Olatunji, O A and Akanmu, A (2015) BIM-FM and consequential loss: How consequential can design models be? Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(3), pp. 304-317. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose - Building information modelling (BIM) offers a new direction of project implementation. It promotes integration of multiple lifecycle stages as well as multidisciplinary integration; whereas conventional approaches are primed on fragmentation. The purpose of this paper is to add to existing debates on the relationship between the rationality of the legal structures underlying fragmented project delivery and BIM’s ability to successfully foster integration across different lifecycle stages. A step further from extant arguments on whether BIM could be sufficiently serviced by the same legal provisions that had serviced fragmented relationships, the study opens up some new fronts regarding the consequences of shared trusts and reciprocity in an integrated project platform. Design/methodology/approach - In addition to a deep analysis of traditional literature on BIM and project management, the study draws its strength from two recent court cases on the limitations of disclaimers against breaches. It also targets court decisions on consequential loss and the duty of care to explain project team’s liabilities when BIM could not live to its theorized promises. Findings - The study shows that disclaimers are a weak protection against liabilities. As BIM offers a dynamic project environment, the study relies on decided cases to show that duty of care to a project (and its owners) is not entirely representable by prototype contract language. More importantly, the study concludes that the applications of BIM to facilities management are better supported on BIM’s new dimension of multidisciplinary integration, rather than a mere coalescing of deliverables across different lifecycle fragments. Originality/value - This work presents a novel approach to the debate on the potentiality of BIM to drive project success. It adds to the growing discourse on the legal implications of BIM by considering the potential of digital models as a valid and admissible contract instrument.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | intellectual property; asset management; building information modelling; virtual property; consequential loss; disclaimer |
| Index terms: | building information modelling, virtual property, liability, project success, rationality, platform, design model, prototype, owner, fragmentation, asset management, methodology, integration, lifecycle, intellectual property, implementation, dimension, consequential loss, facilities management, project delivery, disclaimer, duty, project team, project management |
| Subjects: | digital technology, modelling and simulation, contractual arrangements, project delivery, health monitoring assessment and metrics, contractual role, business, intellectual property, organizational analysis, sociology, asset management, liability law, information systems, management, decision-making and reasoning, research methods, contractual condition, digital design, project management theory and practice, design process |
| Topics: | Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| 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