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

net/publication/317663680

A Framework for Developing a BIM Strategy

Conference Paper · October 2016

CITATIONS READS

2 8,528

2 authors, including:

Bimal Kumar
Northumbria University
190 PUBLICATIONS 1,530 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Integrated Semantic Web and BIM Technologies View project

Pathfinder View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bimal Kumar on 07 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 A Framework for Developing a BIM
2 Strategy
3 B Kumar and G Hayne, School of Engineering and Built Environment

4 Glasgow Caledonian University

5 Abstract
6 There has been a considerable amount of work done on the applications of Building
7 Information Modelling technologies for design and their use in collaboration in construction
8 projects. Despite the availability of these technologies for well over a decade now, their wide
9 scale adoption has been limited to the design stage. This has meant that the benefits have
10 accrued largely locally to the design organisations by way of a more efficient design
11 management process for dealing with clash detections and mitigation as well as other ensuing
12 modifications to the design. The promised land of benefits from BIM has so far eluded the
13 wider stakeholders at the project level and ultimately the end clients in any significant way.
14 Only in recent times has there been a realisation within the industry that without proper
15 processes, standards and contractual protocols in place for structured information
16 management for all stakeholders, the BIM technologies, on their own, would never achieve
17 the overall benefits for the end clients throughout the lifecycle of the assets as they
18 potentially could. This paper argues that information management and exchange processes,
19 standards and protocols underpinned and enabled by BIM technologies could indeed achieve
20 considerable benefits to all stakeholders in a construction project. An overall framework for
21 BIM-enabled asset delivery is proposed and the adoption of the framework by one of the
22 largest asset owners in the world is described. The organisation concerned is currently
23 implementing the framework in their projects after a thorough validation by the capital
24 project planning and delivery teams across their footprint. The paper concludes with
25 recommendations for a fresh approach that needs to be adopted to get the most out of BIM
26 with the emphasis being on processes, standards and protocols and the technologies largely
27 used as the key enabler for implementing them.

28 Keywords: Building Information Modelling, Information Exchange, Design, Collaboration,

29 Construction

1
30 1.0 Introduction and Background
31 BIM has been a major topic of interest for the construction industry around the world in
32 recent years. There are several high profile examples of BIM-driven project delivery
33 (Dossick and Neff, 2010; Sebastian, 2011; Porwal and Hewage, 2013; Barlish and Sullivan,
34 2010; that different organisations have claimed to have delivered over the recent past. At the
35 same time, there has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding about what exactly a
36 BIM-driven project actually implies. The vast majority of practitioners appear to take the
37 usage of BIM software in some aspects of the lifecycle of built asset procurement for it to
38 qualify to be a BIM-enabled asset delivery. That seems to be the prevailing wisdom and
39 understanding at the time of writing this paper. Lately, it has been pointed out by several
40 organisations and experts that whilst the ‘lonely’ use of BIM technologies does accrue
41 benefits largely to the organisation using them it does not necessarily benefit the project as a
42 whole and the end client organisation. To achieve benefits at the project level and to the end
43 clients over the entire lifecycle of the built asset, Collaborative BIM needs to be implemented
44 with appropriate processes, information exchange standards and contractual protocols in
45 place. Besides, the cost of lack of interoperability between systems which is a key
46 requirement for effective collaboration has been quantified in the USA (Gallaher et al., 2004).
47 This paper proposes a framework for developing a Collaborative BIM strategy and discusses
48 its implications by reporting on its implementation in a large asset owning organisation in the
49 UK. The implications of Collaborative BIM are far-reaching and could potentially alter the
50 relationships between the key stakeholders profoundly (Crotty, 2012; Kumar, 2013 and 2015;
51 Bryde et al., 2013; Fox and Hietanen, 2007). There are also potential implications for the
52 government bodies as well as the society at large. As increased amounts of digital
53 information get captured by utilising a collaborative BIM approach, several hitherto unknown
54 inferences could be drawn about the performance of built assets including their users’
55 behaviour patterns giving rise to several policy level and strategic decisions about their
56 procurement, operation and maintenance and future capital planning processes. It is,
57 therefore, no surprise that governments around the world (Cheng and Qiqi, 2015) are actively
58 adapting their procurement processes to suit a Collaborative BIM-enabled approach. In the
59 UK1, an entire set of processes and standards for information exchanges have been made
60 mandatory in all publicly procured projects from 2016 (BIS, 2011). This mandate is being

1
In Scotland, a similar mandate comes into effect in April 2017

2
61 facilitated by a whole suite of guidance and standard documents (CIC, 2013a; CIC, 2013b;
62 CIC, 2013c; CIC, 2014; CIC, 2015) that every project must comply with.

63
64 2.0 Research Methodology
65 As discussed in section 5 later, the methodology adopted in this work was one of iterative
66 workshops with relevant stakeholders with a view to first developing the process maps
67 (section 5.3). There was some four workshops organised each one of which focussed on
68 certain aspects of the existing process map for asset procurement within NHS Scotland and
69 how they could be mapped on a new set of BIM-based processes. Once the process map was
70 in place, several guidance documents and templates were developed covering the different
71 stages of the process map. These documents were also developed and improved through
72 iterative feedbacks and consultations within the key and relevant stakeholders of all the
73 fourteen health boards of NHS Scotland. It can, therefore, be concluded that the research
74 methodology used in this work was qualitative action research. Action research generally
75 involves “is a disciplined process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking the action. The
76 primary reason for engaging in action research is to assist the “actor” in improving and/or
77 refining his or her actions” (Sagor, 2016). Action research is also defined as “active
78 participation by the researcher in the process under study in order to identify, promote and
79 evaluate problems and solutions” (Fellowes and Liu, 2008). Figure 1 shows a typical action
80 research cycle.

81

82

83 Figure 1. A Typical Action Research Cycle (Passfield, 2013)

84 The key steps in the adopted research methodology can be summarised as:

3
 85  Iterative Focussed Workshops (Group interviews)
86  Validation through focussed workshops and feedback loop
87  Generalisation through further feedback through focussed workshops

88 3.0 Models for BIM Adoption

89 There are several models proposed for BIM adoption and literature is replete with competing
90 ideas. Based on work done by Everett Rogers (2003), Succar and Kassem (2015) have
91 distinguished adoption from diffusion by suggesting that adoption deals with a single
92 organisation whilst diffusion relates to the entire industry, sector or even a whole country.
93 Moore (2014) wrote a seminal book aimed primarily at marketing and sales professionals on
94 how a particular technology transitions from being just a desirable gadget to a popular one
95 capturing increasing share of markets they operate in. He calls this crossing the chasm. Often
96 it is not entirely clear as to what or how a product (or service) crosses the chasm, as it were,
97 but there are several explanations provided. Moore proposes that the early adopters of a
98 product are typically the enthusiasts and the visionaries whereas the majority buyers at a
99 much later stage are the pragmatists. He goes on to explore the quite different expectations of
100 these two categories of adopters and how they can be met with a view to potentially shortening the
101 lead time required to move from a relatively small group of enthusiasts and visionaries to capturing
102 large chunks of the market by convincing and meeting the expectations of the pragmatists.

103 In the context of any such innovation or major change in the construction industry, one
104 should consider its nature and key characteristics and how it operates. The construction
105 industry is a project (rather than product) based industry and possesses quite unique set of
106 characteristics. Relatively low market share by any single organisation and arguably severe
107 fragmentation in the industry are two such characteristics that arguably raise the industry’s
108 proclivity to poor innovation and profitability records. The most important implication of all
109 this is that there is potentially only one way to affect any major changes (e.g. innovation) in
110 this industry. The only way any such change could be implemented in this industry is if a
111 powerful client body forces it. It is well established that in most countries the Government,
112 being the single largest client group, happens to be the most powerful client of this industry.
113 Frequently, the more progressive governments around the world have, in their own way, been
114 instrumental in achieving most (if not all) innovations in this industry, their main driver being
115 savings and cost cutting and latterly carbon footprint reduction of their built assets. The
116 adoption (or diffusion) of BIM around the world is experiencing a similar drive by the
117 respective governments (some more effective than others). Ironically, all the models of
4
118 diffusion (Succar and Kassem, 2015), with some very powerful thinking and ideas embedded
119 within them, although have relevance in probably indirect ways than anything else, do not
120 really have much direct relevance when it comes to BIM adoption (or diffusion) as they are
121 singularly and arguably forced upon the industry (for good reasons and intent) as outlined
122 above.

123 3.1 What is BIM?

124 BIM has been defined by several people emphasising on the different aspects of its
125 implementation and potential benefits. For example, Eastman et al. (2013) have defined BIM
126 as a modelling technology and associated set of processes to produce, communicate and
127 analyse building models. These building models are characterised by building components
128 that are represented with intelligent digital representations that ‘know’ what they are and can
129 be associated with computable graphic and data attributes and parametric rules. Royal
130 Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) describe the fundamentals of BIM as ‘... a common
131 single and co-ordinated source of structured information...’ (RICS, 2016). National BIM
132 Standards-United States definition (NBIMS, 2016): "A BIM is a digital representation of
133 physical and functional characteristics of a facility. As such it serves as a shared knowledge
134 resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its
135 lifecycle from inception onward."

136 3.2 Difference between CAD and BIM Technologies

137 BIM includes:

138  Geometry;

139  Topology; and

140  Semantics.

141 CAD also contains geometry (location of points in space) and topology (connectivity between
142 points). However, what distinguishes BIM from CAD is the inclusion of semantics or
143 meaning in the CAD. BIM changes the emphasis by making the MODEL the primary tool for
144 communication. This model can be used to derive various information about the building
145 relating to design, construction and other aspects.

5
146 4.0 Elements of a BIM-based Asset Procurement Strategy
147 First of all, the overall purpose of a BIM strategy needs to be elucidated. It is suggested here
148 that any such strategy is intended to ensure the creation of a digitised information
149 management process which all stakeholders and people working on projects should follow to
150 maintain consistency and facilitate collaborative working, which will, in turn, reduce waste
151 and non-conformances. To that end, any such strategy should encapsulate the overall BIM
152 process as indicated in the schematic below:

153

Specify (Information
Requirements)

Assure Ensure (Contractuals,

(Assessment/validation) BIM PEP)

154

155 Figure 2. The schematic overall BIM-based Asset Procurement Process

156 This section describes the different elements of the BIM-based asset procurement strategy.
157 Essentially, there are five key elements of the strategy. First and foremost, a process map needs to
158 be developed which aligns with a typical information delivery lifecycle (PAS1192: Part2: 2013). As
159 mentioned earlier in section on research methodology, this is accomplished through a series of
160 iterative focussed workshops and feedback loops which takes the existing asset procurement
161 process and maps its keys stages with the corresponding stages of a BIM-based version of the
162 process. Once this is in place, associated guidance documents and templates need to be developed
163 aligned with the BIM-based process map for specifying the information requirements and ensuring
164 and assuring their delivery by the project team.

165

6
166 4.1 Process Mapping
167 To summarise the whole process of implementing a BIM-enabled asset life cycle, this section
168 presents a high-level workflow that brings together all the ideas discussed earlier in this chapter.
169 Figure 3 shows a high-level view of the workflow that should be typically followed for any BIM-
170 enabled project. The process starts with the definition of a need for either a new asset or
171 refurbishment or enhancement of an existing asset. In the case of a new asset, the process starts off
172 with a clean sheet with a set of requirements that the asset owner (the employer) might have. This is
173 what would be compiled together in an IR document. Based on the IRs, a project procurement
174 process may be initiated, which will be driven by the IR document in terms of which procurement
175 route to adopt as well as informing the tender documents. The tenders could well be single or
176 multistage ones, but such details are omitted here because the focus is to outline the overall
177 workflow. The tenders received will be based on the EIRs and any protocols that the project may
178 follow. At this stage, the information may well be at a higher level but may include BEP (BIM
179 Execution Plan) documents including the tenderers’ proposed approach as well as their capability
180 and competence in relation to BIM. This will then be followed by the awards of the contract after
181 various negotiations and clarifications. At this stage, a more comprehensive BEP document will be
182 prepared, agreed and signed off by all stakeholders of the project. In addition to the BEP document,
183 an IDP (Information Delivery Plan) will be prepared. At this stage, the PIM (Project Information
184 Model) starts taking shape, consisting of essentially graphical (building information models), non-
185 graphical and other documents that will include populated templates from the BEP and other
186 documents as stipulated in the IR document. At the end of the construction phase, the completed
187 PIM essentially becomes the AIM (Asset Information Model), which is handed over to the asset
188 management and facilities management group. In the case of a refurbishment or enhancement
189 project for an existing asset, the AIM already in place for the asset in question becomes the starting
190 point when specifying the need for the project, and which is then followed by the same steps
191 mentioned above for a new build project.

192 At the start of the process for developing a BIM Implementation strategy, this BIM workflow, must
193 be mapped onto the existing project/asset procurement process in the organisation. This is typically
194 done through a number of feedback workshops where the practitioners of the existing processes will
195 brainstorm each of its stage and work out the appropriate BIM workflow stages that they naturally
196 map onto. An example of such a process mapping exercise is discussed in section 5.3 for developing
197 the BIM process map for NHS Scotland.

7
198

199

Asset Need

PQQ/Tender
Docs. Information
Requirements
Specifications

Pre-contract Scope of
BIM PEP Services

Post-contract
BIM PEP Contractuals

Contract Awards
BIM Process
Workflow

Information
Delivery Plan Project
Information
Model

Asset
Information
Model
200

201

202 Figure 3: The BIM-based Asset Delivery Workflow

8
203 4.2 Information Requirements Specification
204 As mentioned earlier, once the process map has been developed, the first document that needs
205 to be developed is the information requirements templates that will mainly answer the
206 following question,

207  What information does the client organisation need to operate and maintain the asset
208 after handover?
209  What standard formats and schemas must the supplied information comply with?
210  What levels of detail should the supplied information adhere to?

211 This question implies that the asset and facilities management teams need to contribute in a
212 significant way to this stage when the information requirements are being specified. These
213 requirements will be driven, to a large extent, by the input requirements for the CAFM
214 (Computer-aided Facilities Management) and EAMS (Electronic Asset Management System)
215 currently in use by the client (asset owner/employer) organisation. To facilitate and
216 streamline the process of specifying the requirements, a standard template can be developed
217 which can be adapted for specific projects based on the specific requirements of the asset in
218 question. In the UK, this template (or document once it is fully developed for a particular
219 project) is called the EIR (Employer’s Information Requirements). It must be stressed that
220 the importance of EIR document cannot be over-emphasised as everything else hangs off this
221 document.

222 4.3 BIM Protocols/Contracts

223 The primary objective of the protocol is to enable the production of the models at defined stages
224 of a project. The protocol should incorporate provisions which support the production of
225 deliverables for ‘data drops’ at defined project stages. The protocol also should provide for the
226 appointment of an ‘Information Manager’. A further objective of the protocol is that its use will
227 support the adoption of effective collaborative working practices in Project Teams. Finally, it
228 should deal with the intellectual property rights (IPR) in relation to the production, ownership
229 and usage of the models by different stakeholders in a project. Different countries have their
230 own approach to dealing with these issues. In the UK, as far as level 2 BIM is concerned, the
231 ownership of the models lies with whoever produces it but the other stakeholders essentially
232 get a license to use the models in relation to any project-related activities.

233 4.4 BIM Project Execution Plans

234 Similar to a typical Project execution Plan (PEP) in a traditional project delivery process, every
235 BIM-enabled project should have a BIM PEP document agreed and signed off by all stakeholders,
236 right at the start of the project. Contractually, this document becomes an addendum to the
237 contract documents in the UK. Therefore, every stakeholder of a project is contractually bound
238 to comply with this document. There are several reasons why a document such as a BIM PEP is

9
239 essential to ensure that all stakeholders in a project deliver what is expected of them.
240 Introducing BIM in a project usually means bringing in new processes, particularly in terms of
241 information management. In order to successfully manage information in a project, everyone
242 involved in the project needs to sign up to processes and standards in advance of execution of
243 the project. This is a point that has been comprehensively made previously in earlier chapters.
244 This can only be achieved by careful advanced planning and documenting all processes mapped
245 on to the responsible parties alongside the different stages of the project. Therefore, whenever
246 there is a lack of clarity, dispute or confusion about any aspect of delivery of information
247 throughout the life cycle of the project, the BIM PEP is the document that the project team
248 should rely on for resolution. It is, therefore, not hard to imagine the crucial and important role
249 that this document can play in successful project delivery. Although the BIM PEP is supposed to
250 be provided by the supply chain in response to the IRs addressing the question, “How they will
251 deliver the information specified in the IRs?”, it is recommended that in the interest of
252 consistency of formats, the client/employer organisation should have its own BIM PEP template
253 which the supply chain should fill in as required.

254 5.0 Case Study – NHS Scotland

255 In response to the UK government’s mandate for BIM-driven project delivery from 2016,
256 National Health Service of Scotland, decided to develop a BIM strategy for procurement of
257 all its assets. NHS Scotland is one of the largest asset owners in the UK with more than 2,500
258 assets under operation and management. These assets are predominantly healthcare facilities
259 some of which are highly complex in terms of their size and functionalities. Their last major
260 capital project was the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Glasgow with 1677 beds and an
261 estimated value of circa. £850 million and is Scotland's largest ever publicly funded NHS
262 construction project.

263 5.1 NHS Scotland Procurement Routes

264 Frameworks 2
265 Frameworks Scotland 2 is a strategic partnering approach to the procurement of capital
266 schemes across NHS Scotland. It is a framework for the whole of Scotland based on a single
267 point deliverer (Principal Supply Chain Partner or PSCP) model offering a one stop shop for
268 the delivery of design and construction on projects via an integrated supply chain.
269 Frameworks Scotland 2 is the successor to and builds on the success of Frameworks Scotland
270 (SCIM, 2015).

10
271 NPD
272 The Non-Profit Distributing (NPD) programme was developed as an alternative to, and has
273 since superseded the traditional Private Finance Initiative (PFI) model in Scotland and is
274 being used to fund projects in three main sectors – Further Education, Health and Transport.

275 5.2 RIBA Plan of Works 2013

276 In 2013, the Royal Institution of British Architects (RIBA) published a newly modified Plan
277 of Work (PoW). This was arguably in response to the ascendancy of BIM-based asset
278 delivery in the UK and elsewhere in the world. The RIBA PoW (RIBA PoW, 2013)has been
279 by far the most popular process map used by the construction industry in the UK and several
280 other countries. The PoW organises the entire process of concept, briefing, design,
281 construction and operation and maintenance into a number of discrete stages. The 2013 PoW
282 stresses the predominance of the whole project team and the importance of the entire team’s
283 early involvement in the whole process.

284 5.3 NHS Scotland BIM-based Process Mapping

285 As mentioned before, the first step in the development of the BIM strategy is the mapping of
286 the existing procurement processes to a BIM-based one. Through a number of focussed
287 workshops which included representatives from the design, capital planning, projects and
288 strategy groups of all the fourteen health boards in Scotland, the mapping process was carried
289 out. An intitial draft set of process mapping was then circulated and feedbacks sought from
290 all the boards. After several iterations, the final BIM-based process map was arrived at as
291 shown below in figure 5. Figure 4 shows the existing process stages which includes the RIBA
292 2013 work stages and the SCIM stages that NHS Scotland use on traditional projects.

11
293

294 Figure 4. Existing Process Maps

295

296

297 Figure 5: NHS Scotland BIM Processes Mapped on to Existing Processes

12
298

299 Figure 6: A snapshot of some of the NHS Scotland BIM Process Data Drops

300
301 Figure 7: A section of NHS Scotland Employer’s information requirements Template

13
302 6.0 BIM Implementation Strategies and Progression through Maturity
303 levels

304 This section provides a brief outline of BIM-based project implementation strategies and
305 proposes a more pragmatic approach towards achieving different levels of maturity in a
306 gradual and phased manner.

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318 Figure 8. The “Wedge” Diagram showing BIM Technology Maturity Levels

319 The famous “wedge diagram” (Bew and Richards, 2008) above has been widely cited to
320 articulate the progression of different level of technology maturities with increased levels of
321 seamless working and effective data and process management. The original figure has been
322 modified slightly with the addition of several coloured lines denoting sub-stages, which will
323 explained later. The progression, as originally proposed by Bew and Richards, essentially
324 signifies the progress in technologies over the years and the associated levels of
325 sophistication with each maturity level. As is clear, the progression starts from unmanaged
326 CAD to essentially managed CAD and then onto BIM at level 2 and finally to Level 3. Level
327 2 and Level 3 BIM essentially differ in terms of the degree of integration where L2 BIM is
328 not fully integrated whereas L3 signifies the fully integrated, shared model. This model of

14
329 technology maturity levels appears to suggest a discrete move from one level to the next.
330 Whilst this is very useful in understanding the progression of technologies, when one
331 considers the way the adoption of these technologies actually happens in practice, the
332 progression is often is gradual indicating several sub-levels of maturity in addition to the four
333 discrete ones proposed, i.e. Level 1.1, level 1.2 …ultimately Level 2. This is an important and
334 profound issue and should be treated as one because there is generally a tendency within the
335 industry to move in discrete steps as implied by this diagram often resulting in confusion and
336 ultimately disillusion. Based on the experience with case study with NHS Scotland, it is
337 suggested here that organisations should make the transition in phases perhaps moving from
338 level 1 to 2 in several smaller steps. In practice, this could be implemented in several ways.
339 For example, to begin with only some of the key design functions may embrace BIM for
340 modelling activities, signifying essentially a lonely BIM approach. Once a certain level of
341 maturity is attained with these functions, the other functions may be brought on-stream
342 gradually. Similar approaches have been utilised in other case studies that have been
343 undertaken by the authors in other organisations. One of the main lessons that can be drawn
344 from these case studies points to an unsure and doubtful industry that is finding it hard to
345 make the discrete transition from whatever level they may be working at to level 2 in one
346 major step. There are several good examples of the gradual transition over a number of
347 smaller discrete steps dotted around the industry in different parts of the world. A similar
348 argument is being put forward for the next set of transition which is arguably a much bigger
349 and complex one to traverse. L3 BIM signifies major challenges, not least in a legal sense, in
350 any case due to the shared ownership (and hence shared liabilities) of the models. Therefore,
351 arguably the transition from L2 to L3 demands an even more gradual transition than the
352 earlier ones.

15
353

354 Figure 9. Transition to level 3 BIM in smaller, discrete sub-steps (UK Environment Agency)

355 Indeed, the UK’s Environment Agency has proposed the transition to Level 3 in four discrete
356 and smaller steps as shown in the figure above.

BIM
Model 1

CAD CAD
Model 4 CDE Model 2

BIM
Model 3
357

358 Figure 10. A Schematic indicating a Mixed Model consisting of Level1 and Level2 co-existing

359 It is accepted practise that architectural and structural models are developed to high level of
360 spatial detail and co-ordination during the design phase of a project before being issued to the
361 contractor for construction. At this stage the contractor’s sub-contractors will utilise the
362 design model to generate detailed installation details. This process is most commonly seen
363 with steelwork fabricators who will develop fabrication details for each element of steelwork.
364 The technology commonly used allows the fabricators model to be inserted into the original

16
365 design model to check for compliance of the design as well as feeding into the computer
366 operated fabrication shop. The fabricators model will include the same steel section sizes and
367 arrangement of the structure but will now include all necessary cleats and fittings required to
368 erect the steelwork on site.

369 An aspect of the design process that typically does not follow the above approach is that of
370 the MEP design. In a traditional contract an MEP consultant will develop design intent
371 information comprising of the principles of the design with schematic layouts and capacities
372 of plant required. To progress the design further, the consultant would need to specify
373 specific manufacturers and models for the elements of plant required in the system. Whilst
374 this is technically feasible two issues arise: Firstly, it encroaches on the ability of contractors
375 to gain commercial advantage through relationship with suppliers. Secondly, for publicly
376 funded projects the need for open tendering often precludes designers from specifying
377 specific manufacturers and suppliers. In these circumstances the design intent can only be
378 fully detailed and therefore co-ordinated once a contractor has appointed an MEP sub-
379 contractor who will specify the plant manufacturer and model. The situation is compounded
380 by the fact that MEP designs are relatively harder to model due to unavailability of
381 appropriate object families and generally requires a considerable effort to create the families.
382 It is for these reasons that the scenario depicted in figure 8 is more akin to reality on the
383 ground for organisations making the transition to level 2 BIM in gradual steps.

384 Problems with detailed design not evidently clear in 3D models produced by BIM systems
385 also necessitate the importance of 2D CAD outputs being invaluable certainly for the
386 construction team. It is common experience that several examples of details in the design are
387 not possible (or extremely tedious and onerous) to reproduce in a 3D building information
388 models. For example, fixing details and flashings for façade systems, which if not fully
389 detailed in the 3D model will also cause problems when importing the model into energy
390 assessment software. Many concrete structures also require chases and drips to be
391 incorporated into the concrete which are commonly detailed in the 2D details. A simple
392 example is shown in figure 11. The need to edit the 2D drawings cut from the model is also
393 acknowledged by the major software developers who have included commands exclusively
394 for this purpose. This also points to the fact that simply 2D cuts taken directly from the 3D
395 BIM models alone may not be sufficiently detailed for construction purposes and that 2D
396 details must also be a mandatory output as separate deliverables from the design process.

17
397

398 Figure 11. Details of chase shown in concrete section and omitted from 3D model.

399 Table 1: A matrix of sub-levels between Level 1 and 2 BIM

Maturity Sub-Level Components

Level 1.1 1. Mixed CAD and BIM models co-
existing in a federated architecture
through a CDE
2. Rudimentary IRs
3. Rudimentary BIM PEPs
4. Separate CAD 2D Detailed Designs
5. Standard Classification System

Level 1.2 1. Mixed CAD and BIM models co-

existing in a federated architecture
through a CDE
2. Structured IRs
3. Comprehensive BIM PEPs
4. LoD and LoI inclusive Info Delivery
Plan
5. Separate CAD 2D Detailed Designs
6. Standard Classification System
7. Any standard schema for handover
information. Does not have to be COBie
Level 1.3 1. All BIM models federated structure
through a CDE
2. CAD-based 2D Detailed Designs
3. Structured IRs
4. Comprehensive BIM PEPs
5. LoD and LoI inclusive Info Delivery
Plan
6. Standard Classification System
7. BIM Protocols in place
8. Potentially COBie outputs
Level 1.4 All components of Level 2 BIM
400

18
401 The table above shows how a gradual progression from Level 1 to level 2 may be
402 implemented. Arguably, one may add (or delete) some items from the second column
403 corresponding to different sub-levels but that still leaves this idea of gradual, stepped
404 transition intact rather than making that ‘jump’ in one single step which is increasingly seen
405 in practice in several instances.

406

407

408
Tools
409

410

411 Standards
and
Protocols
412

Processes
413

414

415

416

417 People + Politics +

Economics
418

419 Figure 12. Elements of a BIM Strategy and the Impact of Other Factors (Kumar, 2015)

420 7.0 Summary and Conclusions

421 A BIM-based asset procurement strategy requires a number of discrete steps to be
422 implemented. A comprehensive process mapping exercise needs to be undertaken to link the
423 existing processes to a BIM-based workflow. Subsequently, a number of key guidance
424 documents need to be developed, most notably the Information Requirements Specifications

19
425 template, BIM protocols and the BIM project execution plan templates. The BIM PEP
426 template is primarily to be used by the supply chain to articulate how they will deliver the
427 information requirements specified in the IR specifications. But, it is recommended that the if
428 the client/employer organisation provides a standard template based on its own requirements,
429 it will provide a standard response from every member of the supply chain rather than a mix
430 of different, often unacceptable, formats. This paper has presented the implementation of
431 such a BIM strategy for the NHS Scotland. The implementation of such a strategy can be
432 done in a number of discrete and gradual phases rather than a wholesale transition which may
433 be fraught with several insurmountable challenges. A recommendation on how to traverse the
434 highly challenging move from CAD-based project delivery to a BIM-based one was made. It
435 was concluded that a more pragmatic approach would be to make the transition from Level 1
436 to 2 and finally to 3 would be through a number of intermediary phases and not in single big
437 steps. The most challenging aspects of making the transition to BIM-based asset procurement
438 are related to a change in mind sets and culture of organisation than simply a move to a
439 different technology as the key changes related to different processes for procurement and not
440 simply technology. This is also shown schematically in figure 12.

441 8.0 Acknowledgements

442
443 The authors would like to thank Health Facilities Scotland for providing the funding for
444 carrying out this work. Thanks are also due to the several members of the various boards of
445 NHS Scotland who contributed to the development and implementation of the BIM strategy.
446 The assistance and support provided by David Philp of UK BIM Task Group is also
447 gratefully acknowledged.

448

20
449 References
450

451 Barlish, Kristen and Sulivan, K, How to Measure the Benefits of BIM – A Case Study
452 Approach, International Journal of Automation in Construction, Volume 12, pages 149-159,
453 Elsevier, 2012.

454 BIS, BIM Strategy Report, Department of Business, Innovation and Strategy, March 2011.

455 Bew, M. and J. Underwood, Delivering BIM to the UK Market. Handbook of Research on
456 Building Information Modeling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies. J.
457 Underwood and I. Umit, IGI Global: 30-64, 2010.

458 Bryde, D., Broquetas, M. and Volm, Jurgen M., The Project Benefits of BIM, International
459 Journal of Project Management, Volume 31, pages 971-980, Elsevier, 2013.

460 Crotty, R., The Impact of Building Information Modelling, Spon Press, 2012, pages 212.

461 Cheng, J. and Lu, Qiqi, A review of the efforts and roles of the public sector for BIM

462 adoption worldwide, Electronic Journal of IT in Construction, ITCon, Vol. 20, pages 442-

463 478, 2015.

464 Cheng, J.C.P., Zhang, Y., Han, C.S., Law, K.H. and Kumar, B., Web-enabled Model-based
465 CAD for Design, ICCCBE Conference, Nottingham University, 2010.

466 CIC (2013a), Employer’s Information Requirements, Construction Industry Council, February
467 2013.

468 CIC (2013b), PAS 1192:Part 2, Construction Industry Council, February 2013.

469 CIC (2013c), Scope of Services, Construction Industry Council, 2013.

470 CIC,(2013d) Best Practice Guide for Professional Indemnity Insurance when using Building
471 Information Models, Construction Industry Council, 2013.

472 CIC (2014), PAS 1192:Part 3, Construction Industry Council, 2014.

473 CIC (2015), PAS 1192: Part 5, Specification for Security-minded Building Information

474 Modelling, Digital Built Environments and Smart Asset Management, BSI, 2015.

475

21
476 Dossick, C. S. and G. Neff, Organizational Divisions in BIM Enabled Commercial Construction,
477 Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136(4): 459-467, emerald, 2010.

478 Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K., BIM Handbook, 2nd Edition, Wiley,
479 2013.

480 Fellowes, R. and Liu, A., Research methods for Construction, Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.

481 Gallaher, M.P., O’Connor, A.C., Dettbarn, J.L. and Gilday, L.T., Cost Analysis of Inadequate
482 Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry, National Institute of Standards and
483 Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2004.

484 Fox, S. and Hietanen, J., Interorganizational use of building information models:

485 Potential for Automational, Informational and Transformational effects, Construction

486 Management and Economics, 25(3): 289-296, Taylor Francis, 2007.

487 Government Construction Strategy, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, June 2011.

488 Kassem, Succar, B., Dawood, N., BIM: Analysing Noteworthy Publications in Eight Countries
489 using a Knowledge content Taxonomy, BIM: Applications and Practices, Eds. Issa, R. and
490 Olbina, Svetlana, ASCE, 2015.

491 Kumar, B., A Practical Guide to Implementing BIM in Construction Projects, Whittles
492 Publishing, pages 140, 2015.

493 Kumar, B., Building Information Modelling: Road to 2016, International Journal of 3D
494 Information Modelling, Volume 1, Issue 4. pages. 1-7, 2013.

495 Moore, Geoffrey, Crossing the Chasm, Third edition, pages 276, Harper Business, 2014.

496 NBIMS, https://www.nationalbimstandard.org/, 2016.

497 Porwal, Atul and Hewage, Kasun N, BIM Partnering Framework for Public Construction
498 Projects, International Journal of Automation in Construction, Volume 13, pages 204-214,
499 Elsevier, 2013.

500 Passfield, Ron, Action Research for Organisational Innovation, Work-Applied Learning for
501 Change Conference, Adelaide, 2013.

22
502
503 RIBA PoW , www.ribaplanofwork.com, 2013.

504 RICS, http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/glossary/bim-intro/, 2016.

505 Rogers, Everett, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-
506 7432-5823-4, 2003.
507
508 Sagor, Richard, Guiding School Improvement with Action Research,
509 http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/100047/chapters/What-Is-Action-
510 Research%C2%A2.aspx, 2015.

511 SCIM, Scottish capital Investment Manual, http://www.scim.scot.nhs.uk/, 2015.

512 Sebastian, R., Changing Roles of the Clients, Architects and Contractors through BIM,
513 Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 18(2): 176 – 187, Emerald, 2011.

514 Succar, B. and Mohammed, K., Macro-BIM Adoption: Conceptual Structures, International
515 Journal of Automation in Construction, Volume 57, pages 64-79, Elsevier, 2015.

516 Succar, B., The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement, CIB World Congress,
517 DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3357.1521, 2010.
518

519 Succar, BIM maturity Matrix, Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and
520 Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies, Underwood, J. and Isikdag, U.,
521 Editors, pages 2-50, Information Science Reference, 2010.

522

23

View publication stats