Oluwole, A O; Jane Jia Suen, L; Heap-Yih, C and Akanmu, A A (2021) Building information modelling penetration in quantity surveying practice. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 11(5), pp. 888-902. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
This study investigates building information modelling (BIM) penetration in quantity surveying (QS) practice by examining the significance attached to the benefits and barriers of BIM adoption, BIM capabilities and future directions of BIM in QS processes. A popular opinion amongst construction researchers is that BIM has the capacity to revolutionize the industry. The study draws-out information in the literature regarding discipline-specific penetration of BIM. Snowball sampling method was used to obtain information through a survey questionnaire. A total of 73 participants, largely quantity surveyors in Western Australia, took part in the study. Reductionist methodology was used to identify key variables of QS-BIM competencies that are most significant statistically. BIM does not impose additional difficulties to traditional QS processes. Adherence to standard method of measurement and limited market demand do not hinder BIM deployment significantly. Quantity surveyors are able to use BIM to support their professional services once definitive design models are involved. In addition, the study identifies BIM penetration barriers to include constraints caused by centralised database management and interoperability issues, limitations imposed by market drivers, lack of in-house expertise to manage modelling needs and limited capability in software management. Future opportunities for skill development are in the areas noted in the findings. Whilst many studies have reported resistance and widespread scepticism amongst some construction disciplines regarding BIM adoption, this study finds BIM penetration in QS practice is considerable, a direction that could trigger further novel innovations. The methodology reported in the study is novel. In addition, findings from the study inspires other discipline-specific studies to articulate their BIM-penetration trends so that t broad areas of construction can develop a balanced strategy around BIM and innovation development.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling; design model; quantity surveying practice; standard method of measurement; collaboration; costs; design; building management systems; interoperability |
| Index terms: | sampling, questionnaire, collaboration, professional service, methodology, interoperability, penetration, modelling, design model, surveying, quantity surveying practice, innovation development, building information modelling, quantity surveying, building management system, survey, database, Australia, strategy, standard method of measurement, skills development |
| Subjects: | research methods, management, design process, personnel development, Geography, data management, market analysis, systems and processes, information systems, organization, mechanical systems, data collection methods, profession, innovation studies, financial and cost management, analytical methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Organizational Design, Human Resources, Design Practice, Digital Applications |
| 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