Azzouz, A; Copping, A; Shepherd, P and Duncan, A (2016) Using the arup BIM maturity measure to demonstrate BIM implementation in practice. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Building Information Modelling Assessment Methods (BIM-AMs) are used to help professionals evaluate the implementation of BIM and improve their current adoption practices. Over the past decade there has been many BIM-AMs developed in academia and industry. Despite the continual growth of BIM-AMs the field, as a whole, is still under-examined. Most studies tend to focus on introducing their methodology rather than analysing their assessment method in practice.This paper shall present the results of a detailed analysis of the application of the Arup Maturity Measure [BIM-MM] applied to 200 projects. The Arup BIM Maturity Measure [BIM-MM] is a tool used to assess the maturity of BIM implementation within projects. It is a discipline-agnostic tool, focusing on eight roles, that seeks to measure just how much a project has used BIM and how successful this has been.It shall highlight the distinctive correlations, trends and patterns exhibited by the projects and shall demonstrate how through the use of the BIM Maturity Measure it is possible to assess and adopt a common view of what is BIM best practice and the depth of its diffusion across an organisation.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | BIM; assessment methods; BIM maturity measure; BIM champion |
| Index terms: | building information modelling, implementation, academia, best practice, methodology |
| Subjects: | business, contractual arrangements, research methods, educational institutions, information systems |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Procurement, Digital Applications, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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