Lam, T (2017) A web-based Decision Support System to assist SMEs to broker risks and rewards for BIM adoption. PhD thesis, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
Building Information Modelling (BIM) usage in the UK’s construction industry has recorded a significant increase over the last few years. However, available evidence suggests that BIM adoption amongst larger construction firms and innovators seems be dominant, while the uptake of BIM by Small and Medium Sized enterprises (SMEs) remains relatively poor. Consequently, SMEs are currently lagging behind and are losing out in winning publicly funded projects. SMEs have not fully recognised the benefits of using BIM in project delivery. Guidance and frameworks to assist SMEs to make an informed decision about BIM adoption are currently lacking. It appears that SMEs are yet to be convinced that BIM is beneficial to them, and remain concerned about the potential risks to their business. Guidance and frameworks to assist SMEs in making an informed decision about BIM adoption are currently lacking. This study seeks to bridge this gap and provide a decision-support system (DSS) to assist in the analysis of the risks and rewards of adopting BIM by SMEs, in project delivery. As a result, a conceptual framework was developed to give a theoretical foundation to the study of brokering risks and rewards in the adoption of BIM for project delivery. This framework is comprehensive and includes trading off risks and rewards associated with several criteria, such as stage of involvement, project value, funding, and the procurement route chosen. The approach was validated by a representative sample of BIM users. The results of the validation of the framework provided an informed basis for the development of the DSS. The latter was validated by a sample of SMEs, according to several criteria such as ease of use of the Graphical user interface (GUI), quality of information, level of information presented, trading off risks and rewards of adoption of BIM in project delivery. The findings of the framework validation revealed that early design stage, project size between £5m and £50m, private funding, and integrated project delivery procurement are the best opportunities that enable SMEs to maximise the benefits and minimise the risks, when adopting BIM. Regarding the DSS validation, most participants reported that they had found the DSS easy to use, especially the GUI. They were also positive about the level and quality of information and knowledge provided by the DSS. In particular, they found the DSS informative to broker risks and rewards for BIM adoption.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling; construction firms; funding; procurement; small and medium sized enterprises; UK |
| Index terms: | small and medium sized enterprise, building information modelling, early design stage, project delivery, construction industry, funding, construction firm, integrated project delivery, user interface, decision support, broker, conceptual framework, evidence, validation |
| Subjects: | human-computer interaction, theoretical framing, design process, contractual arrangements, economic analysis, evaluation and assessment methods, organization, decision analysis, industry analysis, information systems, professional development, project delivery, profession |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management, Risk Management, Procurement, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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