See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329058494

Review of Studies on BIM Adoption in AEC Industry

Conference Paper · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

3 1,981

2 authors:

Ensar Ademci Selin Gundes

Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University
2 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    61 PUBLICATIONS   144 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Determination of the Contractors Financing Preferences and Problems in the Turkish Construction Industry View project

Sürdürülebilirlik, verimlilik View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ensar Ademci on 25 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

5th international Project and Construction Management Conference (IPCMC2018)
Cyprus International University, Faculty of Engineering, Civil Engineering Department, North Cyprus

Review of Studies on BIM Adoption in AEC Industry

E. Ademci and S. Gundes

Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Department of Architecture, Turkey
eademci@gmail.com, selin.gundes@msgsu.edu.tr

Abstract

In recent decades, increased complexity of construction projects combined with improvements

in computer technology have compelled the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC)
industry to integrate Building Information Modeling (BIM) into its operations. Growing client
demands, contractual obligations, new government regulations and an expanded awareness
on cost savings and improved efficiency provided by BIM have further stimulated the
dissemination of BIM technologies in construction. However, the transformation of the
industry has not been exempted from problems, many of them stemming from incongruence
with a multidisciplinary working environment, collaboration issues and the challenges in the
adoption and utilization of a new technology. Although there seems to be consensus among
researchers and industry professionals that the proliferation of BIM in the sector would bring
numerous advantages and efficiency, it is not yet clear which factors contribute to a smooth
transition in the sector. Using a systematic literature review, the present research aims to
reveal the challenges faced by AEC industry in the adoption and implementation of BIM
technologies. In this concept, a differentiation is made between the developing and the
developed countries in terms of favourable conditions/weaknesses for BIM adoption and
potential problems and their solutions are discussed.

Keywords: Building Information Modeling, meta-analysis, diffusion, adoption, construction.

Introduction

In recent decades, increased complexity of construction projects combined with improvements

in computer technology have compelled the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC)
industry to integrate Building Information Modeling (BIM) into its operations. Interoperable
and object-oriented nature of BIM provides an important potential for producing, keeping and
exchanging building information. BIM comprises of a propelled process to design, construct,
utilize and maintain a building from a coherent information model which contains valuable
information for all the stages of a project’s lifecycle (National Institute of Building Sciences,
2008; Eastman et al., 2011). Thus, BIM implementation directly impacts the management
processes of projects and benefits of its use are reflected in all stages of project life cycle. In
the review by Yan and Demian (2008), the advantages of BIM were identified as improved
quality, creativity, sustainability, decreased human resources (HR), and reduced cost and time.
Similarly, Bryde et al. (2013) indicates that the most significant advantages of BIM use results
from decreased costs, reduced time and more productive control processes all through the
project life cycle.

Although the advantages provided by BIM technology, such as improved information sharing,
project management processes, project coordination and collaboration are well-documented,
parties face a variety of obstacles during its implementation. A new technology always
requires adaptation, whose duration is directly related to the level of technology adoption. The
transformation of the industry has not been exempt from problems, many of them stemming
from incongruence with a multidisciplinary working environment, collaboration issues and the
challenges in the adoption and utilization of a new technology. In addition to this, the
readiness of the industry for BIM adoption in the near future diversify essentially over the
distinctive geological and political limits thereby variable drivers and practices over these
divisions (Gu et al., 2007).

The present research aims to undertake a literature review to ascertain challenges faced by
AEC industry during the process of BIM implementation and its adoption. In order to reach
the objective of this study, a literature review was conducted using Google Scholar search
engine and Scopus database. For the purpose of creating a semantic explanation, data
collected is divided into 2 main topics: adoption and implementation barriers and strategies to
overcome the barriers. As the present research reveals BIM adoption and implementation
challenges and country based strategies, it can benefit sector professionals and policy makers
in terms of developing more accurate strategies. In addition, the results can also be a useful
source for researchers.

Barriers to BIM Implementation

There have been many studies in the literature regarding the difficulties encountered in the
implementation of BIM. The study which was conducted by Won et al. (2013) determined the
critical success factors that should be prioritized for the adoption of BIM, where the authors
identified the difficulties encountered in BIM adoption through a review of literature.
Similarly, Sun et al. (2017) reviewed current challenges by conducting a more comprehensive
literature review, who categorized the 22 difficulties identified in the review into five groups:
technology (T), legal (L), management (M), cost (C) and personal (P).

Within the scope of the present study, a total of 62 articles were examined, 30 of which were
listed by Sun et al. (2017), 6 of which are from Won et al. (2013) and 7 from other studies.
Apart from these, 19 articles were directly reviewed, and the findings were compiled. As
many different types of BIM implementation barriers were identified during reviews, barriers
were summarized and those factors that are similar or almost identical were combined into a
factor. With this approach, 22 barriers were identified and categorized under five groups
similar to the study by Sun et al. (2017), which generated a secondary categorization showing
whether a certain barrier is person-specific, company-specific or industry-specific.

Table 1 shows the incidence of barriers by reviewed publications. According to the findings of
the present research, the most mentioned barrier in the review appears to be the perceived 'cost
of investment' (22 studies). Cost of investment includes cost of the software to be purchased,
cost of suitable hardware, and of technological trainings (Porwal and Hewage, 2013; Rezgui
et al., 2013). Another most mentioned barrier by again 22 studies is the ‘need for educating
 Table 1. Barriers of BIM adoption from literature

Schlueter and Thesseling, 2009

Jensen and Johannesson, 2012

Miettinen and Paavola, 2014

Brewer and Gajendran, 2010
Bernstein and Pittman, 2004
Howell and Batcheler, 2004
Johnson and Laepple, 2003

Hartman and Fischer, 2008

Porwal and Hewage, 2013

Denzer and Hedges, 2013
Kim and Anderson, 2012
CATEGORY

Dawood and Iqbal, 2010

Gilligan and Kunz, 2007

Davies and Harty, 2013

Migilinskas et al., 2013

D’Agostino et al., 2007

Yan and Damian, 2008

Taylor and Levitt 2007

Sacks and Barak, 2010

Kashiwagi et al., 2012

TOTAL

Bernstein et al., 2012

Gu and London, 2010

Ku and Taiebat, 2011

Zhang and Gao, 2013

Zhang and Gao, 2013

BARRIERS TO

McAuley et al., 2012

Eastman et al., 2008

Gledson et al., 2012

NO

Gerber et al., 2011

Giel and Issa, 2011

Giel and Issa, 2013

Rezgui et al., 2013

Young et al., 2008

Young et al., 2009

Gupta et al., 2014

Pihlak et al., 2011
Leicht et al., 2007

Mayo et al., 2012

Arayici et al.2009

Arayici et al.2011

Eadie et al., 2013

Aram et al., 2013
Nejat et al., 2012

Dong et al., 2014

Chen et al., 2015
IMLPLEMENTATION OF BIM

Singh et al.,2011
Won et al., 2008

Won et al., 2013

Ding et al., 2014

Volk et al., 2014
Linderoth, 2009
Birkeland, 2009

Giel et al., 2010

Cao et al., 2015

McAdam, 2010
Bazjanac, 2006

Gu et al., 2007
Méndez, 2006

Bender, 2010
Holzer, 2007

Azhar, 2011
Post, 2008
1 C Cost of investment 22 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Need for educating professionals about
2 P 22 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
BIM
Changes in workflows and inappropriate
3 M 21 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
business models & organisation
4 T Poor interoperability among BIM software 19 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Resistance to change the existing work
5 P 18 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
practice
6 T Limitations of current BIM applications 17 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

7 L Lack of industry standards and strategies 16 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

8 M Poor collaboration among stakeholders 13 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

9 P Lack of expertise 12 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Lack of client demand and managers'
10 M 11 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
support
11 M Fragmented nature of the AEC industry 10 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Safety and reliability of building
12 L 10 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
information
13 L Contractual environment 10 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

14 M Problems with BIM data management 9 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Ownership of the BIM data and its
15 L 9 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
copyright
Reluctance of team members to share
16 P 6 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
information.
Missing insurance framework for BIM
17 L 6 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
application
18 T Difficulties in measuring impacts of BIM 4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

19 M Lack of executive buy-in 3 ✓ ✓ ✓

20 P Cultural resistance 3 ✓ ✓ ✓
Lack of subcontractors who can use BIM
21 M 3 ✓ ✓ ✓
technology
22 M Lack of collaboration management tools 2 ✓ ✓

TOTAL 2 6 5 5 1 11 1 7 1 10 1 6 3 7 3 14 4 1 1 5 9 4 1 2 1 1 1 7 1 7 7 1 1 1 6 1 5 2 10 1 6 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 11 2 2 9 1 6 9 10 6 1 1 3 1 3
professionals about BIM’. It can be observed that employers face difficulties in finding a
sufficient number of educated professionals for implementing BIM (Volk et al., 2014). The
following barrier is the ‘changes in workflows and inappropriate business models &
organisation’ which is emphasized by 21 researchers.

The next barrier, which is the ‘poor interoperability among BIM software’ was mentioned in
19 articles. Interoperability is defined as the ability to exchange information between
individual computer programs without loss of content, or meaning (Yum and Drogemuller,
2000), thereby interoperability is mostly related to technological capability of BIM software.
Thus, the frequency of this barrier in the review may indicate that in some cases, BIM
software is not enough for industry professionals. ‘Resistance to change the existing work
practice’ is another barrier mentioned in 18 articles. Existing work practice of professionals is
usually CAD based and this factor is similar to ‘Changes in workflows and inappropriate
business models & organisation’ which is mentioned in 21 studies (Table 1, barrier no. 3).
These two barriers trigger each other. ‘Limitations of current BIM applications’ barrier is
pointed out in 17 studies. This barrier should not be confused with 'Poor interoperability
among BIM software’ because these limitations are more focused on usability and availability,
while the latter focuses problems of interoperability.

'Lack of Industry Standards and Strategies' barrier has been mentioned in 16 of the reviewed
studies. While BIM standards have been developed and implemented in several countries,
many countries do not yet have a useful BIM standard (Miettinen and Paavola, 2014). There
are also points where existing standards are still missing. The next barrier which could be
found in 13 articles is ‘Poor collaboration among stakeholders’. Researchers have specially
stated that actors such as the designer and the contractor, should work together during the
project as poor collaboration between actors reduces the benefits provided by BIM (Singh et
al., 2011; Azhar, 2011).

The 'Lack of expertise' barrier in the publications which focused on consultancy services was
mentioned by 12 researchers. Clients’ demands and organizational support about BIM has
long been known to be important factors in increasing BIM implementations (Porwal and
Hewage, 2013). 11 researchers have stated that ‘Lack of client demand and managers' support’
is a barrier against BIM implementation, which is followed by the ‘Safety and reliability of
building information’ barrier (10 researchers).

Many countries do not have legal infrastructure about BIM (Gledson et al., 2012).
‘Contractual environment’ which is another barrier to proper BIM implementation appears in
10 studies in the literature. Researchers indicated that this barrier is usually critical in
developing countries that have yet to grasp BIM concept.

The other barriers are as follows: ‘Problems with BIM data management' and ‘Ownership of
the BIM data and its copyright’ appeared in 9 publications, ‘Reluctance of team members to
share information’ and ‘Missing insurance framework for BIM application’ in 6, ‘Difficulties
in measuring impacts of BIM’ in 4, ‘Lack of executive buy-in’, ‘Cultural resistance’ and
‘Lack of subcontractors who can use BIM technology’ in 3 and finally ‘Lack of collaboration
management tools’ in 2 studies. The most cited researches are Eastman et al. (2011) with 14
citations, Eadie et al. (2013) and D’Agostino et al. (2007) with 11 citations, Gilligan and
Kunz (2007), Gledson et al. (2012), and Volk et al. (2014) with 10 citations.
 Adoption of BIM

The current state of AEC industry and its readiness to adopt BIM vary considerably, and
therefore different strategies may be needed in different places to promote BIM usage. In
addition to regional and cultural differences, the level of adoption of BIM also varies
according to the companies. During the first wave of adoption of BIM from the beginning of
2000’s to the mid 2010’s, many lessons and experiences have been obtained and suggestions
have been made in the literature. BIM adoption is a phenomenon that is important in the
dissemination of BIM and understanding of implementation challenges. Various factors exist
which have significant effects on BIM adoption therefore many researchers have examined
how the adoption of BIM at national and organizational levels can be encouraged. The
adoption of BIM is a very important field of study because it studies not only "global
challenges" but also cultural aspects that affect the success of BIM adoption (Santos et al.,
2017).

The adoption of BIM has been examined in several countries. Regarding the obstacles and
difficulties in adopting BIM at the national level, Rezgui et al. (2013) from the United
Kingdom, developed a three-step roadmap to achieve required maturity, called as governance
approach in BIM management, for a better BIM adoption. In another study on the adoption of
BIM in the UK, Eadie et al. (2013) conducted a survey to assess the impact of BIM on daily
activities and found that important themes such as the collaborative environment and
management process were effective in the BIM adoption process. Linderoth (2010) and
Samuelson and Björk (2014) conducted research on the adoption of BIM in Sweden. Both
studies suggested that adoption of BIM in Sweden is still in early stages. In Australia, three
different researchers have focused on the adoption of BIM; Gu and London (2010), Kraatz
and Hampson (2013) and Forsythe et al. (2015). These studies have shown that Australian
market leaders have a different perception of BIM (Santos et al., 2017) and that industry
adoption of BIM is not at an advanced level, as the AEC industry has used the BIM
methodology and technology in a limited way. In China, Xu et al. (2014) conducted a study
with BIM experts which indicated that the new BIM concepts are more complicated than the
existing methods for Chinese BIM users, and they face an additional barrier. Moreover, some
participants did not fully understand the concept of BIM, and what distinguishes it from
common CAD tools with idea of will not set off the cost of implementation of the BIM.
Studies by Becerik-Gerber and Kensek (2010) and Bynum et al. (2013) also show that barriers
vary between countries and thus show that cultural influence is an important factor in the
success of BIM implementation. Both studies’ survey results showed that BIM might be a
major support for sustainable construction, information management and integrated project
delivery (IPD).

In terms of organization level studies, Taylor and Bernstein (2009) conducted a study where
qualitative and quantitative data of 26 BIM user firms were combined to describe different
implementation approaches between project processes. They indicated that as project
experience increases, the approach of BIM implementation at the firm level also evolves. It is
also discovered that firms that are aligned with the implementation approach plan and firms
that are willing to share BIM files throughout the project process are the inverse of firms
which are in early stages of BIM implementation (Taylor and Bernstein, 2009).

The number of studies in the literature about BIM adoption in Turkish AEC industry is
growing. A recent study by Ozorhon and Karahan (2017) indicate that BIM usage rate is 46%
in their sample, which was conducted with 96 respondents. It is interesting to note that 74% of
companies using BIM are small scale, 19% are medium scale and only 5% are large scale
firms.

Aladag et al. (2016) conducted a study with focus group interview method to determine the
challenges and driving forces in the Turkish AEC industry’s adoption of BIM. They indicated
that the most important driving force for adopting BIM in the Turkish AEC industry is
‘acquisition of firms’. They also indicated that one of the most important challenges faced
when implementing BIM in the industry is ‘organizational structure and culture’. According to
the results of Aladag's study, ‘customer demand/contract obligations’ and ‘need for
collaboration, coordination, communication and interoperability between stakeholders’ are
among the most important factors for wider adoption of BIM in the Turkish AEC industry.
Considering the challenges in the Turkish AEC industry, the authors have found that
“unawareness of the value added provided by BIM” and "the lack of standards / legislation"
are the most important obstacles encountered (Aladag et al., 2016). The results of Aladag et
al. (2016) furthermore show that ‘lack of encouraging or obligatory contractual clauses’ is one
of the most important obstacles.

Global Development Strategies of BIM Implementation

Benefits of effective implementation of BIM are recognized by the major companies of the
construction industry (Cook, 2014; Love et al., 2013), and their use is becoming increasingly
widespread. McGraw Hill (2014) stated that BIM use has increased from 28% in 2007 to 71%
in North America in 2012. Furthermore, the interest in BIM grows in the leadership of public
clients who require the use of BIM in their projects. A large public infrastructure client
predicts that BIM in Sweden will increase productivity by focusing on the implementation
process (Lindblad and Vass, 2015). Most countries have strategies to implement BIM
technology. The UK, the US and the Nordic countries are pioneers in these strategies. Critical
strategies for successfully using BIM in these countries include: strong government support
and leadership, further improvement of BIM standards, education and training on BIM
certification and BIM technology (Smith, 2014).

When BIM development strategies of 15 different countries are examined, it can be observed
that the most preferred strategy is 'to canalize the investments towards information
technologies and research in the construction industry' which is implemented by 9 out of 15
countries as shown in Table 2. The second most preferred strategy is 'Establishment of an
organization such as BIM Task Group or 'BuildingSmart' to assist and support public sector
clients and the companies which make businesses with private sector’, which is preferred by 5
out of 15 countries. The strategy 'to impose obligation to use BIM in public projects', which is
the most effective option in the literature, has been preferred by 4 countries. The least
preferred strategy is the 'establishment of strategic initiation mechanism like Construction and
Real Estate Network (CORENET) in Singapore’ which is preferred by 3 countries.
 Table 2. BIM development strategies based on countries

Total Mention
SINGAPORE

AUSTRALIA
GERMANY
DENMARK
NORWAY
FINLAND
THE U.S.

FRANCE

BRAZIL
BIM DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AUTHORS

JAPAN
UK
Granholm, 2011;
To canalize the investments towards the information Kubba, 2012;
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9
technologies and researches McGraw Hill, 2014;
Smith, 2014
Establishment of an organization such as by government CIBER, 2012; Kubba,
to assist and support public sector clients and the ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5 2012; McGraw Hill,
companies 2014
Granholm, 2011;
Khemlani, 2012;
To impose obligation to use BIM in public projects ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4
CIBER, 2012; Kubba,
2012;
Khemlani, 2012;
Kubba, 2012;
Establishment of strategic initiation mechanism ✓ ✓ ✓ 3
BuildingSmart
Australasia, 2012
TOTAL 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0

Conclusions

In the light of the review of BIM adoption studies, it can be stated that although there are a
plethora of barriers hindering the adoption of BIM, the strategies developed to overcome
implementation problems remain limited. In addition to this, the most striking point is the
necessity of changing manner of approaching to the barrier according to region and
organization. However, it obviously seems that the strategy to be considered first is canalizing
the investments towards software, equipment and training, as in countries such as the US, the
UK, Singapore Finland, France in order to overcome the BIM adoption issues. Also,
preparation of the legal infrastructure to establish relevant BIM organizations and mandatory
use of BIM must be considered, which is of great importance for sector professionals and
policy makers in terms of developing and deciding accurate strategies on the way to the full
adoption of BIM for each region and organization.

References

Aladag, H., Demirdogen, G. & Isik, Z., (2016). Building information modeling (BIM) use in
Turkish construction industry, Procedia Engineering, 161, 174-179.

Azhar, S., (2011). Building Information Modelling (BIM): trends, Benefits, Risks and
Challenges for the AEC Industry, Leadership and management in engineering 11 (3), 241-
252.

Becerik-Gerber, B. & Kensek, K., (2010). Building information modeling in architecture,

engineering, and construction: emerging research directions and trends, Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 136 (3), 139–147.
Bryde, D., Broquetasb, M. & Volme, J. (2013). The project benefits of Building Information
Modeling (BIM), International Journal of Project Management, 31 (7), 971-980.
BuildingSmart Australasia, (2012). ‘National Building Information Modeling’, Strategy: A
strategy for the focused adoption of building information modeling and related digital
technologies and processes for the Australian built environment sector, Department of
Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, Sydney, June.

Bynum, P., Issa, R. R. A. & Olbina, S., (2013). Building information modeling in support of
sustainable design and construction, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-
ASCE,139 (1), 24–34.

CIBER. (2012). Research Report – Building Information Modeling (BIM): an Introducing and
International Perspectives, Centre for Interdisciplinary Built Environment Research, The
University of Newcastle: United Kingdom

Cook, J. (2014). The value of building information modeling for corporate real estate,
Corporate Real Estate Journal, 3 (2), 164-173.

D’Agostino, B., Mikulis, M., and Bridgers, M., (2007). FMI/CMAA Eighth Annual Survey of
Owners: The perfect storm—construction style, FMI Corp./Construction Management
Association of America, Raleigh, New York City: USA

Eadie, R., Browne, M., Odeyinka, H., McKeown, C. & McNiff, S., (2013). BIM
implementation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: An analysis, Automation in
Construction, 36, 145–151.

Eastman, C., Eastman, C. M., Teicholz, P., & Sacks, R., (2011). BIM handbook: A guide to
building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors,
Hoboken New Jersey: USA, John Wiley & Sons.

Gilligan, B., & Kunz, J. (2007). VDC use in 2007: Significant value, dramatic growth, and
apparent business opportunity, Construction Users Roundtable (CURT) National Meeting,
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), Stanford University: Stanford, USA

Gledson, B., Henry, D. & Bleanch, P., (2012). Does size matter? Experiences and perspectives
of BIM implementation from large and SME construction contractors, 1st UK Academic
Conference on Building Information Management (BIM), (pp.97-108). United Kingdom

Granholm, L. (2011). Finland, Norway, Singapore, USA Lead Progress in Construction,

Industry Presentation, BIMsight, Insight on Building Information Modelling

Gu, N., & London, K., (2010). Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC
industry, Automation in construction, 19(8), 988-999.

Gu, N., Singh, V., Taylor, C., London, K., & Brankovic, L. (2007). Building information
modelling: an issue of adoption and change management, ICAN Conference 2007, Sydney,
Australia: August 28
Khemlani, L. (2012). Around the World with BIM, AECbytes, Retrieved March 01 2014, from
www.aecbytes.com/feature/2012/Global-BIM.html

Kraatz, J. A. & Hampson, K. D. (2013). Brokering innovation to better leverage R&D

investment, Building Research & Information, 41 (2), 187–197.

Kubba, S. (2012). Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction: LEED, BREEAM,
and green globes, UK: Butterworth Heinemann

Lindblad, H. & Vass, S., (2015). BIM implementation and organisational change: A case
study of a large Swedish public client. Procedia Economics and Finance, 21(8th Nordic
Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation), (pp. 178-184) Tampere, Finland,
May 28-29

Linderoth, H. C. J., (2010) Understanding adoption and use of BIM as the creation of actor
networks, Automation in Construction, 19 (1), 66–72.

Love, P. E. D., Simpson, I., Hill, A. & Standing C., (2013). From justification to evaluation:
Building information modeling for asset owners, Automation in Construction 35, 208-216.

McGraw Hill Construction. (2014). The Business Value of BIM for Construction in Global
Markets, McGraw Hill Construction, Bedford MA, United States

Miettinen, R., & Paavola, S., (2014). Beyond the BIM utopia: Approaches to the development
and implementation of building information modeling, Automation in Construction, 43, 84-
91.

National Institute of Building Sciences. (2008). United States National Building Information
Modelling Standard version 1—Part 1: Overview, principles, and methodologies

Ozorhon, B. & Karahan, U., (2017). Critical success factors of building information modeling
implementation, Journal of Management in Engineering, 33 (3), 04016054.

Samuelson, O. & Bjork, B.C., (2014). A longitudinal study of the adoption of IT technology
in the Swedish building sector, Automation in Construction, 37, 182–190.

Santos, R., Costa, A. A. & Grilo, A., (2017). Bibliometric analysis and review of Building
Information Modelling literature published between 2005 and 2015, Automation in
Construction, 80, 118-136.

Sun, C., Jiang, S., Skibniewski, M. J., Man, Q. & Shen, L., (2017). A literature review of the
factors limiting the application of BIM in the construction industry, Technological and
Economic Development of Economy, 23 (5), 764-779.

Taylor, J. E. & Bernstein, P.G., (2009). Paradigm trajectories of building information

modelling practice in project networks, Journal of Management in Engineering, 25 (2), 69–
76.
 Volk, R., Stengel, J. & Schumann, F., (2014). Building Information Modeling (BIM) for
existing buildings – literature review and future needs, Automation in Construction, 38, 109–
127.

Xu, H., Feng, J. & Li, S., (2014). Users-orientated evaluation of building information model
in the Chinese construction industry, Automation in Construction, 39, 32–46.

Yum, K., & Drogemuller, R.M., (2000). How much interoperability can be achieved for the
construction industry today, INCITE 2000 Conference, Implementing IT To Obtain a
Competitive Advantage in the 21st Century, Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, January 17

Porwal, A. & Hewage, K.N, (2013). Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering
framework for public construction projects, Automation in Construction 31, 204-214.

Rezgui, Y., Beach, T. & Rana, O., (2013). A governance approach for BIM management
across lifecycle and supply chains using mixed-modes of information delivery, Journal of
Civil Engineering and Management, 19 (2), 239–258.

Smith, P., (2014). BIM implementation - global strategies. Procedia Engineering, 85

(Creative Construction Conference 2014), 11. Prague, Czech Republic

Singh, V., Gu, N. & Wang, X., (2011). theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-
disciplinary collaboration platform, Automation in Construction 20, 134-144.

Yan, H., & Demian, P., (2008). Benefits and barriers of building information modelling,
Proc., 12th Int. Conf. on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering 2008, Tsinghua
University, Beijing: China

Won, J., Lee, G., Dossick, C., & Messner, J. (2013). Where to focus for successful adoption
of building information modeling within organization. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 139(11).

View publication stats