Sompolgrunk, A; Banihashemi, S; Hosseini, M R; Golzad, H and Hajirasouli, A (2023) An integrated model of BIM return on investment for Australian small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(5), pp. 2048-2074. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The business benefits envisaged for BIM represent the main criteria for decision-making about BIM implementation – or shy away from BIM. Despite the significance, traditional evaluation techniques have difficulty to capture “the true value” of BIM from multiple levels and dimensions – as an effective evaluation method is supposed to. This study aims to identify the significant factors that affect BIM return on investment (ROI), develop an integrated model for companies and examine the influence of intangible returning factors of BIM on the rate of BIM implementation. Design/methodology/approach: A cluster sampling technique was used; 92 questionnaires completed by Australian architecture, engineering and construction small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) provided the basis to identify and analyse the key measurable returning factors, value drivers and strategic benefits associated with BIM ROI. Findings: Applying the PLS-SEM technique, findings reveal that a lack of reliable quantification methods for the ROI factors associated with BIM significantly affects the organisation's commitments to implement BIM. In essence, the failure to adequately identify and assess these benefits could result in the system not being appropriately implemented and supported by executive sponsors, who give priority to hard and tangible ROI measurements. Practical implications: The outcome of this study would be of direct appeal to policymakers, industry professionals and the academic community alike, in providing data-informed insight into the intersection between the implementation of BIM and the concept of ROI. Findings would provide a springboard for further research into using ROI factors to increase BIM implementation. Though the findings are directly applicable and contextualised for Australia, they provide lessons and offer a blueprint for similar studies in other countries and settings. That is, regardless of the context, findings raise awareness and provide a point of reference for the quantification of intangible returning factors rather than the tangible returning factors, as one of the first studies in its kind. Originality/value: The study provides original insight in drawing attention to an untapped area for research in BIM implementation, namely BIM ROI. Apart from raising awareness around BIM ROI, the study is novel in providing a quantified model that establishes the links and level of impacts of various factors associated with BIM ROI. Findings of this study, particularly add value to the body of knowledge related to the business implications associated with BIM implementation in the context of Australian SMEs, while providing lessons for other countries and settings.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | BIM; construction industry; digital engineering; return on investment; small companies; SMEs |
| Index terms: | quantification, integrated model, Australia, executive, return on investment, sampling, implementation, construction industry, dimension, evaluation technique, drawing, commitment, questionnaire, decision-making, methodology, body of knowledge |
| Subjects: | Geography, research methods, industry analysis, decision analysis, measurement and scaling, practitioner, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, knowledge management, contractual arrangements, analytical methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, economic analysis, psychology, technical documentation |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Design Practice, Procurement, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Information Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Business Strategy |
| 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