Wong, S S Y (2018) A review on the execution method for building information modelling projects in Hong Kong. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 171(3), pp. 100-110. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
Building information modelling (BIM) has over a decade of development history in Hong Kong's architect, engineering and construction industry. Its benefits have been well proven and widely recognised in a lot of previous studies. This paper looks into the amount of BIM value realisation and level of BIM participation by project members from the angle of implementation approach and procurement strategy. The past experience from different pioneers is collected and reviewed through in-depth interviews and open literature. It is found that most projects in the local market are at level 1 BIM maturity using a 'one-sided management process'. Although some sort of project collaboration can be realised, it is still far from the full potential that BIM could offer. It is suggested that more consideration should be put on resource utilisation during the planning of BIM execution to enable better productivity through the use of technology.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling; procurement; project management |
| Index terms: | interview, history, collaboration, procurement strategy, productivity, building information modelling, Hong Kong, resource utilization, project management, construction industry, implementation, architect |
| Subjects: | management, project management theory and practice, information systems, industry analysis, data collection methods, profession, architectural and construction history, Geography, site logistics, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Project Management, Procurement, Digital Applications, Site Management, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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