were normalized on a scale set by the highest value en-
countered across all of the projects, and they were weighted to re-
flect the extent to which the agency had succeeded in each of the
actions defined in the BIM-AIM and listed in Table 1. The ques-
tions and the weighting scheme are provided in Appendix A.
Project BIM Maturity
Project-level BIM implementation was measured using a tool de-
veloped for ARUP by researchers at Penn State University (Arup
2014; Azzouz et al. 2016). Using this tool, ARUP assesses the so-
phistication of BIM use and the depth of its spread across the com-
pany’s regional offices. Unlike other BIM project measurement
tools that concentrate on aspects of project cost, quality, timing,
and safety, the performance categories measured in the ARUP tool
make it suitable for measuring project results in this context. The
areas covered include the storage of and access to information, 3D
coordination, collaboration, BIM execution plan (BEP), team ex-
perience, procurement and contracts, design reviews, information
deliverables, level of development (LOD), visualization, and 4D
simulation. The tool covers all professional disciplines, and scores
for each area and for each domain are assessed on a six-point scale
projects, actions were taken at the organizational level to promote
and support project-level BIM adoption, and despite uniform be-
ginnings, the adoption process occurred quite differently in each
agency.
The Engineering and Construction Division of the
Israel Ministry of Defense
IMOD is the public agency responsible for the development,
design, construction, and maintenance of facilities including defense
system structures and infrastructure. It plays a key role in the na-
tional construction industry, with a very large annual budget for
new construction. IMOD is a large agency with many departments:
project management, maintenance, budgets, information technol-
ogy, engineering and engineering control, infrastructure and deploy-
ment, and training. IMOD published a BIM mandate in 2016,
calling for all projects to adopt BIM by the end of 2019. IMOD
management defined the goal as follows: “to improve product
quality for end users in terms of asset erection and operation, while
continuously improving design, operation, maintenance, and asset
management outcomes.” Thus, information from the models was
expected to improve the agency’s management of its assets.
In March 2015, the division’s head appointed nine internal and
external BIM adoption teams—control, engineering, computeriza-
tion, pilot projects, supervision, maintenance, training, steering,

Table 2. Agency and project list

Project name Description Duration (years) Scope
IMOD
Project A Civil infrastructure works (sewage, water, power, communications, roads, and sidewalks) 3 160,000 m2
Project B 10 buildings (office buildings, logistic building, dormitories, kitchen and dining room, and auditorium) 2.5 17,000 m2
Project C Seven three-story buildings 3 23,000 m2
Project D Clinic building 2 2,000 m2
Project E Design of three separate buildings in a head office ‘Big Room’–office building, clinic and warehouse 2 3,000 m2
Project F Civil infrastructure works (sewage, water, power, communications, roads, and sidewalks) 3 100,000 m2
Project G A two-story housing building and civil infrastructure 3 4,500 m2
Project H Industrial buildings 3 40,000 m2
Project I Clinic building 1 600 m2
TfL
Project J Underground Station upgrade project to handle 40% more passengers 5 £563 m
(previous capacity was 98 million passengers/year).
Project K Underground Station project for transportation upgrades 4 £200 m
Project L Underground Station project for transportation upgrades 3 £24 m
Project M Underground Station project for upgrade of the Grade II listed station and ticket hall 3 £65 m
EA
Project N Procurement of a barrier to reduce the risk of tidal flooding 3 £100 m
Project O Procurement of a barrier—prevent back-up of floodwater from the Foss 2 £17 m
when it meets the surge water of the Ouse.
Project P Procurement of a barrier project 3 £25 m
Project Q Environmental project in the city of London N/A N/A
Note: N/A = not applicable.

© ASCE 05020008-4 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. IMOD BIM maturity: Project BIM maturity versus agency
actions.
Fig. 2. IMOD BIM maturity: Project team perceptions of agency BIM
maturity versus agency actions.
and professional—that were entrusted with establishing suitable in-
frastructure and procedures in the various departments. Each team
appreciated the advantages of BIM for its own area, but not for the
entire organization. BIM was perceived to be very beneficial to the
design process, but its use at the procurement and maintenance
stages was not well understood.
Nine IMOD projects were investigated. Figs. 1 and 2 present
the results of the three measures defined in the Aims and Methods
Section over time. Fig. 1 shows the agency actions measure and the
project teams’ perceptions of the BIM maturity of their projects, while
Fig. 2 shows the same agency actions measure and the project teams’
perceptions of the agency’s BIM maturity. While the scope of agency
actions increased consistently over time, the project teams perceived
an increase in maturity through the first 25 months and then a de-
crease. After the first year of the adoption process, the agency ceased
investing new resources in BIM adoption actions, expecting that the
mandate for BIM would force suppliers to adapt. In practice, agency
managers, design firms, and project managers underestimated the
extent of the organizational preparations required.
Figs. 1 and 2 show that the organization began the adoption pro-
cess well. BIM coaches were provided to project teams, project
managers received training, hardware and software were provided,
an agency BIM guide and accompanying BIM library were com-
piled, and templates for a BEP and contract documents were pro-
vided. Over time, however, the level of BIM maturity reported by
projects dropped, and project managers began reporting numerous
problems that led them to abandon the use of BIM for some project
© ASCE 05020008-5
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008
aspects. This finding surprised the agency’s managers who invested
significant resources in actions to support BIM adoption and who
expected that the project teams would naturally adopt and imple-
ment the practices they inculcated in the earlier projects.
In retrospect, the project level interviews showed that the agency
emphasized value in the design and procurement phases and on
presentation to project clients, whereas the value of BIM use in the
construction and the operation and maintenance phases was ne-
glected. For instance, the contractors used a BIM model extensively
in a designated pilot project but not in the other projects studied.
The implicit understanding that the model was only useful in
design-determined behavior and of the lack of agency-level control
and lack of BIM competent staff on site led, project managers to
gloss over construction contractors’ failure to comply with contrac-
tual requirements to use the model once pressures built to get the
project built on budget and on time.
In the concluding interviews, senior management revealed that
the level of organizational effort was reduced at the start of 2017
based on the premise that project managers follow the BIM proc-
esses defined in the agency’s procedures (BIM guide, BEP, and
contracts). Project managers felt that the management failed to ex-
plain the long-term benefits to the construction clients who found it
difficult to understand why they were required to budget more for
design. In addition, the process training was insufficient, and man-
agers lacked the tools to view models at the sites. The lack of con-
trols prevented agency managers from identifying the growing gaps
between formal procedures and actual practice. In mid-2018, man-
agement realized that the BIM potential was not being realized and
strengthened the agency’s BIM leadership role.
Transport for London
TfL is a local government agency responsible for the transportation
system in the Greater London area, including the London Under-
ground. At the outset of BIM adoption, a department was established
with four employees to lead the adoption process. Management
chose people familiar with the organization who would learn and
develop in the area of BIM rather than hire new employees with
proven BIM capabilities but with no prior familiarity with the organi-
zation. While recognizing the value of knowledge accumulated in
the private sector, management was concerned that external entities
would fail to understand the unique character of the organization and
therefore preferred to empower people within.
The organization began the adoption process with no BIM
manual, information specifications for designers, or ordered a BIM
adoption plan: the adoption team had to prepare all of these from
scratch. Thus, in addition to accompanying the pilot projects and
training personnel, the team prepared a strategic adoption plan that
outlined the steps to be taken and the outcomes the organization
expected to achieve (Brett 2016). This mapping was strategic and
represented the organization’s needs and goals with respect to BIM
(the “what” and “when” rather than the “how”).
The team worked with and relied on the support of the UK BIM
Task Group. As in other agencies, the process began with trial and
error, pilot projects, and compilation of BIM manuals to establish
both internal procedures and guidelines for subcontracted suppliers.
A raft of practices and documents, such as the Employer’s Informa-
tion Requirements (EIR), were stipulated for suppliers in the TfL
Supplier Handbook (Supplier Handbook 2018). These were de-
signed to reflect the organization’s needs and operational principles
in its demand for BIM but not the specific actions designed to enable
the realization of BIM in projects or in the organization.
At the time of the final review in January 2018, maintenance
works and permitting procedures still used 2D drawings rather than
J. Manage. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. TfL agency actions, project BIM maturity measures, and project
team perceptions of agency BIM maturity.
BIM models. The agency did not restrict designers and contractors
to use standardized model objects, but the requirements for infor-
mation to be managed using models were very well defined. One of
the key objectives was to gather data on the city that would enable
better transportation planning. The organization had implemented
actions that were not considered in the original BIM-AIM:
• Pre-qualify designers (controlling the level of designers prior to
onset of the design process).
• Integration of as-built model data into geographic information
systems (GISs).
Fig. 3 shows steady progress over time in the maturity of BIM
use in the agency, although unsurprisingly, the level of maturity in
individual projects lags the level measured for the organization.
BIM adoption actions have been pursued consistently, although
in December 2017, numerous possible actions remain for potential
implementation. The standard object libraries and the use of BIM
models for permitting and approvals were considered. Despite the
organization’s relatively advanced state, it continued to invest re-
sources in BIM training and education at all levels from junior man-
agers to senior executives.
UK Environment Agency
The EA is responsible for environmental regulation and the oper-
ation and maintenance of some 30,000 assets. At any given time,
the organization has approximately 500 active projects and 1,000
employees, and of whom, some 160 are project managers. The UK
government mandate was the main driver for BIM adoption. At the
start of adoption, the agency had no relevant standards and empha-
sis was placed on 3D design and production of 2D construction
drawings. From January 2016, BIM was required by contract in
all new projects of £250,000 or more, and a designated BIM man-
ager was employed to manage the initiative. Responsibility for the
training of junior employees was entrusted to project managers who
had gained experience.
Over time, EA management began identifying the added value
for the organization and established a core goal of controlling in-
formation about its assets, with a strong emphasis on improving
operations and maintenance. They struggled with the definition
of BIM in that the term refers to buildings: unlike other government
construction agencies, EA builds conduits, dams, water ways, and
other such elements, but not many buildings. Through their work
processes, the teams manage some 10,000 documents a month
throughout the organization. Available BIM standards did not
suit the nature of most EA projects mainly because they focus on
© ASCE 05020008-6
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008
Fig. 4. EA actions, project BIM maturity measures, and project team
perceptions of agency BIM maturity.
structures rather than on infrastructure. To overcome this obstacle,
EA managers decided to reinterpret BIM as a form of informa-
tion management, helping the entire agency understand the overall
objectives of BIM implementation. Specifically, they defined re-
quirements for delivery of as-built asset information including struc-
ture geometry, topographic data, and as-built point clouds.
Following the entry of the UK Government’s BIM mandate
into force in April 2016, it became apparent that many suppliers
still lacked the knowledge and capability to provide information
in the required formats. Their lack of knowledge was shared by
project managers, who focused on immediate project values
(budget, time, quality, and safety) and could not be relied upon
to enforce the information requirements. Management instituted a
policy that required design teams to submit their BIM deliverables
to centralized control. At the same time, the agency undertook to
better inform its suppliers concerning the entire process and its
ultimate goal.
During the research period, we reviewed four projects to deter-
mine BIM maturity on the organizational and project levels. The
results are shown in Fig. 4. The charts reveal uniform perceptions
of progress in BIM maturity from the project and the organizational
perspectives, and progress follows the pace of actions taken by the
agency.
The charts show a positive and consistent trend overall but
do not reveal the problems encountered. The understanding that
many suppliers were unable to adopt the BIM requirement within
a short period of time led the organization to rearrange the organi-
zational BIM requirements and prioritize them. To support project
managers, the agency established a uniform standard Informaion
Delivery Plan document for all projects, thus avoiding rework.
Although the agency was unwilling to increase fees for BIM de-
sign, it recognized the shift in work and now budgets the BIM pro-
cess at an earlier stage in the tender process.
Another problem was that designers often withheld models from
contractors. This meant rework and human error as contractors cre-
ated their own models and, in some cases, forced project engineer-
ing teams to coordinate among 2D drawings, design models, and
construction models. Contractors, in contrast, understood the poten-
tial of BIM for all project types and were willing to share informa-
tion with project managers. Thus, in Design Build projects, better
collaboration was achieved.
As experience accumulated, management identified model-
based analyses and simulations that added significant value and
began requiring their use in projects. Construction teams used
laser scanning and other tools to document quality and as-built
J. Manage. Eng.
 information, which could then be repackaged for operation, main-
tenance, and future design tasks. These actions gave the organiza-
tion a significant performance benefit.
As of January 2018, the EA still had gaps with respect to per-
mitting, standard object libraries and training. Despite these gaps,
the organization had begun collecting thorough as-built informa-
tion in a common asset information platform that supports organi-
zational decision making.
Discussion
Interaction of BIM Adoption Actions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The original BIM-AIM model embodied the implicit assumption
that actions that an organization undertakes to promote BIM adop-
tion result both in better information at the organizational level and
greater BIM maturity in the organization’s projects. Indeed, the TfL
and EA case study results show trends that suggest incremental im-
provement in project BIM maturity in parallel with proactive steps
taken by the agencies. However, any assumption of direct causation
is undermined by the richer evidence from IMOD and by the so-
phistication of the first project in the TfL set.
During the first half of the period examined, the process in
IMOD showed the same trend as that observed for the other two
organizations. However, during the second half, despite continued
action at the organization level, results are mixed: some project man-
agers perceived a significant decline in agency BIM maturity. The
first TfL project was exceptional, with BIM maturity significantly
higher than the norm for the organization at the time, suggesting that
individual projects can perform well with little dependence on the
agency’s actions.
Despite the efforts that IMOD management made to implement
most of the agency actions represented in the BIM-AIM, the con-
tinuity of BIM maturity among its projects was not assured. Some
examples of the dissonance are as follows:
• The agency invested significant resources to establish a Big
Room for Project E, including agency employees’ time, furnish-
ing of work areas, software, and hardware. The architects and
engineers employed in the project created libraries of standard
BIM objects, but the agency failed to adopt the libraries as stan-
dard practice. Thus, potential benefits pertaining to standardiza-
tion and definition of information requirements were squandered.
• Despite contract clauses requiring work with BIM, a lack of ef-
fective information quality assurance procedures, coupled with
ineffective definition of the information goals for the agency
beyond the level of individual projects, led to project managers
acquiescing to the immediate pressures applied by design of-
fices and contractors in their projects to complete parts of their
projects using traditional computer-aided design (CAD) meth-
ods. In IMOD’s Project D, the architect said that “Only half of
the project team worked with BIM. The model manager failed to
close the gap and it caused us to work half of the time with BIM
and half of the time without. In fact, the project manager gave up
on BIM when we fell behind schedule”.
• Model managers were required to prepare a BEP together with
the project team. The plans were prepared in most of the proj-
ects, but the teams did not fully implement them.
At the EA, in contrast, significant efforts were invested in lead-
ership, internal education and guidance, inclusion of supply chain
partners in defining processes and detailed asset information re-
quirements, and screening of designers and contractors accord-
ing to their capability and capacity for work with BIM. Interviews
with suppliers of TfL and EA revealed that collaboration and
© ASCE 05020008-7
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008
organizational leadership encouraged suppliers to produce digital
information of value to the agencies. The suppliers understood
the value of the information and the implications for the ways they
work.
This mixed evidence underlines that agency adoption actions do
not necessarily ensure better project and/or agency BIM perfor-
mance. Rather, some actions are critical, enabling and/or amplify-
ing the effect of others, codependent, or of less or no significance
and may in fact squander an organization’s resources. For example,
careful and thorough preparation of a set of asset information re-
quirements and proactive management leadership resonate and am-
plify the impact of other agency actions, such as training; creation
of a BIM object library by an agency requires the investment of
considerable resources and appears to be of marginal value.
Specifically, in reviewing the evidence from all three agencies
mapped onto the BIM-AIM, five of the adoption actions contem-
plated in the BIM-AIM were not standard practice in any of the case
study agencies, and seven others were found to amplify BIM adop-
tion. The five actions not performed by any of the agencies were
• agency control and measurement of BIM performance across
projects,
• review of actual post-occupancy performance to determine ac-
curacy of asset/building performance predicted by BIM analy-
sis tools,
• monitoring design efficiency by measuring cost and duration,
• training of permitting bodies, and
• distribution of BIM object libraries and enforcement of their
use.
Actions found to amplify BIM adoption were
• Leadership and control influences employees’ behavior signifi-
cantly. A clearly stated, well-motivated and consistent require-
ment to use BIM is essential, reinforcing for project managers
and service providers that BIM-related demands will not change
from one project to the next. This result aligns with the findings
of Wang and Song (2017), albeit in the context of design firms,
who found that top management support was positively and sig-
nificantly associated with BIM user satisfaction, which in turn
drove adoption and implementation.
• Early inclusion of suppliers in BIM adoption proved highly
effective in the EA, whose needs definition was complex. In
some IMOD projects, the BIM requirements were not shared
with suppliers, and interpretations of the required BIM products
changed from project to project.
• BIM management training for project managers is important and
critical. An introduction to the potential functionality of BIM
tools when used correctly indeed proves essential in motivating
them and maintaining discipline and commitment. Such training
programs may be frontal, like at the IMOD, or integrative, like at
the EA. There is no guarantee that project managers will realize
the vision of working with BIM because project-level BIM ob-
jectives are not necessarily aligned with project objectives; train-
ing must, therefore, focus on the connections between achieving
both organizational and project goals when realizing design and
construction using BIM.
• Direct support for project managers derives from training and
complements it. The training process at TfL was most effective
since project managers learned tools through the direct support
of projects. Project managers remained motivated and future
value for the agency was ensured.
• Preparation of an owner’s information model (OIR). Without a
contractual document that sets out requirements and objectives,
teams often misinterpret BIM requirements. The OIR sets the
standard across an agency’s projects for the delivery of uniform
and thus valuable, information.
J. Manage. Eng.
 • Payment for using BIM. All three organizations began adop-
tion with the assumption that the transition requires no addi-
tional payment to design firms. As adoption progressed and
expectations for the information required formed, agencies
learned that the provision of digital information rather than
drawings requires professional resources that imply increased
cost for design and information management. These processes
must be budgeted for early on in the BIM adoption process.
• Coordination of expectations and information sharing. The re-
luctance to share domain models limits the ability to connect the
pieces to form a complete, comprehensive picture of a project.
Fears of professional liability for error restrict the provision of
discipline design models to contractors. All three agencies cre-
ated model-delivery and sharing mechanisms that helped allay
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fears and encourage the sharing of detailed information.
Sources of Motivation
The EA and TfL participated in the UK BIM Task Group (Blackwell
2012; CIC 2019) and derived significant advantages from it. When
the case studies began, both agencies already had BIM standards and
a BIM mandate for their designers. The IMOD, in contrast, began its
journey as the lone public agency in its local industry seeking to
adopt BIM. The EA and TfL aspired to achieve BIM Level 2 in all
of their projects. Both were strongly motivated by the UK gov-
ernment BIM mandate, which required the implementation of BIM
in all government projects by April 2016. Unlike EA and TfL,
IMOD faced no government mandate or indeed any other demand
to implement BIM. The primary motivation derived from the head
of the organization, who decided to adopt BIM using all available
means to optimize the organization’s function. With consistent
leadership, he overcame project managers’ fears and objections re-
garding increased costs and extended schedules. The head invested
personal time and appointed an agency BIMM director to adopt stan-
dard BIM requirements within the first year of adoption. Only when
information requirements and specifications were complete, and
project managers had undergone training, did pilot projects begin
bearing fruit. However, in the second half of the study period, lead-
ership attention turned elsewhere and the director’s position became
vacant. Although project managers continued to require BIM from
the design and construction teams, they failed to properly control the
deliverables and the level of BIM maturity regressed.
Although the UK mandate was the primary driver for EA’s
adoption of BIM, as time passed, management motivation drew in-
creasingly more from the positive perception of the value for the
preservation of asset information and organizational knowledge
and less from the fear of budget cuts. BIM leaders at TfL stood
out, compared with the other agencies, in their structured approach
to mapping the agency’s processes and needs. BIM leaders at EA
acted with no ordered adoption plan but undertook all of the steps
taken by the other agencies. BIM leaders at IMOD executed an
ordered adoption plan during the first half of the adoption 3-year
adoption period, but they lost momentum and the agency regressed
during the latter half.
EA BIM leaders emphasized communication with entities out-
side the organization, directing their actions toward their suppliers
and collaborating with them to compile guidelines. TfL and IMOD,
in contrast, developed requirements internally. All three incorpo-
rated procedural and information requirements (OIR) in their con-
tract documents, expecting that this would be the prime motivating
factor for their design and construction supply chains. However,
cultural differences led to different outcomes. In contrast with
the discipline of EA and TfL suppliers in conforming to process
requirements, IMOD suppliers often sought to evade fulfilling
© ASCE 05020008-8
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008
requirements where project managers were lax. Many projects
lapsed into shadow BIM modeling of designs done in 2D CAD,
resulting in meeting formal contract requirements to provide mod-
els, but without any of the process benefits. This reflects a product-
oriented (IMOD) versus a process-oriented (EA and TfL) cultural
preference. Where BIM is concerned, the different outcomes under-
line that focus on process is essential.
Long-Term Value Versus Short-Term Value
Many studies on BIM address the benefits of streamlined design and
control processes (Azhar et al. 2011; Miettinen and Paavola 2014;
Sacks et al. 2018; CURT 2010) in projects. Others focus on the added
value of the modeling process, such as reduced project durations,
more accurate cost estimates, and less production waste. Very few,
however, discuss long-term information benefits for the organization.
Evidence of achievement of these short-term benefits was found
in all of the three agencies’ projects. IMOD’s actions focused ex-
clusively on improving project outcomes. Aksenova et al. (2019)
found a similar effect in the Finnish AEC industry, concluding that
BIM adoption had achieved local improvements in project produc-
tivity but had no systemic effect on the industry at large, nor had it
provided valuable data assets for client agencies.
However, it can also be otherwise. Data stored over time enable
the creation of new information and knowledge (Cooper 2017). For
example, an agency can be expected to generate experiential knowl-
edge from information on the actual energy consumption modes of a
building, which then guides the agency’s future design and opera-
tion policies. The deeper value for the organization comes from the
knowledge derived from the information that has been created and
stored, enabling it to act in the future in a better educated manner.
Knowledge from information on the failures and/or successes of past
designs, comparing actual with predicted performance, is applied
in the design of future facilities. The knowledge is also applied to
efficient operation and maintenance of buildings and their systems.
A clear manifestation of this was found in the EA case study. The
EA has a digital network control system that enables project man-
agers to report project progress in real time. In the EA’s flood pro-
tection project, management systematically monitored the progress
of each subproject and data gathered during execution enabled later
analysis. For example, as-built LIDAR scans are routinely compared
with follow-up scans to map deficiencies and locate gaps over time.
TfL preserved information acquired during construction using sim-
ilar means: integration of information from BIM models, photo-
graphic images, and LIDAR scans into its GIS systems. TfL’s GIS
system, supplemented with this information, supports decision-
making for the development of the city’s transportation system.
The focus on the agency as a whole and its information needs,
rather than on specific projects, enables the organization to outline
broad information management processes. This aligns with Dakhil
et al.’s list of BIM benefits in which the three benefits that apply
beyond the project lifetime all relate to the value of information
(Dakhil et al. 2016). Data enable organizations to monitor the
depreciation rate of structures, asset quality, and even suitability
of facilities to user needs. This fundamental value can only be real-
ized by driving processes of data storage, data analysis to generate
information, and, later on, knowledge derivation.
BIM-AIM 2.0
As a result of these insights, a new version—BIM AIM 2.0—was
compiled. Fig. 5 shows that BIM AIM 2.0 is defined using IDEF0
notation (NIST 1993), representing not only the inputs and outputs
of each action, but also the controls that govern their execution and
J. Manage. Eng.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE
05020008-9

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008

Fig. 5. First level of the BIM-AIM 2.0 defined in IDEF0.

J. Manage. Eng.
 the resources required for them. It identifies actions that generate
long-term value, high-impact or amplifying actions, less important
actions, and it classifies actions according to context (actions refer-
ring to people, technology, process, and/or information).
The following actions were added in BIM-AIM 2.0:
• Preparing OIR: A document specifying objectives and BIM re-
quirements at the agency level (this was previously present only
as a project-level action).
• Prequalification of design and construction firms for BIM cap-
ability and capacity.
• Agency level monitoring and control of BIM processes within
projects through inspection of agency project managers’ com-
pliance with processes.
• Agency level inspection and control of inputs into the agency’s
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
information systems from project information. This includes,
for example, inspection and review of point clouds, images,
model geometry, and alphanumeric data.
The BIM-AIM 2.0 can be used by organizations that lack the
time, resources, or knowledge for an extended period of self-study.
Such organizations will find the map to be valuable, particularly
early on when defining their goals at the beginning of the adoption
process from an understanding of the potential end effects. Using
the map will also support organizations in planning what actions to
implement to achieve their goals.
Conclusions
In this 33-month longitudinal study, case study data were collected
from 17 projects of three large public construction agencies, using
in-depth interviews and structured questionnaires framed by the
BIM-AIM. At the time of the study, the IMOD was the single largest
construction client in the country. The EA and TfL, like the IMOD,
are also significant public clients in the construction industries in
which they operate. All three have in-house construction procure-
ment departments, and the conclusions address this client type.
Nevertheless, it is likely that public clients using out-sourced client
representatives will also find the conclusions relevant and applicable.
This work is the first to provide a theoretical basis and practical
tools for BIM adoption by public construction agencies. Prior to this
research, the cause and effect relationships between agencies’ pro-
active BIM adoption efforts and the resulting impacts on the proj-
ects in their portfolios could only be surmised (Khosrowshahi and
Arayici 2012; Lindblad 2019; Silva et al. 2016). Some agencies in-
deed fail to appreciate, or are unaware of, the value they can gain as
facility operators from the mere requirement to use BIM in the proj-
ects they procure beyond the short-term benefits at the individual
project level (such as high-quality design information, shortening of
design and execution durations, and prevention of waste due to re-
work in construction—Bryde et al. 2013; Lehtinen 2012; Sacks et al.
2018). The following paragraphs highlight the study’s key findings.
Impact of adoption promotion actions. The case study results
showed in a qualitative and quantitative manner that there is a pos-
itive correlation between the investment in BIM at the organizational
level and the maturity of BIM implementation achieved at the project
and organization received. However, it is equally clear that this is not
a linear relationship and that individual actions are codependent and
vary greatly in their impact. The whole is greater than the sum of its
parts, and the EA did not execute all of the possible actions, but EA
achieved successful adoption. The IMOD acted in all areas mapped
by the original BIM-AIM, but over time, various concessions by in-
sufficiently prepared and trained project managers led to degradation
of the quality of the outcomes in its projects. It is evident some
actions have significantly more effect than others.
© ASCE 05020008-10
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008
The accumulated value takes the form of information, and not
only project-level outcomes—the organizational assets that did not
exist previously. The need for digital assets is not obvious and re-
quires organizational maturity, in turn requiring sufficient invest-
ment in the creation of such assets.
Long-term value of information value. Although this study was
originally framed to study the impact of an agency-initiated and
agency-led BIM adoption process on the local project outcomes
for end users of the built assets it procured, the results highlight
the long-term value that public agencies can derive from the infor-
mation defining their assets that can be collected during project
BIM implementations. This value is manifested in the accumula-
tion of data in a comprehensive information system describing an
agency’s facilities and their operation, and it extends well beyond
the more familiar values of BIM for construction projects, which
manifest in the budget, time schedule, quality, and safety of indi-
vidual projects. Such information systems enable agencies to ana-
lyze the data, run predictive simulations, and generate information
to support decision-making with far-reaching consequences. Find-
ings from the EA and TfL case studies underline the value inherent
in a comprehensive, in-depth, and detailed data base of an agency’s
assets. In contrast, the IMOD was not ready to benefit from that
value, and it was not realized.
Motivation. The value of an agency’s decision to transition to
BIM is not enough to ensure implementation or lasting effect. All
adoption actions must be backed-up by a concerted, continuous, and
sustained leadership effort by an agency’s head and senior manag-
ers. A national or governmental BIM mandate is of great value, as
can be seen in the significant advantages that the TfL and the EA
derived from the UK government BIM mandate in terms of both
motivation and practical support through the UK BIM task force.
In this context, a mature perception of the value of agency-level in-
formation needs is a strong motivating factor at the project level.
Need for agency-level information requirements. The experi-
ence of all three agencies supports the argument in favor of the
preparation of a detailed set of owner’s information requirements
(OIR) at the agency level rather than delegating this to the project
level BEP (as is common practice in many agencies). The uniform-
ity of requirements is necessary to ensure compatibility of the in-
formation delivered at project handover for incorporation into an
agency’s digital twin database representing its assets and their op-
eration. An agency OIR also avoids possible negative consequen-
ces of leaving the information demands to the discretion of project
managers. A corollary of creating and maintaining an agency-level
OIR is that the agency must retain a professional BIM manager
who understands the work processes within and outside the agency.
Similarly, it provides the foundation for agency level monitoring of
information deliverables in projects, and this is essential in business
cultures that do not prioritize standardized procedures.
The revised, comprehensive BIM-AIM 2.0 model is a practical
outcome of the study. Exposure of the first version of the BIM-AIM
to scrutiny in all case studies showed that BIM managers through
its use as a research tool provided the opportunity to fine tune the
model, making it representative of the full gamut of BIM adoption
actions evidenced in the case studies. Public construction owners
can use the BIM-AIM 2.0 as a tool for planning their BIM adoption
processes and for reviewing the ongoing performance of BIM
adoption programs.
In conclusion, this work has revealed the value that engineering
managers in all organizations engaged in public construction can
derive from effective management of BIM adoption: short-term
economic and schedule benefits in projects and long-term benefits
from knowledge and information retained in the organization and
across the supply chain.
J. Manage. Eng.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Appendix. Project Level Perception of Agency and Project BIM Maturity

© ASCE
Client action areas
Design BIM use
Managers’ control in the
Organizational Level of Standardization & Leadership understanding & Organizational (review & Client construction End user Total
Project level interview questions BIM Guide training BIM libraries encouragement commitment funding feedback) satisfaction stage satisfaction (%)
Agency BIM maturity questions
What proportion of your agency’s employees — — — 1.25% — — — — — — 1.25
were exposed to BIM?
What proportion of your agency’s project — — — — 0.63% — 1.11% — — — 1.74
managers are able to run a BIM project?
What BIM training has the project manager — 1.67% — — — — — — — — 1.67
had?
Do you use BIM in any project? — — — — 0.63% — — — — — 0.63
What do you use BIM tools for? — — 1.00% — 0.63% — 1.11% — — — 2.74
What proportion of the agency’s projects — — — 1.25% — — — — — — 1.25
require BIM (a percentage)?
How long ago was the decision taken to adopt — — — 1.25% 0.63% 1.67% — — — — 3.54
BIM?
Who decided to adopt BIM in the agency? — — — 1.25% — 1.67% — — — 2.00% 4.92
Has an adoption goal been defined? — — — 1.25% — — — — — — 1.25
Do junior management require the use of BIM — — — 1.25% — — — — — — 1.25
in projects?
Is there a contractual requirement for the 2.50% — — — 0.63% — 1.11% — — — 4.24
design team to use BIM?
Does the agency have a BIM guide? 2.50% 1.67% 1.00% — — — — — — — 5.17

05020008-11
How familiar are you with the guide? Have — 1.67% 1.00% — 0.63% — — — — — 3.29
you implemented it?
Does the agency have a standard BEP? 2.50% — 1.00% — — — — — — — 3.50
Is the BEP dictated by the agency or prepared — — 1.00% — 0.63% — — — — — 1.63

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008

by the project partners?
Has the organization purchased BIM software — — — — — 1.67% — — — — 1.67
and equipment for projects?
Has the agency provided one or more Big — — — — — 1.67% — — — — 1.67
Rooms for collaborative design?
Does the agency have modelling standards? — — 1.00% — — — 1.11% — — — 2.11
Does the agency pay more for projects using — — — — — 1.67% — — — — 1.67
BIM?
Has the agency supported its suppliers in — 1.67% — 1.25% — 1.67% — — 1.67% — 6.25
upgrading to BIM?
Does the agency require contractors to use — — — — 0.63% — — — 1.67% — 2.29
BIM?
Project BIM maturity questions
Is BIM used in your project? — — — 1.25% 0.63% — — — — 2.00% 3.88
Who decided to adopt BIM in the project? — — — — 0.63% — — 2.50% 1.67% 2.00% 6.79
Does the client participate in the design — — — — — — 1.11% 2.50% — 2.00% 5.61
process?
Is the model shared with the client? — — — — — — 1.11% 2.50% — 2.00% 5.61
Do the design consultants who don’t model — 1.67% 1.00% — — — 1.11% — — — 3.78
themselves, use the model?

J. Manage. Eng.
 construction End user Total

1.74

3.40

2.29

3.29
3.29

3.50
3.13
satisfaction (%)
Data Availability Statement

100
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study
appear in the published article.

—
—

—
—

10%
Acknowledgments
BIM use

1.67%

1.67%
1.67%
in the

stage
— The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the man-

—
—

10%
agement, project managers, and agency BIM leaders of the EA, TfL
and the Israel Ministry of Defense in providing extensive access to
their projects and participating in interviews over the full course of
feedback) satisfaction

2.50%
Client

the research.
—

—
—

10%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

References
understanding & Organizational (review &
Design
control

1.11%

1.11%

—
—

—
—
Ahmed, A. L., and M. Kassem. 2018. “A unified BIM adoption taxonomy:

10%
Conceptual development, empirical validation and application.” Autom.
Constr. 96 (Dec): 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.08
.017.
Aksenova, G., A. Kiviniemi, T. Kocaturk, and A. Lejeune. 2019. “From
funding
—

—
—

—
—

Finnish AEC knowledge ecosystem to business ecosystem: Lessons

10%
Client action areas

learned from the national deployment of BIM.” Constr. Manage. Econ.

37 (6): 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2018.1481985.
Al Sayed, K., M. Bew, A. Penn, D. Palmer, and T. Broyd. 2015. “Modelling
dependency networks to inform data structures in BIM and smart
commitment
Managers’

cities.” In Proc., 10th Space Syntax Symp. (SSS10), edited by K. Karimi,

0.63%

0.63%

0.63%

0.63%
0.63%

0.63%
—

L. Vaughan, K. Sailer, G. Palaiologou, and T. Bolton, 90:1–90:15.

10%

London: Space Syntax Laboratory, The Bartlett School of Architecture,

Univ. College London.
Amor, R., M. Betts, G. Coetzee, and M. Sexton. 2002. “Information tech-
encouragement

nology for construction: Recent work and future directions.” J. Inf.

Leadership

Technol. Constr. 7 (16): 245–258.

—

—
—

—
—

Arayici, Y., P. Coates, L. Koskela, M. Kagioglou, C. Usher, and

10%

K. O’Reilly. 2011. “BIM adoption and implementation for architec-

tural practices.” Struct. Surv. 29 (1): 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1108
/02630801111118377.
Organizational Level of Standardization &

Arup. 2014. “BIM maturity measure v1.00.” Accessed October 1, 2019.

BIM libraries

https://www.arup.com/-/media/arup/files/publications/b/copy-of-123456
1.00%
1.00%

1.00%

-bim-maturity-measure-ver-100by-arup.xlsm.
—

10%

Azhar, S. 2011. “Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, bene-

fits, risks, and challenges for the AEC industry.” Leadersh. Manage.
Eng. 11 (3): 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630
.0000127.
training

Azzouz, A., A. Copping, P. Shepherd, and A. Duncan. 2016. “Using the

1.67%
—

—
—

—
—

10%

ARUP BIM maturity measure to demonstrate BIM implementation in

practice.” In Proc., 32nd Annual ARCOM Conf., edited by P. W. Chan
and C. J. Nielson, 25–34. Manchester, UK: Association of Researchers
BIM Guide

in Construction Management.
2.50%

Bew, M., T. Broyd, H. Shayesteh, and K. Al-Sayed. 2015. Digital built

—

—
—

10%

Britain Level 3 building information modelling—Strategic plan.

London, UK: HM Government.
Blackwell, B. 2012. Building information modelling—Industrial strategy:
What is the source for construction documents

Government and industry in partnership. Dept. for Business, Innova-

Do model access permissions differ across

tion and Skills, HM Government, London, UK.

Do you feel that design productivity was
As a project manager, have you received

Is the model shared with the contractor?

Brett, M. 2016. TfL building information modelling (BIM) strategy.

London, UK: Transport for London (TfL).
Does the contractor have modeling

Bryde, D., M. Broquetas, and J. M. Volm. 2013. “The project benefits of

Project level interview questions

responsibilities? What are they?

building information modelling (BIM).” Int. J. Project Manage. 31 (7):

971–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.001.
Appendix. (Continued.)

Cao, D., H. Li, G. Wang, X. Luo, and D. Tan. 2018. “Relationship network
Is there a project BEP?

structure and organizational competitiveness: Evidence from BIM

implementation practices in the construction industry.” J. Manage.
training in BIM?

Eng. 34 (3): 04018005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479

and drawings?

.0000600.
Total scores

Chan, D. W. M., T. O. Olawumi, and A. M. L. Ho. 2019. “Perceived

improved?
designers?

benefits of and barriers to building information modelling (BIM) im-

plementation in construction: The case of Hong Kong.” J. Build. Eng.
25 (Sep): 100764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100764.

© ASCE 05020008-12 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008

 Cheng, J. C., and Q. Lu. 2015. “A review of the efforts and roles of the
public sector for BIM adoption worldwide.” J. Inf. Technol. Constr.
20: 442–478.
CIC (Construction Industry Council). 2013. BIM planning guide for facility
owners. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State Univ.
CIC (Construction Industry Council). 2019. “Building information model-
ling (BIM) task group.” Accessed October 25, 2019. http://cic.org.uk
/projects/project.php?s=building-information-modelling-bim-task-group.
Cooper, P. 2017. “Data, information, knowledge and wisdom.” Anaesth.
Intensive Care Med. 18 (1): 55–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpaic
.2016.10.006.
CURT (The Construction Users Roundtable). 2010. “BIM implementation:
An owner’s guide to getting started.” Accessed April 1, 2019. https://
www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/19432985/bim-implementation-an
-owners-guide-to-getting-started.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Dainty, A., R. Leiringer, S. Fernie, and C. Harty. 2017. “BIM and the
small construction firm: A critical perspective.” Build. Res. Inf. 45 (6):
696–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1293940.
Dakhil, A., J. Underwood, and M. Al Shawi. 2016. “BIM benefits-maturity
relationship awareness among UK construction clients.” In Proc.,
First Int. Conf. of the BIM Academic Forum, 14. Glasgow, Scotland:
Glasgow Caledonian Univ.
Davies, R., and C. Harty. 2013. “Implementing ‘Site BIM’: A case study of
ICT innovation on a large hospital project.” Autom. Constr. 30 (Mar):
15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.11.024.
Eadie, R., H. Odeyinka, M. Browne, C. McKeown, and M. Yohanis. 2013.
“An analysis of the drivers for adopting building information model-
ling.” J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 18: 338–352.
Enache-Pommer, E., M. J. Horman, J. I. Messner, and D. Riley. 2010.
“A unified process approach to healthcare project delivery: Synergies
between greening strategies, lean principles, and BIM.” In Proc., Con-
struction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for Reshaping Con-
struction Practice, 1376–1405. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Gerrish, T., K. Ruikar, M. Cook, M. Johnson, M. Phillip, and C. Lowry.
2017. “BIM application to building energy performance visualisation
and management: Challenges and potential.” Energy Build. 144 (Jun):
218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.03.032.
Giel, B. K., and R. R. A. Issa. 2013. “Return on investment analysis
of using building information modeling in construction.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 27 (5): 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943
-5487.0000164.
Gu, N., and K. London. 2010. “Understanding and facilitating BIM adop-
tion in the AEC industry.” Autom. Constr. 19 (8): 988–999. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.002.
Gurevich, U., R. Sacks, and P. Shrestha. 2017. “BIM adoption by public
facility agencies: Impacts on occupant value.” Build. Res. Inf. 45 (6):
610–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1289029.
Jin, R., C. Hancock, L. Tang, C. Chen, D. Wanatowski, and L. Yang. 2017.
“Empirical study of BIM implementation–based perceptions among
Chinese practitioners.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (5): 04017025. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000538.
Kam, C., D. Senaratna, B. McKinney, Y. Xiao, and M. Song. 2013. The
VDC scorecard: Formulation and validation. Center for Integrated
Facility Engineering, Stanford Univ.
Kassem, M., and B. Succar. 2017. “Macro BIM adoption: Comparative
market analysis.” Autom. Constr. 81 (Sep): 286–299. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.autcon.2017.04.005.
Khosrowshahi, F., and Y. Arayici. 2012. “Roadmap for implementation of
BIM in the UK construction industry.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage.
19 (6): 610–635. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981211277531.
Lam, T. T., L. Mahdjoubi, and J. Mason. 2017. “A framework to assist
in the analysis of risks and rewards of adopting BIM for SMEs in
the UK.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 23 (6): 740–752. https://doi.org/10
.3846/13923730.2017.1281840.
Lee, S., J. Yu, and D. Jeong. 2013. “BIM acceptance model in construction
organizations.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (3): 04014048. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000252.
Lehtinen, T. 2012. “Increasing integration in construction projects: A case
study on a PPP project adopting BIM.” In Proc., eWork and eBusiness
© ASCE 05020008-13
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008
in architecture, engineering and construction, edited by G. Gudnason
and R. Scherer, 439–446. Reykjavik, Iceland: CRC Press.
Liao, L., and E. Ai Lin Teo. 2018. “Organizational change perspective
on people management in BIM implementation in building projects.”
J. Manage. Eng. 34 (3): 04018008. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000604.
Lindblad, H. 2019. “Black boxing BIM: The public client’s strategy in BIM
implementation.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 37 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org
/10.1080/01446193.2018.1472385.
Ma, P., S. Zhang, Y. Hua, and J. Zhang. 2020. “Behavioral perspective
on BIM postadoption in construction organizations.” J. Manage.
Eng. 36 (1): 04019036. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000729.
Matta, C., K. Kam, and T. Graves. 2007. GSA BIM guide series 01 – The
national 3D-4D-BIM program. Office of the Chief Architect, Public
Buildings Service, US General Services Administration, Washington,
DC.
McAuley, B., A. Hore, and R. West. 2017. BICP global BIM study-lessons
for Ireland’s BIM programme. School of Surveying and Construction
Management, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland.
Miettinen, R., and S. Paavola. 2014. “Beyond the BIM utopia: Approaches
to the development and implementation of building information mod-
eling.” Autom. Constr. 43: 84–91.
MOD (Ministry of Defence). 2016. “A better defence estate.” Accessed
June 9, 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government
/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576401/Better_Defence
_Estate_Dec16_Amends_Web.pdf.
NIST. 1993. Integration definition for function modeling (IDEF0).
Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
Papadonikolaki, E. 2018. “Loosely coupled systems of innovation: Align-
ing BIM adoption with implementation in Dutch construction.” J. Man-
age. Eng. 34 (6): 05018009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943
-5479.0000644.
Sacks, R., C. M. Eastman, G. Lee, and P. Teicholz. 2018. BIM handbook:
A guide to building information modeling for owners, designers, engi-
neers, contractors and facility managers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sacks, R., U. Gurevich, and P. Shrestha. 2016. “A review of building in-
formation modeling protocols, guides and standards for large construc-
tion clients.” J. Inf. Technol. Constr. (ITCon) 21: 479–503.
Shoolestani, A., B. Shoolestani, T. Froese, and D. J. Vanier. 2015. “Socio-
BIM: BIM-to-end user interaction for sustainable building operations
and facility asset management.” In Proc., 5th Int./11th Construction
Specialty Conf. on Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Montreal,
Canada: Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.
Silva, M. J. F., F. Salvado, P. Couto, and Á. V. e Azevedo. 2016. “Roadmap
proposal for implementing building information modelling (BIM) in
Portugal.” Open J. Civ. Eng. 6 (3): 475. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojce
.2016.63040.
Smith, W. K. 2014. “Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders
managing strategic paradoxes.” Acad. Manage. J. 57 (6): 1592–1623.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0932.
Succar, B., W. Sher, and A. Williams. 2013. “An integrated approach to BIM
competency assessment, acquisition and application.” Autom. Constr.
35 (Nov): 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.016.
Supplier Handbook. 2018. “Document No.: H-054 Issue No.: A5.” Ac-
cessed October 10, 2019. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/suppliers-handbook
-updated.pdf.
TfL (Transport for London). 2018. “Transport for London P020 A3 asset
management policy.” Accessed June 9, 2019. http://content.tfl.gov.uk
/tfl-asset-management-policy.pdf.
Tiejten, R. 2010. “The veterans administration BIM guide, Department of
Veterans Affairs.” Accessed March 1, 2019. http://www.cfm.va.gov/til
/bim/BIMguide/downloads/VA-BIM-Guide.pdf.
Tulubas Gokuc, Y., and D. Arditi. 2017. “Adoption of BIM in architectural
design firms.” Archit. Sci. Rev. 60 (6): 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1080
/00038628.2017.1383228.
Van Berlo, L. A. H. M., T. Dijkmans, H. Hendriks, D. Spekkink, and W.
Pel. 2012. “BIM Quickscan: Benchmark of BIM performance in the
Netherlands.” In Proc. of the CIB W78 2012: 29th Int. Conf. Beirut,
Lebanon.
J. Manage. Eng.
 Wang, G., and J. Song. 2017. “The relation of perceived benefits and
organizational supports to user satisfaction with building information
model (BIM).” Comput. Hum. Behav. 68 (Mar): 493–500. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.002.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Wong, A. K. D., F. K. Wong, and A. Nadeem. 2011. “Government roles in
implementing building information modelling systems: Comparison be-
tween Hong Kong and the United States.” Constr. Innovation 11 (1):
61–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714171111104637.

© ASCE 05020008-14 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 05020008