State of Practice of Building Information Modeling

in the Mechanical Construction Industry

John Boktor 1; Awad Hanna, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 2; and Carol C. Menassa, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFC - Universidade Federal do Ceara on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The North American construction industry has seen a decline in productivity for decades due to underlying problems such as lack
of team collaboration, less initial design input, and higher building systems complexity. These problems are most visible in labor-intensive
trades, such as mechanical contractors. Within the last decade, building information modeling (BIM) has emerged as a potential solution to
these problems. This paper highlights the state of BIM practice in the mechanical construction industry. Through an extensive survey and
interview process, this research resulted in three key outcomes. The first is that 58% of mechanical contractors have less than three years of
BIM experience and consider themselves as beginners in the use of BIM. Second, BIM implementation cost for these contractors is 1% to 2%
of their total project cost estimate. Third, more than 70% of mechanical contractors agree that BIM reduces field conflicts and improves
coordination. These factors can assist mechanical contractors allocate proper resources for BIM implementation in their projects to reduce
problems. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000176. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Building information modeling; Construction management; Mechanical engineering; Construction methods.

Introduction
The construction industry represents 9% of gross domestic prod-
uct in the United States and 11% globally (Prieto 2011). Higher
construction output creates economic growth. A large industry
as such does not come without its problems. According to
the McGraw Hill SmartMarket report, the decrease in construction
productivity within the last 40 years has mainly been caused by
the lack of communication and collaboration through informa-
tion sharing (Young et al. 2007). Even with an increase in tech-
nology use, this problem still exists. A recent publication by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology stated that at least
$15.8 billion per year is lost due inadequate interoperability in the
US capital facilities industry (Gallaher et al. 2004). Moreover, the
Construction Management Association of America (CMAA) re-
leased a large survey study that found between 40% and 50% of
all construction projects were running behind schedule (Thomsen
et al. 2010). It has also been reported by the Construction Industry
Institute that the direct costs caused by rework are approximately
5% of total construction costs [Construction Industry Institute (CII)
1
Graduate Student of Construction Engineering and Management, Dept.
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison,
2256 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Dr., Madison, WI 53706. E-mail:
boktor@wisc.edu
2 the question arises whether current construction processes are
Professor and Chair Construction Engineering and Management, Dept.
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison,
2320 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Dr., Madison, WI 53706. E-mail:
ashanna@wisc.edu
3 challenges and improve efficiency and coordination.
Assistant Professor, John L. Tishman Faculty Scholar, Dept. of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109;
formerly, M. A. Mortenson Company Assistant Professor of Construction
Engineering and Management, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 (corresponding author).
E-mail: menassa@umich.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 9, 2012; approved on
January 14, 2013; published online on January 16, 2013. Discussion period
open until June 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in Engi-
neering, Vol. 30, No. 1, January 1, 2014. © ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X/2014/
1-78-85/$25.00.
2005]. Additionally, other studies have shown that the cost of
rework on building projects ranges from 2% to 6% of the con-
tract value (Josephson and Hammarlund 1999). Some of these
problems are most visible in labor-intensive trades, such as mechanical
construction contractor firms. For example, rework is typically caused
by poor coordination and conflicts of systems, particularly mechani-
cal, electrical, and plumbing/fire-protection (MEP) (Hanna 2010).
The mechanical construction industry in particular plays a
vital role in overall project success. Mechanical contractors are ex-
pected to continue to have a strong influence on project outcome,
especially with the increase in complexity of building systems and
the growth in green building construction. The mechanical con-
struction industry is considered to be one of the most high-risk
industries for several reasons. First, a typical mechanical contract
cost represents 40% to 60% of a total project cost (Hanna 2010).
Second, mechanical construction is considered a follow-up trade,
which means that its involvement in a project’s construction se-
quence depends on other critical trades, such as structural or
masonry trades. It is also a connected trade and needs to be coor-
dinated with subsequent subcontractors, such as electrical, sheet
metal, and fire-protection contractors. Third, mechanical contrac-
tors are in charge of putting in place complex systems that are criti-
cal to the proper functioning of constructed facilities like hospitals,
laboratories, or industrial buildings. Recognizing these challenges,
adequate to meet the tasks ahead. In the last decade, building in-
formation modeling (BIM) has been introduced as an information
technology-based construction process to address some of these
The BIM Handbook provides a three part definition of BIM:
(1) “a more integrated design and construction process that results
in better quality buildings at lower cost and reduced project dura-
tion;” (2) a model that “contains precise geometry and data needed
to support the construction, fabrication, and procurement activities
through which the building is realized;” and (3) a process that “ac-
commodates many of the functions needed to model the life cycle
of a building, providing the basis for new design and construction
capabilities and changes in the roles and relationships among a
project team” (Eastman et al. 2007). In this paper, implementing

78 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

J. Manage. Eng., 2014, 30(1): 78-85

 BIM and using BIM will be used interchangeably to mean the pro- Table 1. Geographical Division of Respondents by Regions for U.S. and
cess of BIM as provided for in the above definition, and not the Canadian Respondents
software use through the modeling process. U.S. mechanical contractors Canadian mechanical contractors
Much of the existing research involving BIM has targeted gen-
Location % Locations %
eral contractors and MEP contractors. This research is mostly based (HQ) Response (HQ) Response
on case studies. There has not been an emphasis on how specific
specialty trades implement BIM. Recently, McGraw Hill Smart- Midwest 42 Alberta 17
West 14 Saskatchewan 4
Market Report surveyed construction industry professionals to
Southeast 7 Manitoba 13
gauge their BIM involvement. A quarter of the respondents were Northeast 3 Ontario 38
mechanical, sheet-metal, and plumbing contractors representing the Northwest 3 Quebec 4
highest response rate, and another quarter were general contractors. New Brunswick 25
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFC - Universidade Federal do Ceara on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The remaining respondents included owners, design engineers,

architects, and construction manufacturers (Young et al. 2009).
With 23% of specialty trades and 34% of MEP design engineers
experiencing high value when using BIM, the report concluded that
MEP contractors were among the highest adopters of BIM (Young
et al. 2009). Another survey report published by the University of
Florida (UFL) evaluated the impact of BIM on construction (Issa
and Suermann 2009). Other than the McGraw Hill SmartMarket
report, this study is the largest in its kind, with a four-part re-
search plan. The UFL study gathered information from across
the construction and engineering industries to evaluate perceptions
of BIM on commonly accepted construction key performance
indicators. Phase 1 from the research found that BIM improves
the following key performance indicators: (1) quality, (2) cost,
(3) schedule, (4) productivity, and (5) safety (Issa and Suermann
2009). Other literature investigated the BIM modeling practice
paradigms in project networks by investigating 26 specific cases
of firms using BIM tools (Taylor and Bernstein 2009). Finally,
Goedert and Meadati (2008) investigated extending the BIM soft-
ware products to accommodate the construction process.
It is obvious from the above studies that understanding the
impact of BIM implementation on specific sub-trades is crucial in
order to create correct construction standards and proper systems.
To fill this gap in the literature, this paper investigates the current
state of practice of BIM in the mechanical construction industry
in North America through two main objectives. The first objective
is to gain insight on practices of current and future implementation
of BIM. The second objective is to identify outcomes from the
use of BIM on project performance. In order to achieve these ob-
jectives, a survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to
1,096 mechanical contractors in both the United States and Canada.
Ninety-one survey responses were received, with 75 completed sur-
veys and 16 incomplete which were not considered in the analysis.
The survey was distributed between December 2011 and May
2012. The next section provides the general characteristics of the
data collected from mechanical construction companies.
Table 2. Surveyed Company Characteristics: A Comparison between BIM
and Non-BIM Users
U.S. mechanical contractors Canadian mechanical contractors
59% using BIM 39% using BIM
41% not using BIM 61% not using BIM
Company size of BIM users Company size of non-BIM users
81% with than $10 million 46% with under $10 million
51% with $10 to $50 million
design engineers. Furthermore, the company sizes of respondents—
measured in annual billings—ranged from $1 million to $50 million,
with the majority of those implementing BIM having annual bil-
lings of more than $10 million. However, the companies not using
BIM are evenly divided between those earning $1 to $5 million
and $10 to $50 million, shown in Table 2. Finally, the majority of
respondents complete over 60% of their projects through design-
bid-build (DBB), regardless of BIM usage. This key characteristic
might indicate the reason behind the low number of BIM adopters.
After several interviews, mechanical contractors have voiced con-
cerns regarding difficulties in BIM implementation with this type of
traditional delivery method that does not allow for early collabora-
tion between the design team and contractors.
Survey Results
Having provided the characteristics of the survey respondents, this
section will discuss the survey results grouped under four focus
areas: (1) overall BIM use at the company level, (2) state of practice
of BIM, (3) future implementation of BIM, and (4) value generated
from BIM implementation. U.S. and Canadian data were combined
for the purpose of this analysis.

Data Characteristics Overall BIM Use at Company Level

The survey consisted of 27 questions divided into three divisions:
(1) company background, (2) current BIM use, and (3) future BIM
use. The general format of the survey is further expanded in the
Appendix. The majority of respondents were from the U.S. (68%)
and the remaining respondents were Canadian mechanical con-
tractors (32%), the division per region is shown below in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the comparison between the two countries, 39% of
Canadian contractors are implementing BIM, compared to 56%
of U.S. contractors. This might indicate a lag in the adoption of
BIM within the Canadian mechanical construction industry com-
pared to in the U.S. Another characteristic is that 55% of respond-
ents were presidents or CEO’s, whereas the remaining 45% were
project managers, operations managers, estimators, and CAD
In this focus area of this study, five different aspects were inves-
tigated to gauge overall BIM use at the company level. These five
aspects are: the contractors’ level of involvement, the relationship
between company size and BIM usage, the contractor’s amount of
experience and expertise with BIM, a comparison between their
amount of experience and level of BIM expertise, and the value
that BIM has provided to their projects.
Contractors’ Level of Involvement
The first part under overall BIM use is the contractors’ level of
involvement with BIM. Out of all 75 respondents, 49% are not cur-
rently implementing BIM, as shown in Fig. 1. The remaining 51%
of respondents using BIM can be categorized as follows: about 1%
are creating BIM tools in-house; 27% are using existing tools but

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 79

J. Manage. Eng., 2014, 30(1): 78-85


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFC - Universidade Federal do Ceara on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Percent response of contractors’ level of involvement
not necessarily creating their own, whether it is internal libraries or
family of components; and 21% are using and creating their own
in-house BIM tools.
Relationship between Company Size and BIM Usage
Company size is measured in amount of billings (the amount the
contractor bills the client) in millions of dollars within the last
12 months. Fig. 2 shows the relationship between company size
and whether or not the respondents are implementing BIM. This
figure indicates that 83% of contractors using BIM have annual
billings of $10 million to over $50 million. However, non-BIM
users are almost evenly divided between two ranges of annual bil-
lings: $1 million to $10 million, and $10 million to $50 million.
This indicates some level of correlation between the size of com-
pany and BIM usage. Larger companies tend to have the investment
capital to purchase BIM tools and train staff for implementing
BIM, while smaller companies might have difficulty in creating the
proper infrastructure to use BIM as a standard company process.
For the remaining sections of this paper, only the responses of
current BIM users are considered.
Company Experience with the Use of BIM
Respondents were asked about the number of years that their com-
pany has been involved in implementing BIM. These questions
were directed towards the mechanical construction firms and not
individual managers within the firm. Of companies surveyed, 38%
Fig. 2. Relationship between company size and implementation
of BIM
80 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014
J. Manage. Eng., 2014, 30(1): 78-85
had more than five years of BIM experience, 5% had four years of
experience, 21% had three years of experience, 11% had two years,
and 26% had one year of experience. This result suggests that
mechanical contractors are relatively new in their experience in
implementing BIM, since 58% of BIM users have only been using
BIM for less than three years. When combining non-BIM users to
evaluate the results more holistically, only 32% of the total respond-
ents have more than three years of experience in using BIM.
In addition, companies were asked to measure their expertise
with BIM in four categories: ‘Just Started’, ‘Started but Not Effi-
cient’, ‘Advanced’, and ‘Expert’. The results indicated that 32% of
the respondents have started but are still not efficient in implement-
ing BIM, and 22% have ‘Just Started’. The remaining respondents
were divided between ‘Advanced’ and ‘Expert’, at 30% and 16%,
respectively. When the data is combined in two groups—beginners
and advanced—54% indicated that they are beginners in their level
of expertise in using BIM compared to the 46% who consider them-
selves advanced.
Comparison between Number of Years Company Has Been
Using BIM and Their Level of Expertise
Fig. 3 illustrates the relationship between the level of BIM expertise
and the number of years of BIM experience. This figure indicates
that beginner users of BIM typically have one to three years of
experience implementing BIM, while advanced users of BIM typ-
ically have five or more years of experience implementing BIM.
These results indicate that mechanical contractors need to put in
place a management plan that allows for more time to advance their
expertise when implementing BIM.
Mechanical Construction Companies’ Characterization of
the Business Value of BIM
The characterization of the value of BIM in this paper is defined
as the overarching business perception of BIM through company
experience. The results are divided into three main categories:
(1) 61% of the respondents indicated BIM has a business value
but still believe there is more to learn; (2) 34% believe that they
have just begun to understand the business value of BIM and the
benefits it provides; while (3) the remaining 5% indicated no mean-
ingful value of BIM. These results indicate that implementation of
BIM has larger effects on the business of mechanical construction
firms, such as increases in profitability and resource efficiency, and
higher returns on investments (ROIs). Moreover, this response em-
phasizes the steep learning curve, since the majority of respondents
Fig. 3. Relationship between years of experience in using BIM and
level of expertise in implementation of BIM
 indicated that there is still much to learn to properly implement
BIM in their projects and achieve perceived value to their company.
The five aspects in this focus area discussed provide detailed
analysis of the results for the overall use of BIM among mechanical
construction firms. In order to further understand the connecting
factors to these results, the following focus area will investigate
the state of practice when mechanical contractors implement BIM.

State of BIM Practice

State of practice of BIM includes many factors that influence
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFC - Universidade Federal do Ceara on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

project outcome for mechanical construction firms. In this section,

five main factors of the state of BIM practice will be discussed.
These five factors are: (1) the leadership of BIM coordination
among different parties to the project; (2) the amount of staff mem-
bers needed to implement BIM and its relationship to project size;
(3) the predominant BIM tools; (4) the cost of using BIM on a
Fig. 4. Relationship between project size and number of BIM staff
project; and (5) the associated risks when implementing BIM.
members
Leadership of BIM Coordination among Different Parties to
the Project
The first factor of the state of practice of BIM is identifying the
between one and two to three staff members, respectively. One can
appropriate project team members to lead BIM coordination mod-
clearly see that projects with sizes less than 50,000 man-hours
eling during the construction process. At a 51% response rate,
typically need a maximum of three staff members, while projects
mechanical contractors indicated that MEP specialty trades usually
with sizes greater than 50,000 man-hours typically need more than
lead the modeling coordination processes with general contractors
only leading 27% of the time. The remaining responses were di- three BIM staff members. This key relationship is important to
vided by mechanical design consultants (16%), project architects assist mechanical contractors in determining efficient resource and
(3%) and outside consultants (3%). These responses indicate that budget allocation before starting a project.
mechanical contractors play a vital role in model coordination with
Predominant Software Used by Mechanical Construction
the assistance of the general contactor.
Firms
After conducting several interviews, this study found that under
The respondents were given choices among most popular BIM
contractual BIM protocol obligations, general contractors often
software and they were allowed to provide their own answer if
guide the MEP coordination processes, while allowing mechanical
contractors to lead the direct modeling efforts. General contractors they were using other software. The respondents were also allowed
are involved since they control the overall operations in executing to choose more than one answer. Fig. 5 shows the top five soft-
the project. It was obvious from the interviews that a relationship ware tools used by the MEP industry are Autodesk Revit MEP,
does exist between those who benefit from using BIM and the team Autodesk AutoCAD MEP, Autodesk Navisworks, CAD-Duct,
members leading the effort. When mechanical contractors lead co- and CAD-PIPE. It is interesting that a single software company
ordination, it is usually done in order to assure that there is enough (i.e., Autodesk) controls about two thirds of the market for mechan-
space for their systems. ical construction firms. These results were confirmed through
interviews with Autodesk software specialists. They indicated that
Appropriate Number of Staff Needed for BIM mechanical contractors across North America have in recent
Implementation on a Project years been demanding greater improvements to 3D MEP software
The responses in this case are divided into three main categories:
(1) 41% indicated one individual is adequate; (2) 41% indicated
between two to three individuals; while (3) the remaining 18% in-
dicated between four to five staff members. From this data, it is safe
to assume that the majority of staffing for BIM implementation
should be three or fewer. During the interviews, mechanical con-
tractors have raised questions related to the allocation of man-
power to properly implement BIM. Therefore this result addresses
such industry concerns.

Relationship between Project Size Measured in Total

Man-Hours and the Number of Staff that Are Dedicated
to BIM Implementation
The results from this analysis are divided by project size in
man-hours and reported in Fig. 4. For projects that are smaller than
10,000 man-hours, 64% of respondents indicated that they employ
one staff member for BIM while 36% employ two to three staff
members. For projects ranging from 10,000 to 50,000 man-hours,
36% of respondents employ one staff member for BIM and 50%
Fig. 5. Top rated software tools used by mechanical construction
employ two to three staff members. For projects ranging between
companies
50,000 to 100,000 man-hours, the responses were evenly allocated

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 81

J. Manage. Eng., 2014, 30(1): 78-85

 technologies to include enhancements in component libraries for
more efficient modeling and interoperability.
The use of other BIM tools to enhance the modeling of the
construction process is also investigated under the same factor.
Respondents were asked to state one related BIM tool that they
use during the construction process. Total Station technology is the
most widely used BIM tool for 43% of respondents. Total Station
technology is commonly referred to as the link between the office
BIM model and the field personnel, allowing for the transfer of
the coordinated BIM model into the field. Total Station uses laser
technology and global positioning system (GPS) in unison with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFC - Universidade Federal do Ceara on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the BIM model to ensure accurate installation of systems and
components.
Of the remaining respondents, 43% stated they are not us-
ing additional BIM tools to enhance the construction process,
while the remaining 14% implement Trimble technology. Trimble
technology is a commercial product that integrates positioning
technologies such as GPS, laser, optical, and inertial system with
application software and wireless communication to assist in build-
ing component installation accurately (Limited 2012). Total Station
technology for BIM uses its traditional survey electronics to convey
data points, whether it is distance or elevation, for a more coordi-
nated model. In the case of Trimble technology, it is another varia-
tion of survey electronic equipment from traditional Total Station,
which relies on special BIM software capabilities for a higher level
of model coordination.
Average Cost of Implementing BIM Measured in Percent of
Total Project Cost
Total project cost is defined as the mechanical contractors’ total
cost to execute the project. Fig. 6 shows the response rates for all
ranges of BIM cost. A full 53% of respondents indicated that im-
plementing BIM cost them less than 2% of their total project cost.
These results will assist in bidding process when allocating costs
related to BIM implementation.
Risk Associated with the Use of BIM
The highest risk item identified by 61% of the contractors is the
lack of BIM protocols during the construction cycle. A BIM pro-
tocol can be defined as a contractual guide to the BIM process such
as file sharing, model ownership, model file formats, personnel
leading specific trade models, scheduled model submissions for
review, and responsibility of model changes on a specific project
basis. Interestingly, the second highest response, at 21%, was the
lack of competency that team members have in using BIM. This
response was not provided as one of the choices but was provided
by respondents under the “other” item in the survey. Finally, the
Fig. 6. Percent cost when implementing BIM from total project cost
82 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014
J. Manage. Eng., 2014, 30(1): 78-85
remaining respondents (18%) stated that cost overrun was a
risk when using BIM. These important findings point to potential
solutions to reduce project risks related to BIM, including the
development of comprehensive standards and training modules
for mechanical contractors to adequately implement BIM on their
projects.
The five factors discussed above provide clear insights regard-
ing the state of practice for BIM implementation among mechanical
construction firms. After evaluating these factors, the next section
will investigate the future implementation of BIM.
Future Use of BIM
Two main aspects were evaluated to determine the future use of
BIM by mechanical construction firms. These include the percent-
age of projects that will be implementing BIM in the next two
years, and the comparison of future BIM investments by both cur-
rent BIM users and non-BIM users.
Evaluating Percentage of Projects that Will Implement BIM
in the Next Two Years
Fig. 7 shows how companies who are currently using BIM in
their project perceive their future and continued use of the tech-
nology in their projects in the next two years. The results indi-
cate the 59% will be implementing BIM on less than 30% of
projects in the next two years, and 16% indicated they will
be implementing BIM on 30% to 60% of projects. At first glance
this may appear to be a low percentage of project BIM use.
However, it is important to note that owners and clients tend
to drive much of BIM implementation on projects. Thus, these
responses might be a projection by the mechanical contractors
based on their knowledge of their client base and how likely they
are going to be asked to implement BIM. For example, two years
ago the state of Wisconsin made it law for all state construction
projects to implement BIM. As for those who are not using BIM,
all (37) of the respondents indicated that they expecting to slowly
start implementing BIM but expect to use on less than 15% of
their projects. As well, the respondents in this case, might not
have sufficient resources to bid or implement BIM on a larger
amount of projects.
Comparison of Expected Future BIM Investments for
Current BIM Users and Non-BIM Users at the Company
Level
Respondents were asked to rate each investment type based on
five possible scores: (1) none, (2) a little, (3) some, (4) quite a
bit, and (5) a great deal. Current BIM users were asked to report
their current and expected future level of investment in BIM,
while non-BIM users were asked to rate their expected future
Fig. 7. Percent of projects to implement BIM in the next two years
 Table 3. Statistical Comparison between Current and Future Investment of BIM
BIM users
current
Type of investment Mean value
Purchasing software 3.106
Creating BIM procedures in company 2.553
Creating BIM libraries 2.711
Creating BIM procedures with other companies 2.211
Training staff 2.921
Marketing BIM to customers 2.921
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFC - Universidade Federal do Ceara on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Note: Bold p-values are below 0.05, which implies a significant difference between the means.
investments. These ratings are further statistically analyzed in
Table 3 in order to gain insights in comparing the important in-
vestment types. When evaluating the responses, it is clear that
there are two main investment types related to the implementation
of BIM among mechanical construction companies. Purchasing
software is the largest investment at a 50% response rate, while
the marketing of BIM to customers is the second largest with 38%
of responses. The remaining 13% of responses are divided evenly
among the other investment areas shown in Table 3. Contradictory
to other research results (Jones et al. 2008; Young et al. 2009), the
survey data shows that little investment is being made in creating
BIM procedures in-house and creating BIM procedures with other
companies.
The results indicate that current BIM users project an increase in
their future investments to facilitate the implementation of BIM.
This increase in investment is expected for all categories shown
in Table 3 except for the purchase of software category. The latter
has an expected decrease in investment with a 34% response rate.
This result indicates that these companies have already heavily in-
vested in software purchases or they expect the cost to decrease
with more widespread use. On the other hand, the increase of in-
vestment in the marketing of BIM to customers is greater, with a
50% response rate, compared to 37%, and the investments in the
creation of BIM procedures in-house are also increasing, with a
43% response rate compared to the current response rate of 21%.
An evaluation of mechanical construction firms that are non-BIM
users currently shows an interesting contrast to these results. An
overwhelming 87% of respondents indicated very little future
investment with BIM. These results again emphasize the variation
between BIM users and non-BIM users.
To further analyze the survey data, Table 3 shows the results
of the statistical analyses conducted on the differences in invest-
ment types. Mean values corresponding to each type of investment
and BIM users are provided. The mean values are calculated on a
5-point Likert scale. The Likert scale is a psychometric scale
commonly involved in research that employs questionnaires (Hadi
and Chatterjee 2006). Table 3 also shows statistical significance
through p-values, expressing non-parametric values without any
assumptions on the distribution of the data. A p-value below
0.05 implies a significant difference between the means. A Mann-
Whitney (MW) test was performed for this part of the study in
evaluating the ranking of the data rather than the raw values.
First, a Mann-Whitney test, expressed as MW (1) in Table 3,
was performed to compare current and future investment types
for current BIM users, since both responses were provided from
each surveyed company. The results indicate an increase in all areas
of future investment with the exception of purchasing software.
These results are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Further-
more, creating BIM procedures in-house and marketing BIM to
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 83
J. Manage. Eng., 2014, 30(1): 78-85
Investment in BIM
BIM users Non-BIM
MW (1) ↔ future MW (2) ↔ users future
p-value Mean value p-value Mean value
0.573 3.00 0.0004 2.00
<0.001 3.32 <0.001 1.39
0.0105 3.13 <0.001 1.36
0.0487 2.66 <0.001 1.28
0.0099 3.29 <0.001 1.47
0.0011 3.47 <0.001 1.28
customers show significant differences between current and future
investments at the 0.001 significance level.
Second, another Mann-Whitney test, expressed as MW
(2) Table 3, was performed to compare future types of investment
between current BIM users and non-BIM users. The results indi-
cate very significant differences in future BIM investments (at the
0.001 significance level) between current BIM users and non-BIM
users. These findings reinforce the conclusion made earlier that
there is little future investment being made by non-BIM users com-
pared to current BIM users. This warrants further investigation to
understand the perspective of non-BIM users on the value and ben-
efits, if any, they might perceive from implementing BIM in their
projects.
This second part of the focus area highlighted key BIM invest-
ment areas that mechanical construction companies can consider
for future implementation of BIM. Since current BIM users ex-
pect to increase their future investment in BIM, one can assume
that BIM is providing value for these companies. As mechanical
construction firms begin to gain confidence in their implementa-
tion of BIM, they are more encouraged to increase the resources
they allocate for this process. This assumption will be further
tested in the final focus area of this paper: the value added
by BIM.
Added Value of BIM
Current BIM users were asked about the value generated by BIM
regarding three different factors of the construction project cycle:
project phases, project activities, and project performance indica-
tors. Findings from this focus area will highlight the influence of
BIM on construction operations and are presented in the following
three parts.
Evaluating the Added Value of BIM to Major Project
Phases
Table 4 shows the percent response rates and the mean values for
each phase of the construction project, which are calculated using
a 5-point Likert scale. There are five phases that show high values:
(1) final design, (2) construction documentation, (3) fabrication,
(4) construction, and (5) shop drawings. All of these five phases
are part of the construction process. Since mechanical construction
companies are typically only involved during the construction
phase, it is understandable that they only see the benefits BIM
brings to these phases. The other phases that had lower values are
typically phases where the mechanical construction firms are not
involved in the project, and therefore they do not see the added
value of BIM to these phases. However, this highlights the need to
get mechanical contractors involved early in some types of delivery
systems, and for high-complexity facilities.
 Table 4. Level of Value BIM Generates on 11 Construction Project Phases Table 6. Level of Value BIM Generates on 10 Construction Project
Performance Indicators
None A little Some Quite a A great Mean
Project phase (%) (%) (%) bit (%) deal (%) value (%) None A little Some Quite a A great Mean
Performance indicator (%) (%) (%) bit (%) deal (%) value
Feasibility 38 24 11 19 8 2.35
Preliminary design 11 41 27 11 11 2.70 Reduction in request 14 22 30 24 11 2.97
Final design 11 14 22 30 24 3.43 For information
Construction 11 22 22 24 22 3.24 Reduction in 19 24 32 24 0 2.62
documents re-submittals
Bidding 57 19 11 11 3 1.84 Reduction in field 3 5 11 57 24 3.95
Fabrication 5 11 16 24 43 3.89 conflicts
Construction 3 0 27 41 30 3.95 Reduction in deficiency 14 19 25 25 17 3.11
Shop drawings 19 5 24 32 19 3.27 issues
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFC - Universidade Federal do Ceara on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Submittals 43 16 22 16 3 2.19 Reduction in punch list 16 24 30 19 11 2.84

closeout 35 16 22 19 8 2.49 items
O&M of facility 38 19 19 16 8 2.38 Reduction in the cost of 14 5 41 22 19 3.27
rework
Reduction in cost of 16 11 19 41 14 3.24
as-built drawings
Evaluating the Added Value of BIM on Key Project Reduction in change 14 24 35 16 11 2.86
Activities orders
The choice of project activities was based on previous literature, the Shorter processing time 35 24 16 16 8 2.38
for change orders
authors’ experience, and input from mechanical construction firms.
Better coordination 3 0 22 41 35 4.05
Table 5 shows the percent response rates and the mean values for
each project activity. Responses for the first activity listed in the
table indicate the high added value of clash detection coordination
when implementing BIM. Additionally, the responses for the last process. These contradictory results may be to the fact that only
activity listed in the table indicate that visualization is another key mechanical contractors were surveyed in this research, and hence
component when using BIM, especially given the complexity of their perception that the real added value to them lies in clash
mechanical systems. These two results are not surprising, since pre- detection and visualization. Further interviews conducted by the
vious research has indicated that better visualization and clash authors of this paper indicate that project activities including energy
detection is generated when using BIM. The ten remaining project analysis and facility space planning are usually completed by the
activities have much lower values indicating less value added with design team, unless otherwise contractually defined by the client
the use of BIM. These results were unexpected, since literature or owner.
has shown that BIM does bring value to project activities such as
scheduling, quantity take-off, shop-drawing process, and cost esti- Evaluating Added Value of BIM as Measured by Project
mation (Jones et al. 2008; Young et al. 2009; Korman et al. 2008). Performance Indicators
As an example, Young et al. (2009) reported that MEP contractors Key performance metrics were first identified based on literature
are much more likely to find value in quantity takeoff with BIM describing performance indicators widely used by mechanical con-
compared to others. In the same report, MEP contractors indicated struction companies (Issa and Suermann 2009; Jones et al. 2008).
that one of the top three benefits of BIM is the shop-drawing The list of metrics was finalized through the authors’ interactions
with the mechanical construction industry. Out of the 10 final per-
formance metrics used for this study, Table 6 shows five project
performance measures were significantly improved when mechani-
Table 5. Level of Value BIM Generates on 12 Construction Project cal construction firms implemented BIM: (1) reduction in field
Activities
conflicts, (2) reduction in deficiency issues, (3) reduction in cost
None A little Some Quite a A great Mean of rework, (4) reduction in cost of as-built drawings, and (5) better
Project activity (%) (%) (%) bit (%) deal (%) value systems coordination. Moreover, the two greatest improvements
Clash detection 3 0 19 41 38 4.11 as shown by mean values are reductions in field conflicts and bet-
Cost estimation 41 16 35 8 0 2.11 ter systems coordination. This last statement confirms findings
for project from previous literature underlining the significant improvements
Energy analysis 62 24 8 5 0 1.57 BIM brings to resolving field conflicts and improving systems co-
Facility space 46 22 24 8 0 1.95 ordination. When conducting interviews, many mechanical con-
planning tractors who quantitatively measure performance stated that BIM
More efficient 24 30 30 16 0 2.38 positively impacted their labor productivity and material efficiency.
use of time
Project turnover 32 27 22 14 5 2.32
The findings of this study highlight major performance improve-
and closeout ments related to BIM, and help build momentum to motivate more
Quantity take-off 36 28 19 8 8 2.25 mechanical contractors to adopt BIM.
Scheduling 32 41 19 5 3 2.05
Shop-drawing 27 19 14 27 14 2.81
process Conclusion
Stakeholder 37 26 14 20 3 2.26
engagement The “Survey Results” section highlights some key factors. The
Submittal process 38 22 27 14 0 2.16 first factor is that three robust correlations exist as follows: (1) com-
Visualization of 8 8 32 30 22 3.49 pany size and BIM usage, (2) project size and number of staff to
facility design
implement BIM, and (3) BIM experience measured in years versus

84 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

J. Manage. Eng., 2014, 30(1): 78-85

 level of expertise. These correlations assist mechanical construction
firms in understanding current industry divisions. The second fac-
tor is that the majority of mechanical firms apply a 1% to 2% of
total project cost to BIM implementation. The third factor is that
there are two focus areas that majority of respondents will be in-
vesting in for BIM usage: creating BIM procedures in-house and
the marketing of BIM to customers. These two factors will help
mechanical construction firms to better allocate resources and
budgeting. The fourth factor is the added value of BIM on proj-
ect execution. There are six main benefits for project execution:
(1) reduction in field conflicts, (2) better coordination, (3) easier
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFC - Universidade Federal do Ceara on 09/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
clash detection, (4) enhanced facility design visualization, (5) effi-
ciency in construction, and (6) fabrication. All of the key factors
discussed, illustrate important practices and characteristics of the
way BIM is used in the mechanical construction industry.
The results discussed show that building information modeling
(BIM) is still an evolving process that confronts many challenges.
Many mechanical construction firms have yet to scratch the sur-
face is their implementation of BIM. The results indicate that the
benefits of BIM might not necessarily outweigh the gains of the
implementation of BIM. The value generated by the use of BIM
must be taken in the context of other project factors such as com-
plexity of project, owner initiatives to make BIM-use a standard,
project size, and use of common standards and protocols. This
study can lead to two main focus research areas in the future. The
first is evaluating the cost-benefit of implementing BIM on opera-
tional procedures, such as the ability of mechanical workers to
absorb BIM processes. The second area is to assist in the creation
of BIM standards among mechanical construction companies. This
will help in minimizing the risks and costs associated with the
use of BIM. Hence, the results in this study provide a valued vision
on the state of practice among mechanical construction firms in
North America.
Appendix
The survey consisted of 27 questions divided into three divisions:
(1) company background, (2) current BIM use, and (3) future BIM
use. The general format of the survey is as follows.
Company Background
This section includes six (6) questions related to the company back-
ground and their experience with using BIM on their projects.
Questions included type of projects executed by the company,
project delivery method, project budget and position of the person
filling the survey within the company and his/her level of involve-
ment in the BIM process.
Current BIM Use
This section includes seventeen (17) questions that focus on under-
standing how the company currently uses BIM in their projects.
Questions included years of experience with using BIM, total
number of projects within the company that used BIM and which
project team member typically leads the BIM coordination,
software and tools used to develop BIM models, associated costs
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 85
J. Manage. Eng., 2014, 30(1): 78-85
of developing the BIM model relative to the total project cost, ex-
pected risks of implementing BIM in the project and phase within
the project life-cycle that benefits most from BIM implementation.
Future BIM Use
This section includes two questions that focus on understanding
how the company intends to expand its use BIM in the future.
These two questions focused on expected level of investment in
BIM software and tools, and the percentage adoption of BIM by
the company.
References
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (2005). Making zero rework a reality,
Austin, TX, 29.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., and Liston, K. (2007). BIM handbook:
A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers,
designers, engineers, and contractors, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 490.
Gallaher, M. P., O’Connor, A. C., Dettbarn, J. L. Jr., and Gilday, L. T.
(2004). Cost analysis of inadequate interoperability in the U.S. capital
facilities industry, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD.
Goedert, J., and Meadati, P. (2008). “Integrating construction process
documentation into building information modeling.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:7(509), 509–516.
Hadi, A. S., and Chatterjee, S. (2006). Regression analysis by example,
D. J. Balding, N. A. C. Cressie, N. I. Fisher, I. M. Johnstone,
L. M. Ryan and A. F. M. Smith, eds., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Hanna, A. S. (2010). Construction labor productivity management and
methods improvement, Madison, WI.
Issa, R., and Suermann, P. C. (2009). “Evaluating industry perceptions of
building information modeling (BIM) impact on construction.” J. Inf.
Technol. Constr., 14, 574–594.
Jones, S. A., Young, N. W. Jr., and Bernstein, H. M. (2008). “Building
information modeling (BIM): Transforming design and construction
to achieve greater industry productivity.” SmartMarket Rep., McGraw
Hill Construction Bedford, MA, 45.
Josephson, P.-E., and Hammarlund, Y. (1999). “The causes and costs of
defects in construction: A study of seven building projects.” Automat.
Constr., 8(6), 681–687.
Korman, T., Simonian, P. L., and Speidel, E. (2008). “Using Building
Information Modeling to improve the mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing coordination process for buildings.” Building integration
solutions, 32, 1–10.
Limited, T. N. (2012). “Trimble—About trimble—Linking positioning to
productivity.” 〈http://www.trimble.com/corporate/about_trimble.aspx〉
(Jun. 15, 2012).
Prieto, R. (2011). “Viewpoint: E & C needs a new business model.”
Engineering News Record, McGraw Hill, 76.
Taylor, J., and Bernstein, P. (2009). “Paradigm trajectories of building
information modeling practice in project networks.” J. Manage. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2009)25:2(69), 69–76.
Thomsen, C., Darrington, J., Dunne, D., and Lightig, W. (2010). CMAA:
Managing integrated project delivery, CMAA, McLean, VA, 105.
Young, N. W., Jr., Jones, S. A., and Bernstein, H. M. (2007). Interoper-
ability in the construction industry, McGraw Hill, Bedford, MA, 36.
Young, N. W., Jr., Jones, S., and Bernstein, H. (2009). The business value
of BIM: Getting building information modeling to the bottom line,
McGraw-Hill Construction, Bedford, MA, 51.