Attrill, R and Mickovski, S B (2020) Issues to be addressed with current BIM adoption, prior to the implementation of BIM level 3. In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 36th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-8 September 2020, Online Event, UK.
Abstract
Whilst the uptake and requirement for BIM to be implemented on construction projects is growing, there is evidence to suggest that confusion exists throughout industry with regards to the requirements of the varying levels of maturity. This confusion could potentially bring rise to legal issues, particularly as the UK Government drives towards implementing BIM Level 3 on public sector projects under the 'Digital Built Britain' strategy. The aim of this study was to investigate the problem areas which will require attention in order to fully implement BIM Level 3, with attention to the issues which have arisen through the current BIM Level 2 adoption. The research was undertaken in the form of semi-structured interviews with cross-disciplinary BIM stakeholders, where qualitative data was collected to analyse the views garnered from across the UK construction industry. The findings identified a level of dubiety in the interpretation of the BIM maturity levels throughout the industry, with participants highlighting issues with communication of client requirements. The results also identified that a large proportion of the construction industry, particularly the private sector where the costs of BIM Level 3 implementation are considered as very high, is resorting to traditional systems of work. Notably, all participants in the study felt that the implementation of BIM Level 3 is unlikely to come to fruition in the near future as a result of the issues encountered during the current adoption of BIM Level 2, such as skillset inconsistencies and software coordination. Based on this, we propose a way of presenting the benefits of BIM to Clients in order to avoid resorting to more traditional approaches, and call for a development of an adoptable standardised system for Clients to communicate their Employer Information Requirements in order to reduce the concern and potential disputes over sharing of information.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | asset management; building regulation; corporate strategy; design management |
| Index terms: | legal issue, interview, building regulation, maturity level, corporate strategy, asset management, private sector, dispute, strategy, public sector, design management, construction project, client requirements, evidence, construction industry, implementation, coordination |
| Subjects: | asset management, regulatory law, industry analysis, administrative law, management, production management, design process, evaluation, professional development, legal systems, contractual arrangements, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, business, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Procurement, Governance, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy |
| 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