Gharaibeh, L; Eriksson, K and Lantz, B (2025) Quantifying BIM investment value: A systematic review. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 23(5), pp. 1384-1403. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose – Perceived benefits of building information modelling (BIM) have been discussed for some time, but cost–benefit benchmarking has been inconsistent. The purpose of this paper is to investigate BIM feasibility and evaluate investment worth to elucidate and develop the current understanding of BIM merit. The aim of the study is to propose a research agenda towards a more holistic perspective of BIM use incorporating quantifying investment return. Design/methodology/approach – An in-depth examination of research patterns has been conducted to identify challenges in the assessment of the investment value and return on investment (ROI) for BIM in the construction industry. A total of 75 research articles were considered for the final literature review. An evaluation of the literature is conducted using a combination of bibliometric analysis and systematic reviews. Findings – This study, which analysed 75 articles, unveils key findings in quantifying BIM benefits, primarily through ROI calculation. Two major research gaps are identified: the absence of a standardized BIM ROI method and insufficient exploration of intangible benefits. Research focus varies across phases, emphasizing design and construction integration and exploring post-construction phases. The study categorizes quantifiable factors, including productivity, changes and rework reduction, requests for information reduction, schedule efficiency, safety, environmental sustainability and operations and facility management. These findings offer vital insights for researchers and practitioners, enhancing understanding of 'BIM's financial benefits and signalling areas for further exploration in construction. Originality/value – The 'study's outcomes offer the latest insights for researchers and practitioners to create effective approaches for quantifying 'BIM's financial benefits. Additionally, the proposed research agenda aims to improve the current limited understanding of BIM feasibility and investment worth evaluation. Results of the study could assist practitioners in overcoming limitations associated with BIM investment and economic evaluations in the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling; construction; estimating; investment value; value management |
| Index terms: | design and construction, construction industry, systematic literature review, research agenda, building information modelling, economic evaluation, practitioner, bibliometric analysis, literature review, environmental sustainability, estimating, rework, value management, construction phase, benchmarking, exploration, return on investment, efficiency, integration, methodology, productivity |
| Subjects: | financial analysis, performance management, research evaluation and metrics, economic analysis, organizational analysis, industry analysis, management, information systems, research management, health safety and environment, operations management, contractual arrangements, financial and cost management, environmental resource management, practitioner, research methods, performance measurement, data analysis and analytics, project delivery |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Value Management, Procurement, Research Practice, Project Management, Cost Management, Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Health and Safety, Information Management, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Sustainability |
| 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