Factors-driven comparison between BIM-based and traditional 2D quantity takeoff in construction cost estimation

Wahab, A and Wang, J (2022) Factors-driven comparison between BIM-based and traditional 2D quantity takeoff in construction cost estimation. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(2), pp. 702-715. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Purpose: Quantity Takeoff (QTO) is an integral part of the decision-making process. Currently, QTO is mostly done using manual or 2D method, and practitioners are considering the use of BIM quantity takeoff as an effective alternative to the traditional 2D software takeoff. However, the existing literature does not have adequate studies to confirm that the use of BIM-based QTO is better than the 2D method. Therefore, this paper aims to expand and improve the existing literature into a more detailed analysis of each element to investigate that BIM is indeed a better option of the two QTO methods. Design/methodology/approach: A total of 19 factors in four broad categories, i.e. timely decision making, accuracy, collaboration, and level of details were identified to draw a significant comparison between the two procedures, i.e. BIM-based quantity takeoff and traditional 2D takeoff. Surveys and case study are used to collect data for analysis to achieve the research goals. Findings: The questionnaire survey showed that using BIM for the QTO process has significant benefits in achieving higher productivity on takeoff, accuracy, clarity and collaboration among the team members. The case study results also showed improvement in BIM-based QTO by achieving higher accuracy and productivity. Originality/value: Understanding the difference between the two QTO processes is a challenging task; therefore, this paper contributes to drawing a comparison line between the two processes by introducing the factors that affect the QTO process.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building information modeling; case study; cost estimation; factors identification; quantity takeoff
Index terms: productivity, decision-making process, construction cost, estimation, building information modelling, case study, option, drawing, accuracy, survey, level of detail, cost estimating, methodology, decision-making, collaboration, practitioner, questionnaire
Subjects: financial and cost management, technical documentation, practitioner, data collection methods, information systems, decision analysis, professional development, management, research methods
Topics: Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Organizational Design
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here