Gibbs, D J; Lord, W; Emmitt, S B A and Ruikar, K (2015) BIM and construction contracts: CPC 2013’s approach. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 168(6), pp. 285-293. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
Building information modelling (BIM) changes the way information is generated, managed and communicated between project team members. It is gaining international attention as a potential way of improving the efficiency of the construction industry; but despite the recognised benefits of BIM, perceived barriers are restricting its adoption. Some of these barriers could be addressed through standard forms of construction contract. The Chartered Institute of Building’s Complex Projects Contract 2013 (CPC 2013) is the first standard form of construction contract to include BIM clauses in its provisions and appendices. To investigate how CPC 2013 attempts to address the perceived barriers of BIM adoption and promote working in a BIM environment, a content analysis was undertaken. The research found that although CPC 2013 addresses some of the perceived barriers associated with BIM, the contract may require amendments and special conditions to its standard form in order to support a ‘Level 2’ environment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts & law; disputes & arbitration; project management |
| Index terms: | content analysis, building information modelling, efficiency, dispute, construction contract, project team, project management, arbitration, complex project, construction industry |
| Subjects: | strategic project management, contract type, industry analysis, information systems, project management theory and practice, performance management, data analysis and analytics, project delivery, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Research Practice, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Project Management |
| 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