Verification and validation of a framework for collaborative BIM implementation, measurement and management (cimm)

Pidgeon, A and Dawood, N (2023) Verification and validation of a framework for collaborative BIM implementation, measurement and management (cimm). Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 12(4), pp. 847-871. ISSN 2046-6099

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this research is to develop through a two-stage verification and validation process a novel implementation framework for collaborative BIM, utilising experts from academia and industry as well as a real-world case study project. Design/methodology/approach: The aim of this research was to build upon previous research findings by the authors in order to develop an implementation framework that stems from ousting the inefficiencies of current collaborative BIM practices. This is achieved by a more objectified and quantified approach towards seeking heightened transparency and objectivism of what is required through the implementation of BIM. The mixed research methods technique of both qualitative and quantitative data collection was utilised, with the structure consisting of a two-stage approach utilising the Delphi model for verification and validation. This was developed to test the novelty and beneficial structure hypothesis involving 15 core BIM experts from academia, construction and design with c. 22 years average experience. Validation was undertaken on a complex, high value real world building structures project in central London, inclusive of 8 core project BIM experts. The research utilised a developed solution that mirrored and provided a more holistic representation guiding the practitioners as a project team step by step through the determination of underpinning elements, which support the goal of enhanced information requirements as well as executing the prioritisation measurement tools as part of the framework. Data ascertained at the workshop case study prioritised areas of importance that are core in supporting the delivering of these enhanced information requirements at a project delivery level, which were in order of prioritisation determined by the project team (1) constraints (39.17%), (2) stakeholder requirements (35.78%), (3) coordination (existing asset) (15.86%), (4) exchange requirements (5.38%) and (5) level of information need (3.81%). Furthermore, risk mitigations for the top three priorities were focussed on early stakeholder engagement, appropriation of survey data collection, focus on quality of outputs and applying toolsets and processes with meaning and emphasis on the defined high-level requirements. Findings: Findings show that the framework and the developed solution translate the process methodology of the framework schema into a useable and beneficial tool that provides both qualitative and quantitative inputs and outputs. Furthermore, a collective agreement on the objectives, risk mitigations and assignment of tasks in order to achieve outcomes is presented, with evidence on numerical weightings and goal achievement. Research limitations/implications: Due to the impacts of COVID-19 on physical engagements both the verification (electronic survey questionnaire) and validation (case study project) were undertaken remotely, using available technologies and web interfaces. Practical implications: The case study workshop was limited to one building structures project in central London of a value of c. £70 m design and build cost that the project team (participants) were actively engaged with. Social implications: The social impacts of this research has resulted in the review of existing systems, methods and approaches from a wider perspective of theoretical and applied environments, which led to the development of a novel approach and framework guided by an interactive and useable solution. Originality/value: As shown within the core findings, experts across academia and industry (design and construction) confirmed that the framework methodology and application were 100% novel, and added a benefit to the existing collaborative BIM approach. Value added is that through objectifying, weighting/prioritizing and creating a discussion supported by qualitative and quantitative reasoning the focus on what collaborative BIM is to achieve is increased, and thus the likelihood of successful implementation.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: collaborative BIM; design and construction; framework development; implementation
Index terms: meaning, survey, reasoning, COVID-19, high-value, risk mitigation, design and build, methodology, practitioner, evidence, validation, questionnaire, framework development, case study, prioritizing, workshop, implementation, project delivery, transparency, coordination, project team, social impact, London, design and construction, academia, stakeholder engagement
Subjects: community and social dimensions, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, construction type, contractual arrangements, project delivery, economic analysis, Geography, professional development, financial risk, health risk and incident analysis, management, research methods, cognitive psychology, decision analysis, sociology, educational institutions
Topics: Cost Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Information Management, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Construction Technology, Education, 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