Gledson, B; Hilton, D and Rogage, K (2016) Benchmarking BIM levels of training and education amongst construction management practitioners. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
UK Government Construction Strategy created a deadline of 2016 for the adoption and utilization of Level 2 BIM on all centrally procured projects. A shift from Computer Aided Design (CAD) to Building Information Modelling (BIM) has been driven by the need to improve the way that the industry delivers projects. It is believed that BIM better facilitates opportunities for collaboration and project enhancement than traditional project information management processes, and also thought that by improving the quality of information and adopting a more collaborative approach through model based design such advancements can be made. The originality of this research is in developing an understanding of the current status of BIM training and education amongst construction industry practitioners achieved through survey. The present research builds on previous longitudinal and cross-sectional studies by uses a quantitative approach to investigate the current status of BIM awareness, understanding, use, and perceptions towards readiness for the 2016 mandate. Results both support and also disprove a range of findings from previous research efforts, highlighting high levels of BIM awareness, use and understanding, which are coupled with limited belief that the industry will be ready for the 2016 mandate. Investigations also reveal that the majority of training and education received by practitioners is self-sourced and variable in quality.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | BIM; education; skills; training; survey |
| Index terms: | mandate, building information modelling, survey, strategy, practitioner, investigation, computer aided design, collaboration, benchmarking, construction industry |
| Subjects: | management, performance measurement, information systems, political science, industry analysis, practitioner, data collection methods, computational design |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Governance, Roles and Professions |
| 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