BIM Enabled Health and Safety Coordinati

PROCEEDINGS OF
ARCOM Doctoral Workshop

Sustainability and BIM
21st October 2016
Greenway Hub, GrangeGorman Campus
Dublin Institute of Technology
WORKSHOP CONVENOR AND PROCEEDINGS EDITOR:

Professor Lloyd Scott Dublin Institute of Technology
Table of Contents
Editorial Lloyd Scott 3
Dingayo Myzece
BIM- Enabled Health and Safety Coordination in the UK
6 - 15
Construction Industry
Hugh Geoghean
Understanding Contextual Factors Affecting BIM Implementation
in Architectural Design Practices (ADP's) Through a Literature
16 -3 2
Review
Anushka Rathnayaka and Paul Coates

Incorporating Building Information Modelling and Sustainability
Education Within the Construction Curriculum in the United
33 - 43
Kingdom
Daniel Clarke-Hagan and John P. Spillane

A Qualitative Review of BIM, Sustainability and Lean Construction:
44 - 59
Is There a Future for Lean Construction?
Hugh Geoghean
Reflecting on a Research Methodology to Explore the Value of BIM
for Sustainable Design in Architectural Design Practices 60 -82
2
Editorial
Welcome to this special doctoral workshop on Sustainability and BIM which forms
part of what is now a well-established support mechanism for researchers in the
discipline of the Built Environment. The ARCOM doctoral series, around now for
some sixteen years, has addressed many of the diverse research areas that PhD
researchers have chosen to focus on in their doctoral journey. This doctoral workshop
has as an aim to offer an opportunity to explore and share research and the theoretical
underpinnings facing PhD researchers within the construction and engineering sectors
where the focus is on the topics of BIM and Sustainability. This workshop provides
the opportunity for AEC researchers to come together in an environment where
support for their approaches to the research by offering the correct conditions to share
and discuss their journey. There is evidence that there are many PhD students who
would benefit from an environment where they can share their research phenomenon
and this workshop session will allow for discourse and interaction to enable ‘learning
to take place’ together.
In these proceedings are the five final papers selected from some eleven abstracts
presented for review. It is important to recognise that the papers selected offer the
opportunity for participants to learn from each other. The process of selection for the
workshop, while closely aligned with the ARCOM conference proceedings, is such
that it is aimed at selecting papers within the scope of the topic but very much directed
to allowing doctoral researchers' the opportunity to present work in progress where
formative and developmental review can be offered by way of a constructive support
mechanisms. The context of each paper is diverse which has added to the richness of
this edition of the doctoral workshop series. All papers have been peer reviewed and
each author has had the opportunity to receive feedback and update their paper.
The built environment is recognised by all stakeholders as having a significant role to

play in reducing carbon emissions and achieving sustainable development (DEFRA,
2005). Sustainability and BIM requirements in the AEC sector have warranted the
need for the community to become better informed on the relative sustainability of
alternatives design and construction solutions. BIM presents opportunities for
integrating the modelling of sustainability performance into all stages of building
design, construction and after use activities. The recognition of the need to invest in
this type of applied research is required across the whole of the AEC sector.
This doctoral workshop aims to provide an environment where critical discussion and
engagement of those researching in the sustainability and BIM areas of the
development of sustainable communities will be offered. The workshop will explore
the following specific themes:
• The management of sustainability through BIM
• Integrating Design, BIM and Sustainability
• Integrating Design, BIM and Sustainability within SMEs
3
• Sustainable building design through BIM
• Visioning and sustainability assessment
• Sustainability appraisal and BIM
• Lean, sustainability and BIM
• Education for Sustainability and BIM
Mzyece in his research study focuses towards critically evaluating the role of BIM as a
tool towards improved Health and Safety coordination during the design and pre-
construction stage in the context of the UK construction industry. This he does by
considering the duties placed on the Principal Designer (PD) in the context of
Construction Design Management process through reviewing the secondary data of
the Statutory Instrument. He justifies using content analysis as the selected method
where thematic analysis revealed that almost two-thirds of PD duties align
appropriately with achieving improved Health and Safety coordination. This analysis
provides for the next stage of the research which will be to test this outcome
Geoghean in his first paper of two, addresses the contextual factors of BIM
implementation in architectural design practices (ADP). He argues that the literature
review carried out provides for an alternative approach to view and better understand
BIM implementation in ADPs. The author sets the context in which to reflect upon the
changes in practice that will lead to stakeholders better understanding the value of
BIM in parallel with the implementation of the level 2 mandate for
sustainability. Geoghegan concludes by proffering the position that there is increasing
awareness of the need for the convergence of both BIM and sustainability in a more
compatible manner than previously done.
Rathnayake and Coates address the important topic of incorporating BIM and
Sustainability education within the construction curriculum. They situate their
research in the context of built environment education in the UK. Their early findings
suggest that from the analysis of the research, they suggest that so as to meet the
current industry demand for BIM and Sustainability education, higher education
curricula should focus on Project based learning, Knowledge Transfer Partnership, the
integration of BIM with existing AEC programmes. They also make the
recommendation that an improvement in the teaching resources and materials is
necessary so as to provide for better performance in BIM and sustainability
capabilities.
Clarke-Hagan and Spillane consider Sustainability, BIM and Lean construction

where they pose the question as to whether there is a future for the latter. In
addressing this aim, they have adopted a three tiered sequential research approach
with the use and justification of an in-depth literature review, backed up with
4
interviews / focus groups and qualitative analysis. The analysis make a particular
focused approach on the resulting data where particular attention is devoted to
implications for practice within architectural firms. This research highlights the
reasons for the success or failure of a construction projects, in terms of sustainability,
at the design stage. it has also attempted to identify areas in which gaps in knowledge
exist where the goal would be to enhance the understanding and offer solutions.
Results so far, indicate that the potential advantages outweighed disadvantages,
however what has be revealed is that the uptake within the industry is still slow and
that better promotion of the underlying benefits required; These include,
sustainability, the environment, society and the industry.
Geoghean, in the final paper, explores the methodological considerations for

exploring the value of BIM implementation for sustainable design in the context of his
research, architectural design practices. He advocates an ‘interpretivist’ approach,
where he employs a research methodology that explores the use of mixed methods
through using both qualitative and quantitative techniques. While attempting to better
understand the perceived value of BIM in the context of implementation for
sustainable design in architectural design practices, the case is made that the
convergence of BIM and sustainability would appear to be incidental rather than
prescriptive and in many cases is reliant on the client and their awareness of the value
of it. The interpretive nature of the research approach is discussed by the author who
emphasizes the issues around remaining objective as the researcher.
It is a pleasure to be associated with this important aspect of the work of ARCOM and
the continued support for this type of ‘scaffolded’ experience for the researchers as
they make their own personal research journey should be supported into the future!
Finally, there is a need to address the gaps in methodological approach and allow
researchers flourish and blossom by allowing them the opportunity to experiment
within their chosen research domain.
“What we find changes who we become.” Peter Morville
Professor Lloyd Scott, October, 2016
5
BIM-ENABLED HEALTH AND SAFETY
COORDINATION IN THE UK CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
Dingayo Mzyece1
1
Coventry University, School of Energy, Construction and Environment, Much Park
Street, CV1 2LU, UK
Health and Safety (H&S) coordination during the design and preconstruction stage is
often perceived as significantly important. In the UK construction industry, this duty
largely remains the responsibility of a Principal Designer (PD), a dutyholder within
the context of the Construction Design and Management (CDM) regulations 2015
regime.
The aim of the study is to critically evaluate the role of BIM as a tool towards
improved H&S coordination during the design and preconstruction stage, by
considering the duties placed on the PD in the context of CDM. To achieve this,
secondary data considered for this study were duties placed on the PD, thus applying
an inductive form of inquiry. Additionally, given that this secondary data is a
Statutory Instrument (CDM2015) or “letter of the law”, application of content analysis
is considered most appropriate, while also identifying themes which emerge using
thematic analysis as a research analysis method.
The findings reveal that almost two-thirds of the PD duties align well to achieve
improved H&S coordination through a BIM-enabled approach. However, it is unclear
whether the dutyholder likely to be appointed in the role of PD is equipped with the
necessary skills, knowledge and experience (SKE). Although it is stated clearly that a
designer is best placed to discharge the function of PD (Regulation 5(1)(a)), what
remains uncertain is whether the designer has the necessary skillset to coordinate H&S
during the design and preconstruction phase (Regulation 11(1)), as well as undertake
the other duties through a BIM-enabled approach. The factors considered critical to
complement BIM-enabled H&S coordination efforts were: cooperation, teamwork
approach, project planning, project duration, and early design decisions. The next
stage of this study will be to test this outcome, with primary data as the basis. The
study further concludes that BIM-enabled H&S coordination is viable, provided PDs
have the necessary SKE.
Keywords: [CDM Regulations, BIM, Health and Safety, Principal Designer, design for safety].
6
INTRODUCTION
There is less than a decade to go, towards attainment of the UK's construction industry
2025 strategy. As such, the importance of Building Information Modelling (BIM), as a
tool to enhance procurement of construction projects cannot be emphasised. Indeed,
this is clearly expressed in the UK Government's construction strategy (see BIS,
2013). Towing the same thread of thought, it can even be argued that there is a role
that BIM can play to improve management and coordination of Health and Safety
(H&S). For example, a study conducted by Ganah and John (2015) concluded that
BIM can enhance current approaches towards H&S planning for construction site
personnel. However, this study considers BIM as a tool to enhance coordination of
H&S particularly in the context of the Construction, Design and Management (CDM)
regulations.
There are seven sections in this paper. After the introduction, a detailed discussion is
provided on the application of Building Information Modelling (BIM) as a tool to
enhance the procurement of projects in the construction industry; also highlighting the
gaps in knowledge. After a summarised discussion on the implementation of the CDM
regulations in the UK construction industry, the research methodology adopted for the
study is explained. The research results and findings are then presented and discussed,
after which the conclusions of the study are outlined.
APPLICATION OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING

(BIM) IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Over the past 5 years or so, BIM has increasingly become a major tool for
collaborative project management and enhancement in the construction industry. It
triggers an integrated approach to the management process of construction projects
(BIS, 2012), from inception to completion (BIS, 2012; Moulds, 2016). Meaning that, a
number of stakeholders have the ability to work in an integrated manner at the earliest
opportunity, which in turn influences design decisions taken from the onset. In a study
conducted by Sebastian (2011), BIM is defined as technology frameworks that
complement integrated collaboration during and throughout the project design
lifecycle. It is therefore unsurprising that other researchers have argued that BIM
presents an opportunity to improve the overall outlook of project safety, given its
planning and design integration ability (e.g. see Benjaoran and Bhokha, 2010; Zhou et
al., 2011). Moreover, BIM can also offer behavioural and procedural changes as noted
by Joyce and Houghton (2014) and Olatunji (2014). For example, the integrated
system for safety developed by Benjaoran and Bhokha (2010), enhanced safety
awareness and triggered design changes. These studies therefore demonstrate that
BIM has a role to play when considering the H&S outcomes of construction projects.
The UK Government's industrial BIM strategy report prepared by the Department of

Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) outlines some features which may be considered
as panaceas for BIM implementation (BIS, 2012). It is articulated within that strategy
that BIM, which typically refers to digital technologies and 3 dimensional (3D)
modelling, is largely underpinned by a collaborative style of working. It is therefore
foreseeable that BIM provides a platform for upfront sharing of information in digital
7
form throughout the life cycle of construction. Most importantly, the strategy
underlines that BIM creates an environment whereby, the construction and software
sectors merge, thus creating critical synergies and opportunities.
The three main drivers for adoption of the BIM outlined in the strategy are: (i) the
reduced cost of assets and achievement of significant operational efficiencies; (ii)
improved construction supply chains; and (iii) improved industry growth and
outcomes. From a commercial point of view, it simply means that the supply chain
will feed information into the system at the most relevant time and similarly,
extraction of such information is readily available at the most opportune time. This
notion was clearly set out in the BIS BIM report as a "push-pull" strategy, whereby
the "push" considers the supply chain approaches for BIM implementation in terms of
attaining the required level, while the "pull" considers client specification frameworks
in terms of consistency.
As such, use of BIM has been employed on a number of projects (see Bryde et al.,
2013) and the consensus reached by various commentators, practitioners and
researchers, is that BIM unifies and streamlines the design and construction process. It
can therefore be asserted that indeed, BIM is an exemplar; a tool which brings
together a number of project stakeholders with prospects to improve the overall
management of construction projects. Indeed, the widespread promotion of BIM and
its application has been reported in various publications. The view that BIM typically
improves communication issues and advocates for better and consistent management
of projects is commonplace. For example, a case study on the application of BIM
reported by Moulds (2016), suggested that there was a significant reduction in time,
owing to the streamlined approach for undertaking various processes. Further, it was
reported that key issues were identified and resolved expediently, unlike the previous
paper-based method(s). In terms of the practicality of the design, BIM offered the
opportunity to simulate the construction sequence and where applicable, redesigned.
Moreover, it was explained that the model was also used for purposes of Health and
Safety (H&S), thereby communicating to the site teams, the sequence of construction
and so forth. Even a study conducted by Bryde et al. (2013) considered the
interoperability of BIM and the extent of its usage. The conclusion drawn, based on
secondary data collected from 35 construction projects which employed BIM, shows a
reduction in time and cost throughout the project lifecycle, which is consistent with
Moulds's finding (Moulds, 2016).
Further, Zanni et al. (2016) on the other hand considered a BIM-enabled sustainable
building design process. Their results, based on a developed framework, having
undertaken 25 in-depth interviews indicated that a BIM-enabled approach,
complemented the use of other design software that took into account sustainability
issues, which demonstrates the adaptability of BIM to complement user/project
requirements and needs.
In terms of its application in the UK construction industry, a study conducted by Eadie

et al. (2013), considered BIM implementation throughout the UK construction project
lifecycle. The conclusion drawn shows high positive financial benefits for BIM
adoption; and that it is mostly used during design and pre-construction stages. This
8
signals that BIM has a role to play in terms of its influence on early design decisions.
As such, it can even be argued that, in the context of the Construction Design and
Management (CDM) regulations, implementation of BIM on projects may yield
tangible results from a BIM-enabled coordination of H&S during design. However,
the extent to which this is viable largely remains unknown, of which this study sheds
some light.
THE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT

REGULATIONS
The construction, design and management regulations were first introduced in the UK
construction industry as the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994
(CDM1994), on 31 March 1995, Statutory Instrument (SI) number 1994/3140. In
principle, they were introduced by the UK government in response to the EU
Directive—EU 92/57/EEC.
Despite being in existence for over a decade, significant concerns associated with the
CDM1994 regime emerged and because of this, the CDM2007 (SI, No. 2007/320)
replaced the CDM1994, with the intention to improve the overall implementation in
practice, and reduce bureaucracy among other targets. The main concerns during the
implementation of the CDM1994, as highlighted from literature were: overly
bureaucratic procedures; excessive paperwork; widespread misunderstanding of roles;
and uncertainties across construction supply chains (e.g. Baxendale and Jones, 2000;
Beal, 2007; Dalby 2007).
These uncertainties, as a result culminated into introduction of the CDM2007 on 6

April 2007, to improve CDM implementation across the UK construction industry.
However, replacement of the Planning Supervisor (PS) role with a dutyholder known
as the CDM Coordinator (CDM-C), did not yield significant tangible benefits, as such,
the status quo was still a matter that drew significant attention. For example, it was
reported on numerous occasions that the CDM-C provided little input or indeed
inadequate support in discharging H&S coordination responsibilities on most
construction projects. A report prepared by the Specialist Engineering Contractors'
Group (SEC), noted that the presence of the CDM-C on most projects was limited
(SEC, 2010). Increasingly, the evidence on most occasions seemed to show that the
same concerns still emerged under the CDM2007 regime (e.g. Dalby, 2007). While
the motivation for introducing CDM2007, as noted by Bomel (2007) was to: simplify
the regulations; enable a flexible approach in terms of contractual issues; focus on the
planning and management of H&S issues; and simplify competence assessment;
achievement of these targets was questionable.
Undeniably though, there were some improvements in the implementation of CDM

regulations during the CDM2007 regime (Frontline Consultants, 2012a; Webster,
2013). Nevertheless, an evaluation of their implementation still revealed numerous
concerns (Frontline Consultants, 2012b). Further, it was observed that the CDM2007
was still surrounded with uncertainties in terms of: (i) misunderstanding of
responsibilities (Dalby, 2009); competency issues of the CDM-C role (ICE, 2011) and
9
interpretation of the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) (Frontline Consultants,
2012a).
It was therefore unsurprising that following the Löfstedt report, which reviewed H&S
legislation in the UK (Löfstedt, 2011), the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
undertook a complete overhaul of the CDM2007, as recommended in the Löfstedt
report. The main issues pointed out in that particular report were to: (i) ensure that
duties are clearly expressed; (ii) reduce bureaucracy; and (iii) provide appropriate
guidance for smaller projects, among others. It therefore became clearer that there was
a need to replace the CDM2007 regime, of which the CDM2015 (SI, No. 2015/51)
regime was introduced in the autumn of 2015. Major changes included: replacement
of the CDM-C role with a new dutyholder known as “Principal Designer” (PD);
inclusion of more stringent provisions to ensure domestic clients were accountable;
removal of the competence provision; and simplification and more alignment of the
regulations to the EU Directive—EU/92/57EEC.
THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology comprised the use of an inductive inquiry to first: analyse
the contents of the most relevant and current H&S Statutory Instrument (SI) in
Construction, Design and Management (CDM); then second, scrutinise the duties
placed on the Principal Designer (PD), mandated with significant coordination
responsibilities during the design and preconstruction stages. This form of inquiry can
be associated with the inductive approach, whereby provisions contained within the SI
are scrutinised in great detail.
In terms of the analysis, initially, content analysis is applied to determine the duties
which resonate with BIM interoperability. Thereafter, thematic analysis is used to
highlight the extent to which BIM implementation offers a more streamlined approach
for H&S coordination, particularly during the design and preconstruction stages.
Briefly, content analysis is defined by Bryman (2012) as an approach that seeks to

analyse documentary evidence or text into quantifiable predetermined categories,
systematically. With this in mind, it is considered as a reasonable method of analysis
in this study given that the evidence is based on secondary data. Moreover, combining
this approach with thematic analysis, typically defined as organising data into themes,
is considered advantageous. Initially, the duties placed on PDs were categorised
according to the stage of discharge, after which duties that invite early design
decisions and likely to resonate with BIM implementation were identified. Overall,
this form of inquiry adopted in this study is qualitative, whereby themes are drawn up
in terms of their frequency in the text under scrutiny. Moreover, it is common
knowledge that thematic analysis entails a search for themes, or in some instances
referred to as codes. Given that the central theme of this study is early design
decisions, as illustrated in the literature, it can even be argued this in turn provides a
predetermined category, thus qualifies the analysis taken as defined in the opening
sentence, of this section.
10
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Table 1 depicts the main duties placed on the Principal Designer (PD). The results
show that there are 15 main duties of which some relate to the pre-construction phase,
while others relate to the construction phase as noted in Table 2. Arguably, some
duties are likely to be discharged during both stages of a construction project.
Table 1: Main duties of the Principal Designer (PD)
Regulation Description
11(1) Plan, manage and monitor the pre-construction phase
11(2)(a) Plan and manage items or work stages that are likely to take place concurrently
or sequential
11(2)(b) Estimate the duration for discharging duties to complete the work stages and take
into account the general principles of prevention
11(3) Eliminate any foreseeable risks to persons: undertaking construction work,
maintaining the structure, and using the structure.
11(4) The principal designer to ensure all designers comply with their obligations
11(5) Ensure all persons cooperate with the client, principal designer and each other
11(6)(a) Assist the client in providing preconstruction information
11(6)(b) Provide preconstruction information in a prompt manner to all designers and
contractors
11(7) Liaise with the principal contractor (PC) during the construction phase
12(3)(a) Assist the PC in preparing the construction phase plan by providing
preconstruction information from the client
12(3)(b) Assist the PC in preparing the construction phase plan by providing information
obtained from the designers
12(5) Prepare the health and safety file during the pre-construction phase
12(6) Review, update and revise the health and safety file
12(8) Pass the health and safety file to the principal contractor (PC) if appointment
ends before project completion
12(10) Pass the health and safety file to the client at the end of the project
In terms of BIM interoperability, nine duties standout and are considered to be highly
linked with early design decisions, that is:
 planning, management and monitoring the pre-construction phase (Reg. 11(1))
 planning, management of work stages undertaken concurrently or sequentially
(Reg. 11(2)(a))
 estimate the duration for discharging duties to complete the work stages (Reg.
11(2)(b))
 eliminate foreseeable risks (Reg. 11(3))
 ensure designers comply with their duties (Reg. 11(4))
 assist the client in providing preconstruction information (Reg. 11(6)(a))
11
 provide preconstruction information to all designers and contractors (Reg.
11(6)(b))
 prepare the health and safety file during the preconstruction phase (Reg. 12(5))
 review, update and revise the health and safety file (Reg.12(6)).
Convincingly, from the duties mentioned above, it is clear that BIM has the potential
to enhance the discharge of duties placed on the PD, which in turn influence H&S
coordination. In terms of the main recurring themes drawn, they include: cooperation,
teamwork approach, project planning, project duration, and early design decisions,
thus considered as critical factors. For an expanded discussion of these emerging
themes, please refer to the discussion section.
Table 2: Main duties of the PD categorised

Duties discharged during the design/preconstruction stage
11(1) Plan, manage and monitor the pre-construction phase
11(2)(a) Plan and manage items or work stages that are likely to take place concurrently
or sequential
11(2)(b) Estimate the duration for discharging duties to complete the work stages and take
into account the general principles of prevention
11(3) Eliminate any foreseeable risks to persons: undertaking construction work,
maintaining the structure, and using the structure.
11(4) The principal designer to ensure all designers comply with their obligations
11(6)(a) Assist the client in providing preconstruction information
contractors
12(5) Prepare the health and safety file during the pre-construction phase
Duties discharged during the construction stage
12
contractors
11(7) Liaise with the principal contractor (PC) during the construction phase
12(3)(a) Assist the PC in preparing the construction phase plan by providing
preconstruction information from the client
12(3)(b) Assist the PC in preparing the construction phase plan by providing information
obtained from the designers
12(10) Pass the health and safety file to the client at the end of the project
Based on the content analysis, four PD duties are likely to be discharged during both
stages of the project execution as shown in Table 2. These are:
(i) ensure all persons cooperate with the client, principal designer and
each other (Reg. 11(5));
(ii) provide preconstruction information in a prompt manner to all
designers and contractors (Reg. 11(6)(b));
(iii) review, update and revise the health and safety file (Reg. 12(6)); and
(iv) pass the health and safety file to the principal contractor if appointment
ends before project completion (Reg. 12(8)).
As such, from the foregoing it can be argued that the two most critical duties which
can enhance H&S coordination through a BIM-enabled approach, are: providing
preconstruction information in a prompt manner to all designers and contractors (Reg.
11(6)(b)) and reviewing, updating and revising the health and safety file (Reg. 12(6)).
This result was reached by considering duties that are repetitive across the two
parameters which considered duties likely to: (i) trigger early design decisions; and
(ii) be discharged during both phases of a project.
DISCUSSION
The evidence so far shows that there are a number of PD duties which may benefit
from a BIM-enabled approach to coordinate H&S. Although all duties placed on the
PD may incorporate a BIM-enabled approach in one way or the other, nine duties
standout (i.e. 11(1), 11(2)(a), 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4), 11(6)(a), 11(6)(b), 12(5), and
12(6)) given their likelihood to trigger early design decisions. Whereas, the two duties
shown in italics above, are considered most prominent because of the likelihood to
achieve the two parameters set out for this study. Moreover, the themes drawn from
the letter of the law are consistent with the overall ethos behind BIM, which is to
trigger integrated collaboration from the early stages of design and throughout the
project lifecycle. While other studies have shown that cooperation/collaboration is still
a challenge, particularly in the context of CDM (e.g. Mzyece, 2015), a BIM-enabled
approach for H&S coordination may present tangible outcomes. However, there is
13
need to prove this observation by means of an empirically based study. This study
however shows two things: first, the viability of the chosen research methodology to
draw significant inferences; and second, identification of two duties that enhance H&S
coordination through a BIM-enabled approach.
Crucially, the analysis also shows that over two-thirds (10/15) of the PD duties
demand some form of cooperation and collaboration, which means that the importance
of a BIM-enabled approach cannot be overemphasised, provided PDs have the right
skills, knowledge and experience (SKE). This is consistent with the provisions in
regulation 8(1) which stipulate that a designer, principal designer, contractor, or
principal contractor appointed must have the necessary SKE. Perhaps, it can be argued
that PDs with ample BIM expertise stand a better chance to coordinate H&S during
the design and preconstruction stage. Undeniably, the challenge going forward is to
ensure that PDs equip themselves with the necessary SKE.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides some deep and interesting insight on the plausibility of BIM-
enabled H&S coordination. The results from the analysis show that BIM-enabled
H&S coordination is viable, provided PDs have the necessary SKE. Also, the
importance of provision of preconstruction information to all designers and
contractors (Reg. 11(6)(b)) and reviewing, updating and revising the health and safety
file (Reg. 12(6)) cannot be overemphasised given the influence on sequential duties
performed by other dutyholders.
The stage of the study reported in this paper aimed to critically evaluate BIM as a tool
for H&S coordination based on secondary data. The next stage of the study will be to
test this theory (deductive approach) and collect primary data based on a combination
of case studies and a questionnaire survey targeting design practitioners, particularly
those appointed in the role of the PD, in the context of CDM. Again, the importance
of highlighting the context within which this study is framed cannot be
overemphasised because of the misunderstanding of dutyholder roles, especially when
they tend to overlap and perform multiple functions.
REFERENCES
Baxendale, T. and Jones, O. (2000) Construction design and management safety regulations in
practice--progress on implementation, International Journal of Project Management,
Elsevier, 18(1), pp. 33–40.
Beal, A. N. (2007) CDM Regulations: 12 years of pain but little gain, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering, 160(2), pp. 82–88.
Benjaoran, V. and Bhokha, S. (2010) An integrated safety management with construction
management using 4D CAD model, Safety Science, 48(3), pp. 395–403
BIS (2013) Construction 2025, Department for Business, Innovation and skills,
London: BIS.
BIS (2012) Building Information Modelling, Department for Business, Innovation and
skills, London: BIS.
14
Bomel Ltd (2007) Improving the effectiveness of the Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 1994, Establishing views from construction stakeholders on the current
effectiveness of CDM, [online] Available from:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr538.htm
Bryde, D., Broquetas, M. and Volm, J.M. (2013) The project benefits of Building Information
Modelling, International Journal of Project Management, Elsevier, 31(1), pp. 971–
980.
Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, UK.
Dalby, S. (2009) CDM 2007 two years on: survey reveals widespread misunderstanding,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering, 162(4), p. 149.
Eadie, R., Browne, M., Odeyinka, H., McKeown, C. and McNiff, S. (2013) BIM
implementation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: An analysis,
Automation in Construction, 36, pp. 145–151.
Frontline Consultants (2012a) Evaluation of the Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 2007, London: HSE.
Frontline Consultants (2012b) London 2012: The Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 2007 Duty holder roles and impact, London:HSE.
Ganah, A. and John, G.A. (2015) Integrating Building Information Modeling and Health and
Safety for Onsite Construction, Safety and Health at Work, 6(1) pp. 39-45.
ICE (2011) CDM 3 years on, London: ICE
Joyce, R. and Houghton, D. (2014) Briefing: Building information modelling and the law,
Proceedings of the ICE - Management, Procurement and Law, 167(3), pp. 114–116.
Löfstedt, R. (2011) Reclaiming health and safety for all: An independent review of health and
safety legislation, London, Department of Works and Pensions (DWP), [online]
Available from: www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/health-and-safety.
Moulds, A. (2016) Meeting the mandate-the Mott MacDonald story, In: NBS and RIBA
Enterprises (eds), National BIM report, pp. 16-21.
Mzyece, D. (2015) An investigation into the implementation of the Construction (Design and
Management) regulations in the construction industry. University of Wolverhampton:
Unpublished PhD thesis.
Olatunji, O. A. (2014) Views on building information modelling, procurement and contract
management, Proceedings of the ICE - Management, Procurement and Law, 167(3),
pp. 117–126.
Sebastian, R. (2011) Changing roles of the clients, architects and contractors through BIM,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 18(2), pp. 176–187
SEC (2010) Experience of working with the Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 2007, London: Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group.
Webster, M. (2013) The use of CDM 2007 in the London 2012 construction programme,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering, 166(CE1), pp.
35–41.
Zanni, M.A., Soetanto, R. and Ruikar, K. (2016) Towards a BIM-enabled sustainable building
design process:roles, responsibilities and requirements, Architectural Engineering and
Design Management, pp. 1-29.
Zhou, W., Whyte, J. and Sacks, R. (2011) Construction safety and digital design: A review,
Automation in Construction, 22(1), pp. 102–111.
15
UNDERSTANDING CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
AFFECTING BIM IMPLEMENTATION IN
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PRACTISES (ADP’S)
THROUGH A LITERATURE REVIEW.
Hugh Geoghean
Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture, Department of Architecture and

Civil Engineering, University of Bath, UK
BIM (Building Information Modelling) has been at the forefront of the Construction Industry
(CI) reform agenda for a number of years. 2016 is the year of the highly publicised UK BIM
level 2 mandate, in which it was announced that the government would require the
implementation of BIM level 2 on publicly procured projects (201,GCS). Level 3 BIM
proposes to build upon the platform of level 2 moving the CI towards digitised processes
which will enable government and citizen to avail of better value from its built environment
(DBB,2015). Through the revised RIBA Plan of Work (2013) the Architecture, Engineering &
Construction sector have a technologically, innovative platform from which to avail of an
augmented process designed to facilitate these desired outcomes. This literature review reflects
upon CI reform discourse in the UK as a means to better understand the objectives of the BIM
mandate and consequently the value it represents. Although there have been significant
publications regarding the technological advantages afforded by BIM there has been little
attention to ‘value’ parameters associated with these new processes. The purpose of this paper
is to better understand the UK BIM mandate against the background of CI reform to aid and
direct future research regarding ‘value’ in the construction industry. The perspective on the
Literature review was taken from that of a practising architect.
Keywords: Context, BIM mandate, Construction industry reform, Value.
INTRODUCTION
The UK government has identified BIM as medium of reform (DBB,2015).

Understanding value parameters for collaborative processes within the construction
industry is a complex undertaking. Proposed remedies to issues traditionally
associated with underperformance in the construction industry have tended toward the
application of innovations from other industries such as manufacturing and
automotive (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998).
Architectural Design Practises (ADP’s) within the UK are under pressure to
implement and adapt their processes to conform with the BIM level 2 mandate to
ensure better return on investments on behalf of the government as public sector
client. ADP’s, for the purposes of this paper are defined as larger architectural firms
(>70 employees) who are RIBA registered and are obliged to be compliant with the
level 2 BIM mandate as part of government tenders. The UK government has
16
undertaken extensive industry consultation regarding BIM, in 2011 setting up BIM
Task Groups to establish the necessary standards for BIM level 2 compliance.
The research identifies BIM implementation as the provision of new processes and
technologies within projects (Abdirah, 2015). BIM implementation necessitates a
better understanding of contextual factors at not only at a technological and
organisational level but also at a political level. Recent publications such as Sanchez
et al (2016) highlight the benefits of BIM within the context of a project environment,
illustrating how standard processes can underpin and counteract the CI’s tendency
toward underperformance. Barlish et al (2012) have highlighted the difficulties in
accurately assessing the true benefits afforded by BIM processes given the fragmented
and complex nature of the construction industry. Sanchez et al provide a welcome
framework to monitor benefits afforded by the implementation of BIM; ‘The value to
each stakeholder is therefore delivered by identifying the specific benefits they aim to
gain by implementing BIM-related tools and processes.’ (2012:5) This work is
thorough, coherent and consistent providing an assessment of the benefits of BIM
implementation through metrics, targets and softwares and for these reasons should be
recommended. It concludes with the intention of providing a ‘BIM value benchmark’
from which improvements due to implementation can be gauged.
The research avoids a clear definition of ‘value’ and concludes ‘although case study
participants highlighted sustainability as one of the drivers to implement BIM, the
research team found it particularly difficult to find literature about metrics that could
be included in this category.’ (2016:8) One must then assume that ‘value’ as presented
in the work, is the efficiencies afforded by a standardised methodology used in
accordance with the appropriate technological innovation. BIM has been proposed as
as a technically innovative platform which can facilitate improved information
management and counteract the traditional tendencies of the CI to underperform
through improved information management and collaboration for some time (Bew et
al, 2009, DBB,2015). However, the sustainable agenda which was an explicit part of
the initial UK Government Construction Strategy in 2011 has been somewhat
forgotten. BIM, as was so eloquently publicised by the then Chief Government
Construction Advisor, Paul Morrell, was a tool to quantify Carbon (Innovation, 2010).
The UK BIM level 2 mandate proposed improved information management through
improved processes allowing transparency and accountability in the delivery of client
requirements. The PoW has been augmented to allow for a ‘Green Overlay’ (Gething
2011) and a ‘BIM Overlay’ (Sinclair,2012) and the workstages have been amended to
reflect 8 numerical workstages common to all project professionals (Sinclair, 2013).
The revised RIBA PoW is the UK CI’s attempt to be at the forefront of a technical
innovative construction process facilitated by a more collaborative approach to
stakeholder engagement.
The BIM mandate in the UK has influenced the initiation of European approaches to
standardization and will result in the production of ISO’s in 2017. The EU BIM Task
Group is being led by the UK Government’s Department for Business, Innovation &
Skills (BIS). BIM, through the IoT (Internet of Things) and the Smart cities movement
(Zanella et al, 2014) is reshaping professional landscapes and asking fundamental
questions regarding the sustainability of existing approaches to the Built Environment
and the role of respective professionals and clients. Europe is now home to the
greatest concentration of government led BIM programs in the World (Matthews,
2016). As a result of the economic crisis, governments are demanding better returns
on CI expenditure, increased productivity, all built in a more sustainable manner with
17
an emphasis on better quality. The EU is moving towards shared common practices
and principals for EU BIM to aid competition across the CI within the EU, targeting
the performance of the whole sector, including SME’s.
There does however appear to be a gap in research regarding how these improved
technological processes will facilitate better decision making by the administrators of
our cities (as proposed by the SMART cities vision.) This is a source of concern.
While the sustainable agenda has returned to Digital Built Britain through BIM level 3
the complexities associated with the sustainable agenda seem to have subverted its
presence in government discourse.
BIM, as proposed through UK policy makers, will completely alter the scope of the CI
within the EU through improved processes and better information management. Level
3 highlights the importance of Open standards and interoperability for the next
incarnation of BIM (DBB,2015). Level 3 BIM proposes the data afforded by BIM as
the foundation of a new age of innovation in the built environment. Innovation has
traditionally been an achilles heel for the CI but for policy makers in the UK it is a
primary platform for the digitisation of the CI (Murphy, 2015).
BACKGROUND
The construction industry within the UK has been subject to a series of reports
highlighting its failings as a deliverer of value to respective clients (Egan, 1998
Latham, 1994 Wolstenholme, 2013). Appointed as Chief Construction adviser in
2009, Paul Morrell was instrumental in the publication of the Low Carbon
Construction report in 2010 whereby a ‘pathway’ was suggested for the industry to
decarbonise its supply chain and the the Green Construction Board (GCB) was
subsequently set up in 2012. Morrell, among others, was a key proponent of the UK
BIM mandate as a means to quantify carbon through improved information
management. Morrell was replaced in 2012 and has been a vocal critic of the UK
governments lack of commitment to achieving the objectives as set out in LCC report.
In 2015 as editor of the Collaboration for Change, The Edge Commission Report on
the Future of Professionalism (The Edge, 2015) Morrell highlighted 4 factors which if
approached collectively by those involved in the construction industry, could ensure
continued relevance and value to their clients;
1. Ethics and the public Interest.
2. Education and competence.
3. Research and a body of knowledge.
4. Collaboration on industry reform, climate change and building performance.
Snook (2013) has highlighted that BIM forms part of a legacy of industry reform
undertaken by the British Government. Snook identifies how “Government as a client
can derive significant improvements in cost, value and carbon performance through
the use of open sharable asset information” (2:2013). The UK has a long history of
attempted reform in the construction industry through reports and initiatives. The
literature review had been approached from the perspective of an architectural
practitioner wanting to better understand what BIM actually constitutes and the value
it represents for sustainability.
18
The proposed convergence of CEN/TU 442 BIM Modelling (2015) & CEN/TC350
Sustainability of Construction Works highlight the link between BIM & Sustainability
on behalf of at an EU level. Interoperability, processes and collaboration are explicit
focuses of the EU approach to BIM standardization. Common standards are the focus
for improved performance, efficiencies and competition within the EU. Sustainability
converges with BIM through facilitating better environmental performance through
improved decision making. It is predicted that BIM can predict and inform decisions
regarding carbon footprints, material choices, waste, operations and maintenance,
documentation of environmental impact and Post Operation Evaluation (POE).
The Construction sectors within the research contexts are obliged to meet energy
reduction targets in accordance with the European Performance in Buildings Directive
(EPBD ,2010) and the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012). 40% of energy
consumption and 36% of CO2 emissions come from the built environment. The
complexities associated with properly addressing these issues are furthered by the fact
that 35% of EU building stock is more than 50 years old. Countries are required to
draw up National Energy Efficiency Action Plans to propose ways to deal with these
issues. The construction sectors of participant countries have agreed to meeting a
reduction of 20% in the EU’s total energy consumption by 2020. The role of BIM
compliance documentation within the EU, as with the UK, is as an instrument of
reform in this context with improved data facilitating better decision making (EU BIM
Task Group, 2016).
RESEARCH AIMS
To identify the perceived value of sustainability in the ‘context’ of BIM
implementation by exploring and unfolding its major sources of influence through a
literature review.
RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY
Future research on behalf of the author, proposes to engage with those charged with
informing BIM policy in the UK and those enacting said policy in practice. The
initiation of the BIM Task Group in 2011 adopted the pioneering work undertaken in
the Finnish construction industry and was far more explicit in its reference reference
to sustainability (Senate, 2007). The resulting revision of the BIM Level 2 compliance
moved away from sustainability toward improving return on investments with the
government as public sector client (Construction 2025, 2013) Level 3 BIM proposes a
complex reappraisal of citizen engagement regarding the built environment which
seeks to re-engage with sustainability (DBB,2015). There is potential to reflect upon
the changes in practice to better understand the value of BIM in parallel with the
implementation of the level 2 mandate for sustainability. There is increasing
awareness of the need for the convergence of both BIM and sustainability in a more
compatible manner (McGraw-Hill, 2010, 2016).
19
MESSY PROBLEMS
BIM for the proposes of the research was perceived as a ‘messy problem’ (Dossick et
al, 2014). Research by Lyle (2014) highlighted the importance of perception in
identifying and dealing with ‘messy problems.’ This idea of perception is furthered by
Vennix (1999) who referred to it as a situation in which opinions differed
considerably between members of a group. BIM has in this sense presented architects
with a ‘messy problem.’ BIM is changing the roles and responsibilities of participants
within project environments (Latiffi et al, 2016).
Reform
In writing about the construction industry reform discourse after Egan, Fernie et al
(2006) highlight the importance of understanding managerial practice and previous
attempts at industry reform and why they did not affect change; ‘The recognition of
context and the pivotal role it plays in shaping and being shaped by contemporary
managerial practice should be of prime concern to policy-makers, practitioners and
academics engaged in advocating change within the sector.’
The subsequent publications of the Wolstenholme report (2009) confirmed that little
had changed as a result of the Egan report and the progress foreseen by these
initiatives has rarely been achieved. The tools proposed to enact change were
measured through benchmarking initiatives and a variety of performance indicators
promoting reflective practice on behalf of practitioners as reflective practitioners
(After Schon,1983).
Innovation
Panuwatwanich (2008 a) identifies innovation as a vital part of a construction firms
strategic to change as necessary for the ‘complex products and processes’ presented
by CI activity. Innovation is therefore important to the competitiveness of these firm
in a rapidly changing market. This research highlighted the importance of the ‘climate
of innovation’ for the diffusion of innovation and the role of innovation in improved
business performance (2008 b).
In reflecting upon the role of innovation in the CI, Aouad et al (2010) concluded that
the study of innovation could be better facilitated by analysing the levels at which
innovation takes place (international, national, regional, firm or project level) and at
the various points in a projects lifecycle. Howells (1999) takes this further identifying
a layering of innovation through a sub-regional, regional, national and international
level. Innovation in the CI is a highly complex entity dependent upon the perspective
of the relevant stakeholder. Perceptions of innovation are divergent and characterized
by the fragmented nature of the industry. The nature of innovation in the construction
industry can often be project rather than organizationally based. Ozorhon et al (2010)
in an analysis of CI innovation adopted the following definition;‘Innovation in general
terms is the creation and adoption of new knowledge to improve the value of products,
processes, and services.’
Levels
So while construction industry discourse has highlighted that the CI has traditionally
struggled with the implementation of innovation (Blayse et al, 2004; Love et al, 2002)
these comments have been framed by a critical perspective guided by policy
interventions at a governmental level (Fernie et al, 2006; Murray et al, 2003) . The
20
nature of construction industry innovation is more nuanced and may be better
addressed by an attention to levels ; sector-level’, ‘business-level’ and ‘project level’
(Ozorhon et al,2010). Therefore Context and reflection become important in
investigating innovative practices and their potential to propose improvements in the
CI. Recent research by Murphy (2014) in the area of innovation proposes client
requirements as the key determinant of innovation in construction projects. The
research identified BIM as a ‘system’ of innovations whereby BIM implementation
runs in parallel to innovative processes. The research concludes in highlighting the
importance of developing a competency-based approach for BIM implementation to
ensure that the information and management aspects of any process improvements
could be availed of.
Architects
Emergent research is highlighting the necessity for architects to identify themselves
within the context of temporary organisations using BIM as a collaborative platform
(Forgues et al, 2015, Adamu et al, 2015). There is an emerging realisation on behalf of
architectural practitioners that BIM is less about the technology but rather its role as a
tool for facilitating collaboration (Sackey et al, 2014). BIM through its
implementation requires cultural change on behalf of the relevant practices
necessitating business process re-engineering for successful outcomes (Ayyaz et al,
2015, Coates, 2013).
Stakeholders
The investigation of innovation in the CI highlighted that construction industry reform
has been dictated by recommendations made on behalf of government policy makers
attempting to prescribe a solution to the perceived performance issues without
perhaps truly identifying contextual factors and relevant levels of innovation.
Research contends that a better understanding of stakeholder values could help to
understand innovation by attention to levels ; sector-level’, ‘business-level’ and
‘project level’ (After Ozorhon et al, 2016). Research by Macmillan (2005) linked to
Constructing Excellence (2004) initiated a series of workshops to identify stakeholder
value and identify potential new routes for further research on value in the CI. The
research highlighted 5 main groups between whom value is exchanged;
• Finance
• Design and Construction
• Occupant Organisation
• Public Realm
• Visitors to building
and 6 types of value provided by the built environment;
• social value
• cultural value
• image value
• economic value
• use value
• environmental value
21
Workshop delegates were asked how new attitudes to value could be introduced, and
they identified four key changes needed (265:2005):
1. building owners need to get closer to operating units and to share the resulting
knowledge
2. evidence base about the impact of buildings on outcomes needs to be
developed and broadened
3. designers need to be more engaged with the delivery of outcomes
4. professional institutions and government need to assist in the promotion of
new approaches
The research context has shifted through the provision of the revised RIBA PoW 2013
to allow for these factors through a more collaborative, technologically innovative
process. Research would therefore be useful which aims to re-engage with value
determinants in this altered operational environment as there; ‘is a need for greater
aware-ness of the exchanges of value among stakeholders, and an ability to recognize
and elicit stakeholders values and facilitate their conscious deliberation.’ (265:2005).
Context
The task of identifying value within the research boundaries is complex. BIM
implementation within alternate national contexts is dependent upon emergent
national policy and directives. The EU move toward standardization can be seen as a
positive step toward mediating a singular perspective on BIM implementation. An
issue regarding BIM implementation had been in qualifying its improvements through
assessment and capability frameworks (Sebastian et al, 2010). The EU approach is an
attempt to establish a common strategy for innovation through BIM to ensure industry
reform and facilitate competition but also to further sustainability objectives through
CEN/TC 350.
Holt (2015), in a study of the British construction sector over the last 300 years
highlights that improvements in the construction industry have been proven to be
characterized by ‘reactive evolution’ rather than ‘proactive innovation.’ This research
highlights a tension here between the intention of the policy makers versus the
realities of construction industry ‘cultures’. This divergence is evident in the primary
role of technology as mediator of ‘outcomes’.
BIM standardization in Europe is being conceived from a ‘Public Stakeholder’
perspective. The drivers are the perceived efficiencies and value for money brought
about by digitization of the construction industry. The aims of the Europe 2020
strategy, through its Digital agenda, is to exploit ICT’s for innovation, economic
growth and progress (Horizon, 2020). As part of Pillar 2 of the agenda,
interoperability and standardization are identified as priorities in the pursuit of
digitization of the market to facilitate integration of services. The EU BIM Task group
involves representatives from EU states and their aim is to develop ‘common guidance
and practises’ which can be agreed in ISO’s (International Standards).
Complexity
Khosrowshahi et al (2012) identified that the fragmented nature of BIM
implementation in the UK market had resulted in a very low level of maturity due to
the absence of strategic planning and business process models. As highlighted by
22
Myers (2013:276) the importance of the built environment is of key importance to us
all and is one of the key determinants in our quality of life. The ‘technological
determinism’ which has so far driven the BIM agenda is set against its perceived
benefits as understood by policy makers to provide a holistic aspect on BIM
standardization and the implications for architectural practice (Dainty et al,2015).
Future research should attempt to challenge the technical hegemony which has
dictated current BIM discourse (Dainty et al,2015, Green, 2013).
Technological Determinism
Smiley et al (2014) in discussing the Government’s Construction Strategy highlight
the role of BIM in the AEC industry and what it purported to be and how it could be
perceived. The research questions what a more ‘efficient’ process means in the
context of BIM implementation in the UK construction industry. Smiley highlights the
lack of critical discourse regarding BIM ‘acceptance’ in the UK building industry and
stakeholders apparent willingness to passively accept the ‘underlying technological
determinism and assumptions of BIM discourse’ (806: 2014). Dainty et al (2015)
continue a critical aspect on the BIM UK mandate highlighting how BIM as a central
focus of reform through integrated working practices, collaboration and innovation in
construction could actually disenfranchise rather than engage with smaller SME’s.
Research by Eadie et al (2015) has highlighted that front end use of BIM at design
stages had proved effective although a fragmented approach to standards and
interoperability issues between alternate vendor versions of BIM were presenting
issues. Eadie highlighted the major issues which are stifling BIM implementation are,
in order of importance:
1. Model ownership - Incorporation of BIM into the contractual relationship of
the parties involved
2. Design liability- Reliance on data and the Evolution and responsibility of
model
3. Design responsibility- lack of standardization, litigation and protocols
4. Collaborative working- the Role of BIM coordinator
5. Sharing of copyrighted data.
Collaboration
There is an emerging realisation on behalf of architectural practitioners that BIM is
less about the technology but rather its role as a tool for facilitating collaboration
(Sackey et al, 2014). Kerosuo et al (2015) who in studying the role of BIM
coordinator in the Finnish construction industry highlighted a new perspective in the
BIM process. The study questioned the traditional role of architect as discipline based
project lead in accordance with the necessary BIM coordination activities. Research
contends that BIM is facilitating a transition towards, project based repositories of
knowledge (explicit & tacit) according to contextual factors (Bouazza et al, 2015).
BIM is now perceived as both a ‘technology’ and a ‘process’ (Azhar, 2015). The
‘process’ is now being touted as the enabler for collaboration and integration on
projects. Through BIM as a ‘process’, architects are now confronted with the legacy
of their design decisions for facilities and operational management right through to the
decommissioning of the building (Kasseem et al, 2014)
23
BIM through its implementation requires cultural change on behalf of the relevant
parties necessitating business process re-engineering for successful outcomes (Ayyaz
et al, 2015, Coates, 2013) Research highlights how BIM is changing architects role to
that of mediator of outcomes rather than outputs (Sinclair,2013)
Embeddedness
Pooley (2015) identifies the role of individual experience and its importance for
insight outside of learning for formal education. Sustainability needs architectural
professionals who are willing to engage with and understand what Pooley describes
as: ‘learning for life’ concluding that professionals can benefit greatly from the ‘value
of reflection’ within their professional experiences. The research hints at ‘embedding’
sustainability within the approaches of practitioners so that is not perceived as an add
on, rather an aid to more reflective, collaborative practices. The environmental impact
of the construction industry should be acknowledged early within the design process
of a building, this however is hindered by the complexities associated with its
assessment (Hacking et al, 2008). Becerik Gerber (2012) has highlighted that the role
of architects and engineers is being challenged in a complex operational context where
sensitive sustainable solutions should be sought in conjunction with the application of
appropriate technologies. The perception of ‘sustainability’ is affected by the aspect of
the viewer, this leads to a process of filtering regarding information, dependent upon
the vantage point of the recipient, resulting in alternate groups appropriating the
‘same’ information in dramatically different ways. Myers (2013:288) highlights the
issues associated with the sustainable construction agenda referring to the
‘complexities of sustainability’ as a major barrier to dressing the issues.
A reappraisal of construction industry reform in this context should address not only
skills and knowledge, but also values. Manning et al (2016:630) highlight the role of
sustainability standards in helping to govern the ‘complex, multi-level processes’
affecting the transition toward more sustainable practices. The complexities proposed
by the transition toward sustainable governance can be facilitated by adopting an
emergent approach to standardization which is continually adapted to facilitate
‘changing agenda’s and experiences.’ As highlighted by Kapogiannis (et al, 2015) the
sustainable agenda is dynamic and given the time periods needed for the realization of
construction projects sustainability needs to be a consideration which can be
continually reappraised throughout the lifecycle of the building. The explicit
convergence of BIM & Sustainability as presented by ‘Green BIM’ is suffering from
the same ailments BIM implementation had initially suffered from regarding
benchmarking and standardization (Gandhi et al, 2013, Khosrowshahi et al, 2012).
Research by McArthur (2015) has highlighted that BIM models need to be adapted to
facilitate more sustainable operational approaches.
SMART Cities
Initiatives such as Smart cities, are heralding new opportunities for citizen
engagement. Policy makers see BIM as the key to developments such as Smart Cities,
whereby the IoT’s (Internet of Things) act as an enabler to better decision making.
BIM data is seen as the key to informing and reporting upon decisions made at user
and district levels, thereby improving performance, monitoring energy usage and
facilitating more efficient uses of energy (Patti et al, 2015). Open standards which
24
underpin the European (Building SMART) approach to digitisation of their urban
environment are at the heart of social innovations within communities. Formal
(political) and informal (social) networks are being exploited and developed with the
information provided by open standards to facilitate coordinated action on behalf of
community groups to facilitate sustainable objectives. The working definition of smart
cities is;
‘A Smart City is a city seeking to address public issues via ICT-based solutions on the
basis of a multi- stakeholder, municipally based partnership.’ (Smart Cities,2013)
BIM, if evaluated as the latest in a long line of innovations proposed by the
construction industry to improve issues associated with information management and
project performance can be better understood for the purposes of sustainability
(Snook,2013). BIM & Sustainability have been highlighted as factors which have and
will continue to dictate the course of the architectural profession (Barlish et al, 2012,
Preiser et al, 2015, Watt, 2015,).
Citizen Engagement
Leach et al (2012) now speak of of a ‘bottom-up’ role for citizens in relation to
innovation within their built environments through ‘grassroots innovation’. Leach
questions the current socio-political processes which inform the decision making
process and presents a role for people who are affected by decisions made on their
behalf. Kapogiannis (et al, 2015) identifies the 7th dimension of BIM, sustainability,
as having the potential to positively impact other BIM dimensions: 3D Modeling, 4D
Time, 5D Cost, 6D Procurement. The research attempted to bridge the gap between
the 3 determinants of sustainability (Social, Economic, Environmental) to allow
stakeholders and the design team to make informed decisions throughout the lifecycle
of a building. The research is mentioned for its ambition but also its attempt to engage
end users in the design process through perceiving BIM from a sustainable
perspective. The research helps to highlight how the complexities of architectural
practice are perpetuated by the complexities proposed by sustainable design and
construction. Research pertaining to sustainable architecture has identified that
revolutionary change may be needed to reflect the necessary approaches for achieving
sustainability in the AEC industries encompassing LCA (life cycle analysis)
adaptability, change of use and strengthening the role of sustainability within
professional practice (Conejos, 2010, Oliveira, 2015, Sandanayake et al, 2016).
CONCLUSIONS
The literature review provided alternative contextual factors to better understand BIM
implementation within a proposed research context, in this case ADP’s (Kasseem et
al, 2014). The traditional structure of the construction design team still dictates that
architects, as principal designers, have a vital role to play in the interpretation and
coordination of client requirements at the design initiation phases. The creation and
implementation of SMART cities directives herald a new age for European cities
conditioned by the information provided by BIM standards. Therefore, an appropriate
and suitably multi-faceted understanding of ‘value’ beyond perceived efficiencies
afforded by technological innovations needs to be sought. Future research research
proposal should aim to identify the intangible/tangible value of improved
multidisciplinary collaboration brought about by technologically innovative processes
such as BIM. The creation and implementation of SMART cities directives herald a
25
new age for European cities conditioned by the information provided by BIM
standards. There is an opportunity for the architectural profession to re-engage with
the construction process though a better understanding of the value within the
paradigm shift that is BIM.
REFERENCES
Abdirad, H. (2015). Advancing in building information modeling (BIM) contracting:
Trends in the AEC/FM industry. In AEI 2015 (pp. 1-12).
Akintoye, A., Goulding, J., & Zawdie, G. (2012) Construction innovation and process
improvement. John Wiley & Sons.
Alwan, Z., Jones, P., & Holgate, P. (2016). Strategic sustainable development in the
UK construction industry, through the framework for strategic sustainable
development, using Building Information Modelling. Journal of Cleaner
Production.
Alwan, Z., Greenwood, D., & Gledson, B. (2015). Rapid LEED evaluation performed
with BIM based sustainability analysis on a virtual construction project.
Construction Innovation, 15(2), 134-150.
Aouad, G., Ozorhon, B., & Abbott, C. (2010). Facilitating innovation in construction:
Directions and implications for research and policy. Construction Innovation,
10(4), 374-394.
Austin, S., Steele, J., Macmillan, S., Kirby, P., & Spence, R. (2001). Mapping the
conceptual design activity of interdisciplinary teams. Design studies, 22(3),
211-232.
Azhar, S., & Ahmad, I. (2014). Introduction to the special issue on information and
communication technology (ICT) in AEC organizations: assessment of impact
on work practices, project delivery, and organizational behavior. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 31(1), A2014001.
Barlish K and Sullivan, K (2012) “How to Measure the Benefits of BIM — A Case
Study Approach.” Automation in Construction 24: 149–159.
Bew, M., & Underwood, J. (2009). Delivering BIM to the UK Market. Handbook of
Research on Building Information Modeling and Construction Informatics:
Concepts and Technologies, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 30-64.
Becerik-Gerber, B., Jazizadeh, F., Li, N., & Calis, G. (2011). Application areas and
data requirements for BIM-enabled facilities management. Journal of
construction engineering and management, 138(3), 431-442.
Blayse, A. M., & Manley, K. (2004). Key influences on construction innovation.
Construction innovation, 4(3), 143-154.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T., & Douglas, D. G. (2012). The social
construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and
history of technology. MIT press.Davenport, T. H. (2013). Process innovation:
reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business Press.
26
Bouazza, T., Udeaja, C. E., & Greenwood, D. (2015). The use of building information
modelling (BIM) in managing knowledge in construction project delivery: a
conceptual model. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 149, 107-117.
Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. (2013). The project benefits of building
information modelling (BIM). International Journal of Project Management,
31(7), 971-980.
Collaboration for Change (2015) The Edge Commission Report on the Future of
Professionalism – The Edge Debate, UK
Coates, P., Arayici, Y., Koskela, L. J., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C., & O’Reilly, K.
(2010). The limitations of BIM in the architectural process.
Coates, S (2013), BIM Implementation Framework for Small Architectural Practices,
Phd Thesis, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Conejos, S., & Langston, C. (2010). Designing for future building adaptive reuse
using adaptSTAR.
Dainty, A., Leiringer, R., Fernie, S., & Harty, C. (2015, June). Don’t Believe the
(BIM) Hype: The Unexpected Corollaries of the UK ‘BIM Revolution’. In
Engineering Project Organizations Conference.
Dossick, C.S., Anderson, A., Azari, R., Iorio, J., Neff, G. and Taylor, J.E., 2014.
Messy talk in virtual teams: Achieving knowledge synthesis through shared
visualizations. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(1), p.A4014003.
Eadie, R., Browne, M., Odeyinka, H., McKeown, C., & McNiff, S. (2015). A survey
of current status of and perceived changes required for BIM adoption in the
UK. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(1), 4-21.
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.
Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking Construction, Construction Task Force Report for
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Elmualim, A., & Gilder, J. (2014). BIM: innovation in design management, influence
and challenges of implementation. Architectural Engineering and design
management, 10(3-4), 183-199.
EU BIM Task Group available from: http://www.eubim.eu/ accessed online 23032016
EU Energy Efficiency Directive available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy- efficiency/energy-efficiency-
directiveAccessed Online 23022016
EU Energy Performance of Buildings Available from: http://www.epbd-ca.eu
Accessed Online 23022016
EU Sustainability of construction works CEN/TC 350 Available from:

http://portailgroupe.afnor.fr/public_espacenormalisation/CENTC350/index.html
27
EU CEN/TC 442 – Building Information Modelling (BIM) Available from:
https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:1991542&cs=16AA
C0F2C377A54 1DCA571910561FC17F Accessed Online 23022016
EU Horizon 2020 Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/

EU Procurement Directive Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32014L0024 Accessed Online 23032016
EU Smart Cities Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eip/smartcities/ Accessed Online

23022016
Fernie, S., Leiringer, R. and Thorpe, T. (2006). Rethinking change in construction: a

critical perspective. Building Research and Information, 34(2), 91-103
Foley, J., & Macmillan, S. (2005). Patterns of interaction in construction team

meetings. CoDesign, 1(1), 19-37.
Fulford, R., & Standing, C. (2014). Construction industry productivity and the
potential for collaborative practice. International Journal of Project Management,
32(2), 315-326.
Gething, B. (Ed.). (2011). Green Overlay to the RIBA Outline Plan of Work. RIBA
Publishing.
Gandhi, S. and Jupp, J.. 2014. BIM and Australian Green Star Building Certification.
Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (2014)275-282
Gholami, Elaheh, et al. "Exploiting BIM in energy efficient domestic retrofit:

evaluation of benefits and barriers." Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference
on Civil And Building Engineering Informatics. 2015.
Grilo, A., & Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2010). Value proposition on interoperability of

BIM and collaborative working environments. Automation in Construction, 19(5),
522-530.
Hacking, T., & Guthrie, P. (2008). A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple
Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability Assessment. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 28(2), 73-89.
Hardin, B., & McCool, D. (2015). BIM and construction management: proven tools,
methods, and workflows. John Wiley & Sons.
Halttula, H., Aapaoja, A., & Haapasalo, H. (2015). The contemporaneous use of
building information modeling and relational project delivery arrangements. Procedia
Economics and Finance, 21, 532-539.
Harty, C., & Dainty, A. (2016). Opening Up the ‘Sociological Imagination’:

Construction Management as the Enabler of Society.
28
HMG(2011) Government Construction Strategy. Strategy Paper for the Government
Construction Client Group.
HMG (2013) Construction 2025, Strategy: Government and Industry in Partnership
HM Government, UK (2015) Digitial Built Britain: Level 3 Building Information
Modelling (BIM) – Strategic Plan, London: HM Government
Holt, G. D. (2015). British construction business 1700-2000: proactive innovation or
reactive evolution?. Construction Innovation, 15(3), 258-277.
Howells, J. (1999). 5 Regional systems of innovation?. Innovation policy in a global
economy, 67.
Innovation, L. C. (2010). Low Carbon Construction Innovation and Growth Team:
Final Report. London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS).
Kassem, M., Succar, B., & Dawood, N. N. (2013). A proposed approach to comparing
the BIM maturity of countries.
Kapogiannis, G., Gaterell, M., & Oulasoglou, E. (2015). Identifying Uncertainties
Toward Sustainable Projects. Procedia Engineering, 118, 1077-1085.
Kapogiannis, G., Fernando, T., & Kagioglou, M. THE ORGANISATIONAL AND
PROJECT ADDED VALUE OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING
IN THE AEC SECTOR.
Kerosuo, H. (2015). BIM-based Collaboration Across Organizational and Disciplinary
Boundaries Through Knotworking. Procedia Economics and Finance, 21, 201-
208.
Kerosuo, H. and Paavola, S.,(2016) . Expansive uses of BIM and organizing
BIM coordination. WHEN SOCIAL SCIENCE MEETS LEAN AND BIM,
p.27.
Khosrowshahi.F, Arayici.Y, (2012) "Roadmap for implementation of BIM in the UK
construction industry", Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 19 Iss: 6, pp.610 – 635
Kraatz, J. A., & Sanchez, A. X. (2016). 2 Leadership in implementation. Delivering
Value with BIM: A Whole-of-life Approach, 23.
Latham, S. M. (1994). Constructing the team. London: HM Stationery Office.
Latiffi, A.A., Brahim, J. and Fathi, M.S., 2015. Roles and Responsibilities of
Construction Players in Projects Using Building Information Modeling (BIM).
In Product Lifecycle Management in the Era of Internet of Things (pp. 173-
182). Springer International Publishing.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences:
An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social
constructivist perspective on learning.
Lyles, M. A. (2014). Organizational Learning, knowledge creation, problem
formulation and innovation in messy problems. European Management
Journal, 32(1), 132-136.
Love, P., Irani, Z., Cheng, E., Li, H., 2002. A model for supporting inter-
organizational relations in the supply chain. Engineering Construction and
Architectural Management 9 (1), 2–15.
29
McArthur, J. J. (2015). A building information management (BIM) framework and
supporting case study for existing building operations, maintenance and
sustainability. Procedia Engineering, 118, 1104-1111.
Macmillan, S. (2006). Added value of good design. Building research & information,
34(3), 257-271.
Macmillan, S. (2006). The value handbook: getting the most from your buildings and
spaces.
Macmillan, S. (2004). Designing better buildings: quality and value in the built
environment. Taylor & Francis.
Matthews, A (2016) ‘EU BIM HANDBOOK’ available from;
http://www.bimplus.co.uk/news/eu-commission-fu3nds-eu4rope-wide-bim-
alig8nment/ accessed online 21092016
McGrawHill (2010). Green BIM Smart Market Report.
McGrawHill (2016). World Green Building Trends Smart Market Report.
Merschbrock, C., & Munkvold, B. E. (2015). Effective digital collaboration in the
construction industry–A case study of BIM deployment in a hospital
construction project. Computers in Industry, 73, 1-7.
Murray, M., & Langford, D. (2003). Construction Reports 1944-1998. Wiley-
Blackwell.
Murphy, M. E. (2014). Implementing innovation: a stakeholder competency-based
approach for BIM. Construction Innovation, 14(4), 433-452.
Myers, D. (2013). Construction economics: A new approach. Routledge.
Monson, C., Dossick, C.S. and Neff, G., (2015) Themes in Recent Research on AEC
Project Collaboration
Navendren, D., Manu, P., Shelbourn, M., & Mahamadu, A. (2014). Challenges to
building information modelling implementation in UK: designers'
perspectives.
Oliveira, S., Marco, E. and Gething, B. (2015) What do we say we teach about
energy? Viewed through the lens of UK architecture undergraduate education.
In: The 7th International Conference on Engineering Education for Sustainable
Development,Vancouver, Canada, 9-12 June 2015
Ozorhon, B., Abbott, C., Aouad, G., & Powell, J. (2010). Innovation in construction:
A project life cycle approach. Salford Centre for Research and Innovation in
the Built Environment (SCRI) Research Report, 4.
Ozorhon, B., Abbott, C., & Aouad, G. (2013). Integration and leadership as enablers
of innovation in construction: Case study. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 30(2), 256-263.
Panuwatwanich, K. (2008a). Modelling the innovation diffusion process in Australian
architectural and engineering design organisations. PhD diss., Griffith
University, Queensland Rashid, RA, Taib, IM, Ahmad, WBW, Nasid, MA,
Ali, WNW and Zainordin, ZM (2006) Effect of procurement systems on the
performance of.
30
Panuwatwanich, K., Stewart, R. A., & Mohamed, S. (2008b). The role of climate for
innovation in enhancing business performance: The case of design firms.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 15(5), 407-422.
Pooley, A. (2015). Transforming practice: Re-linking professional experience and the
curriculum. Local Economy, 30(3), 292-304.
Preiser, W. F., Vischer, J., & White, E. (Eds.). (2015). Design Intervention (Routledge
Revivals): Toward a More Humane Architecture. Routledge.
Properties, S. (2007). Senate Properties’ BIM requirements 2007.
Sanchez, A. X., Hampson, K. D., & Mohamed, S. (2016). Delivering Value with BIM:
A Framework for Built Environment Practitioners.
Sandanayake, Y. G., Anupa Manewa, and Jacky Chung. "Sustainability: business
drivers and managerial implications." Built Environment Project and Asset
Management 6.5 (2016).
Sackey, E., Tuuli, M., & Dainty, A. (2014). Sociotechnical systems approach to BIM
implementation in a multidisciplinary construction context. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 31(1), A4014005.
Sackey, E., Tuuli, M., & Dainty, A. (2013). BIM Implementation: From Capability
Maturity Models to Implementation Strategy. In Sustainable Building Conference
(pp.196-207).
Samad, Z. A., & Macmillan, S. (2005). The valuation of intangibles: explored through
primary school design. Proceedings of CIB W096 Architectural Management,
Designing Value: New Directions in Architectural Management, Publication,
307, 39-46.
Sch n, D.A. (1 83) The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action,
Basic Books, Inc
Sebastian, R., & van Berlo, L. (2010). Tool for benchmarking BIM performance of
design, engineering and construction firms in the Netherlands. Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, 6(4), 254-263.
Sebastian, R., (2011). Changing roles of the clients, architects and contractors through
BIM. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 18(2), pp.176-187.
Sinclair, D. (2012). BIM overlay to the RIBA outline plan of work. RIBA, London.
Slaughter, E. S. (1998). Models of construction innovation. Journal of Construction

Engineering and management, 124(3), 226-231.
Smiley, J. P., Dainty, A. R., & Fernie, S. (2013). Analysing the discourses
surrounding change and reform in the construction sector: the need for a marriage
between critical theory and a socio-historical cultural perspective.
Smiley, J. P., Fernie, S., & Dainty, A. (2014). Understanding construction reform
discourses. Construction Management and Economics, 32(7-8), 804-815.
Snook K. (2013) BIM - its about the planet (BRE)
31
Vennix, J.A., 1999. Group model-building: tackling messy problems. System
Dynamics Review, 15(4), p.379.
Watt, J. (2015). To what extent can sustainability be embedded in decision-making for

procuring public services? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Strathclyde).
Wilkinson, S. J., & Jupp, J. R. (2016). Exploring the value of BIM for corporate real
estate. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18(4).
Wolstenholme, A., Austin, S. A., Bairstow, M., Blumenthal, A., Lorimer, J.,
McGuckin, S., ... & Guthrie, W. (2009). Never waste a good crisis: a review of
progress since Rethinking Construction and thoughts for our future.
Wu, W., & Issa, R. R. (2013). BIM education and recruiting: Survey-base
comparative analysis of issues, perceptions, and collaboration opportunities. Journal
of professional issues in engineering education and practice, 140(2), 04013014.
Yoo, Y., Boland Jr, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for
innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398-1408.
Zanni, M. A., Soetanto, R., & Ruikar, K. (2016). Towards a BIM-enabled sustainable
building design process: roles, responsibilities, and requirements. Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, 1-29.
Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Internet of
things for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(1), 22-32.
32
INCORPORATING BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING
AND SUSTAINABILITY EDUCATION WITHIN THE
CONSTRUCTION CURRICULUM IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Anushka Rathnayake1 and Paul Coates The Salford University, Salford, UK
Demand for sustainable buildings increasing day by day within the AEC industry.
With that most of the construction firms aiming to deliver more sustainable designs
based on the clients requirements. Most of the construction firms transforming into
BIM, in order to deliver sustainable designs in an effective way. Therefore, industry
requires more BIM and sustainable oriented people to engage with these projects. This
has become a challenge for all academic institutions of incorporating BIM with
sustainability.
This paper discusses the how BIM and sustainability should incorporate within the
UK education curriculum. Findings of the literature demonstrate current level and
position of the BIM and sustainability education, and challenges. Research findings
derived that the current BIM and sustainability education in the UK have not yet made
required levels of the construction industry. Most of the UK universities are offering
stand-alone BIM courses rather than integrate BIM with existing AEC courses. To
meet the current industry demand for BIM and Sustainability education, higher
education curriculum should focus on Project based learning, Knowledge Transfer
Partnership, integrate BIM with existing AEC courses and improve teaching resources
and materials for better performance in BIM and sustainability.
Key Words: BIM and sustainability education, BIM, AEC, education curriculum,
stand-alone.
INTRODUCTION
Building information modelling and green building has made significant changes in
the present architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. Due to global
climatic changes, sustainable building concept is a more prominent concept within the
built environment. Sustainability is a broad term describing a desire to carry out
activities without depleting resources or having harmful impacts, defined by the
Brundtland commission as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN, 1987). The effective
use of energy is the most fundamental outcome of the sustainable concept. Life cycle
assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) are the tools which used to determine
environmental and economic cost of buildings in sustainable designs. Even though
LCA and LCC used in sustainable construction, these tools are performed and used
together by using the same software with same databases and in the meantime by the
same person (Dhillon, 2013 & El-Haram, 2002). With the way of using these tools, it's
hard to expect the required outcome in terms of efficiency, reproducibility, and
transparency.
1
prasadini88salford@gmail.com
33
As a result of that construction industry rapidly transforming into the use of Building
Information Modelling to obtain more reliable and sustainability concepts in terms of
AEC. BIM has more potential to deliver more cost-efficient and innovative building
through more integrated information and collaboration (Pelsmakers, 2013). It covers
architecture, information technology, and construction at the same time. The terms
green Bim, which refers to the use of BIM tools to help achieve sustainability and/or
improved building performance objectives (McGraw-Hill, 2013). Green BIM can
improve project outcomes by accomplishing established sustainability goals.
Therefore highly sustainable outcomes could gain through Bim tools (McGraw-Hill,
2010).
With this emerging new trend Bim and green building, built environment education
system is facing significant challenges of transforming their curriculum accordingly.
Bim integration into the design, engineering and construction programs has become a
common practice in the UK education curriculum (Sabongi et al, 2009). Hence, most
of the AEC institutions offer stand- alone BIM courses, rather than integrate BIM with
existing courses like sustainability, project management, construction management
etc. To get maximum benefits of BIM and its tools, users should aware how BIM
should link with existing concepts and theories. The construction industry is more
practical compared to other industries. Therefore, not only the knowledge, but also
proper training should require for graduates before they start their career. Industry
recruiters have clearly indicated strong market demand for new graduates with
knowledge and practical skills in BIM and sustainability. Therefore the program
priority should be given to sustain a nimble and practical curriculum that is responsive
to industry trends and able to cultivate the desired talent for local employers. This
report tends to discuss the current level of BIM and sustainable education and how it
should improve in future.
Scope: This study will only limit to, education system/modules at the University of
Salford, United Kingdom. School of the built environment will be the study area and it
will limit to BIM graduate students.
SUSTAINABILITY AND BIM EDUCATION UK

Improving energy efficiency of construction projects through BIM increasingly
recognized by AEC organizations and professionals. As a result, from 2016 onwards
BIM is a mandatory requirement for all the public projects in the UK to cut down
wastes and monitor sustainability (Cable, Fallon, & Higgins, 2013). BIM enhanced to
improve construction by predicting, managing and monitoring environmental impacts
throughout the project life cycle. Therefore, BIM would be more beneficial for
sustainable construction in terms of its performance, avoiding re-design and avoiding
waste (Adshead, 2011).
The construction industry requires BIM talented people who can make a progress
towards AEC sustainability. Therefore, the UK education sector is responsible for
providing qualified and knowledgeable graduates who can positively contribute to the
AEC industry. Even though higher education is employability for students,
construction industry needs engineers, architects, Project managers, etc. who can
successfully respond to the sudden changes happen within the construction world.
Therefore, rather than offering out of date construction programs, higher education
should focus on offering up to date construction programs considering the present and
34
future market demand. In order to meet these new challenges, UK education must be
revised and modernized. Due to increasing demand for sustainable design
construction, construction rapidly transforming into sustainable design construction.
As a result, most of the buildings using environmental friendly materials to decrease
the negative impacts of the building to environment. For example, the UK
government’s Construction 2025 strategy targets a 33% reduction in the whole-life
cost of built assets and a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 (Cable,
Fallon, & Higgins, 2013).
BIM enhanced to deliver more cost effective and sustainable designs through proper
coordination of data throughout the construction process by reducing rework and
wastes. Not only that, BIM will also, visualize and simulate to the project to identify
any potential design, construction, or operational issues and furthermore helps to
integrate sustainability regulations and assessment measures (Bynum, Issa, & Olbina,
2013). The most important aspect of BIM in sustainability is waste elimination
throughout the building life cycle.
Figure 1: Overlapping aspects of BIM and sustainability education ( Zhang ,

Schmidt , & Li , 2016).
Figure 1, showing the overlapping aspects of sustainability education and AEC

industrial sustainability needs. According to figure1, higher educational providers
should understand the best way of utilizing BIM to meet the increased demand for
sustainability in the AEC industries. In present most of the construction education still
limited to traditional methods of teaching and learning. Therefore, AEC education
should change to adopt upcoming innovations and skills like BIM, into AEC
curriculum. Also AEC educational institutions should consider of introducing BIM
concepts and tools integrate with sustainability with required skills for the students, by
35
preparing them for their future careers. These advances in AEC, education curriculum
will enhance to improve the overall industrial sustainability.
INTREGRATING BIM WITH SUSTAINABILITY

BIM implementation mainly relies on the new employee’s knowledge and skills that
bring into the construction industry. Then only BIM can gain momentum for a
successful change in the construction industry. Therefore, a thorough understanding
about the BIM and its applications is an essential factor to improve the entire
construction process (Azhar & Brown, 2009). Demand for BIM education increasing
day by day worldwide. A number of educational institutions in the UK offering stand-
alone BIM courses from undergraduates to postgraduate level students.
Most of the courses related to BIM in the UK are stand-alone courses. These courses
are consist with BIM concepts, bim tools, building information exchange etc. few
institutions using BIM to teach some aspects of the sustainability and some
institutions to offer sustainability as an optional module within the BIM course. The
BIM task group have published following learning outcomes for sustainability should
accomplish through BIM and sustainability module.
 Understand the way in which BIM can be
adopted to achieve sustainable design by
being able to
 Test the suitability of planning and
development strategy and policy options
 Assess the environmental needs and
impacts of resources, policies, and
proposals
 Investigate and evaluate sustainable
development requirements
 Establish arrangements for sustainable
development
 Identify and assess technical,
procurement and production factors
affecting resources
 Select, test and refine sustainable design
options
 Model and analyze production and
installation project design solutions
Figure 2: The percentages of BIM graduates recruiting in UK
construction ( Zhang , Schmidt , & Li , 2016)
Even though these are the expected learning outcomes of the UK government, most of
the institutions learning outcomes does not tally with these. Most of them are
providing critical awareness and appreciation of sustainable urban and building design
to the development of sustainable communities. Therefore, most of the newly graduate
36
students are with the lack of communication and practical skills even if they
completed theoretical aspects of bim and sustainability. Course curriculum should
design to educate students by enhancing to industry and industry professionals to meet
changing needs (Barlish & Traylor, 2014).
Therefore, higher education should consider integrating BIM knowledge and skills
into existing courses. According to the figure 2, only few numbers of graduates gain
the opportunity to involve with the industry directly from education. Most of the
newly graduate students are with the lack of communication and practical skills even
if they completed theoretical aspects of bim and sustainability. A Recent study by
Wesley (2013), indicates that most of the students were studying BIM courses,
without being aware what exactly BIM is. This evident that most of the construction
students are not being able to work in real life context based on either BIM or
sustainability. This will lead to having a significant gap between knowledge and skills
in near future.
It’s seems that the current BIM and sustainable education do not produce skilled
candidates required by industry. According to BIM skills survey (2016), 60% of
existing employees haven't had relevant training for BIM related courses. According
to figure 3, many people have chosen in-house education rather than going to
universities or colleges. This explores that the current courses are offered by the UK
universities and colleges have not come to expected level in terms of training and
skills. Most of the universities and colleges focusing on the long-term and medium
length of courses rather than considering proper training. Therefore, there should be a
proper link between the industry and academic institutions.
Figure 3: student’s preference of BIM education centres ( Zhang , Schmidt , & Li , 2016)
METHODOLOGY
37
This research begins with systematically review earlier writings, in order to learn and
to have a better understanding of the concepts of BIM and sustainability and to
evaluate how BIM enhanced for Green BIM and current education level for BIM and
sustainability. A questionnaire survey was conducted to have a better understanding of
the student requirements and their aspirations for BIM education.
Questionnaires were distributed among the university of Salford BIM students in the
UK. The reason to select questionnaire is because questionnaire offers several
advantages as they are widely distributed and low cost, interviewer bias is eliminated,
and the anonymity of respondents, respondent can answer at leisure. In addition to
those, Naoum (1998), described questionnaire, as the most form of getting primary
data from a relatively large number of respondents within a limited time frame.
FINDINGS AND SUMMARY

Students were asked “did the bim module developed your skills and knowledge on
sustainability?” with one option to choose from “yes, no, if the answer is no then
describe”. 80% responded no, while 20% responded yes as shown in figure 4. The
students who responded no, were recently graduate masters and undergraduate
students in BIM. This indicates that UK universities still doesn’t effectively use BIM
to teach sustainability or other existing courses. However, this will be a risk to the
future AEC industry, to have graduated with the lack of knowledge, skills, and
experience.
The rest of the students who responded
yes, who had working experience and
currently working in the industry. But in Did Bim module developed your
their comments, they had mentioned only knowledge and ability to work in
a few skills were developed and most of sustainable construction?
the things related to sustainability weren't
merged with BIM. Yes No
Students were also asked “do you think
which way is the most beneficial way of
learning bim, either stand-alone courses
or integrate with existing AEC courses?”
According to the figure 5, 90% of 20%
students were preferred to learn BIM,
integrated with existing AEC modules
80%
like sustainability, lean, construction
management, project management, etc.
only 10% of them preferred to learn BIM
as stand-alone course. This indicates that,
most of the students would like to learn
not only the BIM and its concepts, but
also how BIM enhanced to improve the
overall productivity of the entire
Figure 4: Results of Questionnaire survey, question 1
construction industry.
38
Figure 5: Results of Questionnaire survey, question 2
The third question was “Did you get enough training to improve your skills during the
BIM course modules? ” 5% of the students were responded as ‘NO’ to this question,
and 5% of them were responded as ‘Yes’. The students who responded yes, mentioned
about the site visits, guest lectures, and workshops.
Above results demonstrate that, universities should re-align their bim courses and
course content considering students and industry requirements. Along with the
theoretical understanding of the BIM concepts and theories, practical experiences
should also provide for the students to improve their practical skills before going into
the industry. Not only that, rather than offering stand-alone courses, integrated bim
courses with existing AEC courses should also provide for the students.
DISCUSSION
BIM is not just software, but it’s an effective way of managing information through
the project. The demand for sustainable building, increasing day by day. Besides,
many construction practitioners discovering how bim tools can use to improve the
productivity of sustainable designs. Even though BIM having significant capabilities
to aid sustainable construction, most of the construction firms still not using BIM in
sustainable designs due to lack of expertise and tools.
One of the major challenges in the construction industry is a lack of skill people for
the available job positions. Many of the graduate recruiting organizations declare that,
most of the fresh graduates are with the lack of skills to work in the industry. This
situation has led underachievement of the construction industry. According to the
above survey results, most of the graduates are not satisfied with the skills that they
have gained during the course work. Most of the UK universities aiming to provide
core knowledge rather than considering proper training. The understanding of new
concepts like BIM is an essential for BIM infants. Hence, using knowledge in practice
is the most important thing as an employee. Survey results also demonstrate that,
universities offering stand-alone bim courses. Students could be from various
39
backgrounds like school leavers, from industry, or who are having different
expectations. Therefore, the courses should be designed considering not only the
standards of the professional bodies, but also knowledge level of students, student
requirements, and industry requirements.
Providing only stand-alone BIM courses have worsened the current practice of BIM
and sustainability. Therefore, universities should integrate BIM with existing AEC
courses, which will be more beneficial to both students and to the current industry
needs. Some universities use BIM to teach some aspects of the sustainability, and
some of them offered sustainability as an optional module within the BIM course.
Hence, this optional module consists of sustainable concepts and theories, but not
provides any idea how it should link with BIM. Apart from that, sustainability is not
an expected learning outcome of the entire BIM module. This circumstance does not
fill the gap between industry and the academia.
Current education system should build a bridge with industry. Course contents should
develop based on industry needs. Hence most of the construction education still based
on traditional documents and learning methods. Students should not be educated for
the past, but for the future needs. Therefore, new teaching and learning paradigm is
needed for the BIM and sustainability education at the universities. By offering
sustainability integrated with BIM will be more beneficial for the people who are
interested to learn BIM and sustainability at the same time. The course structure
should follow the learning outcomes published by the UK government. Also, rather
than doing traditional lecture-based or structure-centered learning, universities should
provide project-based learning for the students, which is the best way of learning
engineering and construction courses. This effective student-centered approach allows
students to practice what they have learnt during lecture sessions by individually. This
will improve student’s knowledge of subjects, critical thinking, creativity, and skills.
Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP), is also another good approach for the
universities to deal with. This will enhance to successfully reach the objectives of both
universities and business organizations by encouraging universities and industry
collaboration. KTP assists the future development of the construction industry by
sharing knowledge between the universities and industry. This will also enhance to
develop high quality and up to date educational materials for university courses.
Therefore, universities should pay the attention to developing KTP with industry
organizations to get direct experience for the students about the application of BIM in
sustainable construction.
The traditional way of teaching should be changed according to the modern needs.
Even though UK education delivering BIM in various approaches it does not mean
that BIM teaching is up to high standards (Succar, Sher, & Williams, 2012). Use of
models to teach, rather than stick into the drawings is more practical within the AEC
education.
CONCLUSION
Sustainability and BIM have become an emerging need within the AEC, education in
the UK. Due to this increasing demand from AEC industry, AEC education sector has
faced upcoming challenges to fulfil these needs. The Survey results demonstrate that,
the current level of sustainability education does not fulfil the current needs of the
construction industry. Also, students prefer to learn BIM integrate with sustainability
40
rather than learning BIM as a stand-alone course. Therefore, AEC institutions should
focus on offering standard sustainability courses with the integration of BIM
considering the current industry needs. Most of the BIM related courses having
lengthy introductions which will reduce the knowledge coverage. BIM and
Sustainability curriculum should not only include introduction either it is intermediate
or advanced courses, but also required knowledge areas.
Therefore, the course curriculum should re-design considering the learning outcomes
published by the UK government and more attention should be given to including
practical learning during the course work. Hence, universities should provide
opportunities for students to participate in industrial BIM knowledge coverage to
improve highlighting skills and abilities which is relevant to curriculum areas.
Besides, universities should offer different levels of courses for BIM education
starting from introductory class to advanced level classes. By giving these options
students can choose the level of study that they need to start with according to their
knowledge. Course curriculum should not only limited to classroom experience of
BIM concepts and principles, but also to include real-life experiences to increase the
quality of the education level.
Industry looking to recruit graduates with both knowledge and skills to fill the gap
between the industry and the academia. Therefore, proper training is an essential need
in current AEC education. Introducing PBL and KTP to modern education system will
improve the capabilities of students in terms of skills by providing training
opportunities during studying. The new teaching paradigm should also be introduced
to BIM and sustainability education rather than depending on the traditional methods.
Using models rather than drawings is a good approach of teaching in BIM education.
Rather than narrowing down BIM into few subjects, a separate space should allocate
to teach emerging technologies within the course module. This will increase the
awareness of modern technologies and trends of both students and staff.
REFERENCES
Yan , H., & Damian , P. (2008). Benefits and Barriers of Building Information
Modelling . 12th International conference on computing in civil and building
engineering, (pp. 1-5). Beijing.
Zhang , J., Schmidt , K., & Li , H. (2016). BIM and Sustainability Education:
Incorporating Instructional Needs into Curriculum Planning in CEM Programs
Accredited by ACCE. China: Illinois State University.
Adshead, J. (2011). Green Buildings and the Law. London: Spon Press.
Azhar, S., & Brown, J. (2009). BIM for sustainability analyses. Int. J. Constr. Educ ,
276–292.
Azhar, S., Brown, J., & Farooqui, R. (2009). BIM-based sustainability analysis: An
evaluation of building performance analysis software. In Proceedings of the 45th ASC
Annual Conference, (pp. 1–4). Gainesville.
41
Azhar, S., Carlton, W., Olsen, D., & Ahmad, I. (2011). Building information modeling
for sustainable design and LEED® rating analysis. Automation in Construction , 217–
224.
Barlish, K., & Traylor, C. (2014). Career paths and development: Actions and
examples from the heavy civil sector. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr , 2–7.
Bazjanac, V. (2008). BIM-based methodology for semiautomatic building energy
performance. In Proceedings of CIB W78 25th Conference on Information Technology
in Construction, (pp. 292–299). Santiago.
Berardi, U. (2013). Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating
systems. Environ. Dev. Sustainability , 1573–1591.
Bynum, P., Issa, R. R., & Olbina, S. (2013). Building information modeling in support
of sustainable design and construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag , 24–34.
Cable, V., Fallon, M., & Higgins, D. (2013). Construction 2025;. London: HM
Government, UK.
Dhillon, B. (2013). Life Cycle Costing: Techniques, Models and Applications.
Routledge.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2011). BIM Handbook, a Guide to
Building Information Modelling. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
El-Haram, e. (2002). Development of a generic framework for collecting whole life
cost data for the building industry. J. Qual. Maintenance Inf , 144–151.
Hardin, B. (2011). BIM and construction management: proven tools, methods and
workflows. Sybex.
IWu, W., & Luo, Y. (2015). Investigating the Synergies of Sustainability and BIM
through Collaborative. 122nd ASEE Anual conference and exposition (pp. 3-4).
Seattle: American Society for Engineering Education.
Johnson, B. T., & Gunderson, D. E. (2010). Educating students concerning recent
trends in AEC: A survey of ASC member programs. In Proceedings of the 46th ASC
Annual International Conference, (pp. 7-10). Boston.
Krygiel, E., & Nies, B. (2008). Green BIM: successful sustainable design with
building information modeling. Sybex.
Kumar, B. (2015). A practical guide to adopting BIM in construction projects.
Dunbeath: Whittles.
Kumar, S. (2008). Interoperability between Building Information Models (BIM) and
Energy Analysis Programs. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Matthews, A. (2011, May). BIM: Transitioning the Industry through Education .
London.
McGraw-Hill. (2010). Green bim: how building information modelling is contributing
to green design and construction. Bedford: McGraw-Hill construction.
McGraw-Hill. (2013). world green bim trends: business benefit driving new and
retrofit market opportunities in over 60 countires. Bedford: McGraw-Hill
construction.
42
Naoum, S. (1998). Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students. A
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Pelsmakers, S. (2013). BIM and its potential to support sustainable building. RIBA
Enterprises.
Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2012). Measuring BIM performance: Five
metrics. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag , 120–142.
UN. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
Ottawa: WCED Public Hearing.
Underwood, J., & Ayoade, O. (2013). Current Position and Associated Challenges of
BIM Education in UK Higher Education. BAF.
Wang, E., Shen, Z., & Berryman, C. (2011). A building LCA case study using
Autodesk Ecotest and BIM model. In Proceedings of the 47th ASC Annual
International Conference,. Omaha: 6–9.
Wu, W., & Issa, R. (2014). BIM execution planning in green building projects.
Journal management in engineering , 1-2.
43
A QUALITATIVE REVIEW OF BIM, SUSTAINABILITY
AND LEAN CONSTRUCTION: Is There A Future For Lean
Construction?
Daniel Clarke-Hagan and John P. Spillane
School of Natural and Built Environment, David Keir Building, Stranmillis Road, Queen’s University
Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT9 5AG
ABSTRACT
The implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) is accelerating within
architectural practices; however, there is evidence to support the premise that lean
construction principles are being underutilised or misunderstood. The purpose of this
paper is to gather, examine and review published works and investigate factors which
influence economic decisions, at the design phase of a construction project. This
research concentrates on lean construction centred on the adoption of BIM. In
addressing this aim, a three tiered sequential research approach is adopted; in-depth
literature review, interviews / focus groups and qualitative analysis. The resulting data
is analysed, discussed, with potential conclusions identified; paying particular
attention to implication for practice within architectural firms. This research is of
importance, particularly to the architectural sector, as it can add to the industry’s
understanding of the design process, while also considering the application and
integration of whole life costing and lean construction to the design process. It also
highlights reasons for the success or failure of a construction project, in terms of
sustainability, at the design stage and to identify any areas in which gaps in
knowledge exist and to enhance our understanding. Results indicate that the potential
advantages outweighed disadvantages, but uptake within the industry is still slow and
that better promotion of the underlying benefits required; including, sustainability, the
environment, society and the industry. Although many studies have been carried out
on lean construction, a gap in knowledge has been identified in its application with
respect to BIM. The industry requires the development and promotion of a sustainable
theoretical framework and accompanying dynamic model for the application of these
results in practice.
Keywords: Building Information Modelling (BIM), Lean Construction, Sustainability.
INTRODUCTION
The implementation and use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) is growing
within architectural practices; (McGraw Hill Construction, 2007,2008, 2009, 2010,
2014; NBS, 2015). However, this research highlights evidence to support the
proposition that lean construction principles are being underutilised and or
misunderstood. This research also illustrates that whilst many BIM practitioners are
aware of Lean Construction, they do not directly utilise it but do so unwittingly due to
the similarities in their philosophies, ideals and practices.
44
This paper will concentrate on BIM and Lean Construction at the design stage. It will
also examine in conjunction with these topics, if sustainability is given consideration.
The aim of this research is to investigate factors which influence economic decisions
at the design phase of a construction project, with regard to BIM and Lean
Construction. It will include the exploration of the disadvantages to their introduction
and use, against the possible benefits or advantages to be derived. To achieve this aim,
the objective will be; to examine relevant literature from as wide a variety of sources
as possible and undertake interviews. To see if there is any correlation between the
results obtained from the literature review, interviews / focus group and investigate
any links between the areas to be researched.
There are indications that the demand for sustainable buildings with minimal
environmental impacts is increasing (Biswas et al., 2008). Incorporating sustainable
principles at the conceptual stage is attained by using sustainable design. (Jrade and
Jalaei, 2013). ‘The objectives of sustainable design are to minimise pollution, reduce
the consumption of natural resources, reduce energy during material production,
construction and use’ (Kelly and Hunter, 2009). It should also be with these ideals in
mind to create a healthy comfortable space to work and live.
Research and experience of the construction industry has shown that it is slow and
resistant to change. (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998) A preliminary examination of
industry guides, journal articles and reports, reveals scant information exists on
sustainability at the design stage but is mostly considered at other stages such as
procurement (RICS, 2009) and construction. It also reveals there little is linkage
between BIM, lean construction and sustainability. This study aims to address this gap
in knowledge. This research is important because it can add to the industries and
academia’s understanding of; BIM, Lean Construction and Sustainability in the design
process.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Construction projects are increasingly becoming more complex and complicated to
manage (Alshawi and Ingirige, 2003; Chan et al., 2004). One area of complexity is the
interdependencies between stakeholders, (Clough et al., 2008). In response to this
increasing complexity, information and communication technology (ICT) has had to
quickly develop (Taxén and Lilliesköld, 2008). The adoption of BIM has, during the
last decade, been major shift in ICT, for the construction industry.
BIM is defined in a number of ways, the BuildingSMARTalliance (2007) who
published the National BIM Standard Version Part 1 for the United States, defined
BIM as ‘Building Information Modelling is a digital representation of physical and
functional characteristics of a facility. They further state that BIM is a shared
knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis for
decisions during its lifecycle; defined as existing from earliest conception to
demolition’. The glossary for the BIM Handbook (Eastman et al., 2008) defines BIM
as ‘a verb or adjective phrase to describe tools, processes and technologies that are
facilitated by digital, machine-readable documentation about a building, its
performance, its planning, its construction and later its operation’. Other definitions
range from a process-oriented to a product-oriented process. Laiserin in the foreword
to the BIM handbook (2008) states that the first documented use of the term “Building
Modelling”, in the sense that “Building Information Modelling” is used today
45
appeared in the title of a 1 86 paper by Robert Aish and this adapted to “Building
Information Model,” the first documented use appearing in a paper by G.A. van
Nederveen and F. Tolman in December1992, Automation in Construction. BIM has
evolved from 2D CAD and the need for streamlined and collaborative information
sharing. The primary difference between BIM and 2D CAD is, the latter portrays a
building as independent 2D views, i.e., plans, sections and elevations. Editing one
view necessitates the checking and updating of other views, a process prone to errors
and a cause of poor documentation.
Azhar, Hein and Sketo, (2008) point out that data in these 2D drawings are graphical
entities only, such as lines, arcs and circles, in contrast to CRC Construction
Innovation, (2007) discussion on the intelligent contextual semantic of BIM models,
where objects are defined in terms of building elements and systems. BIM at its’
simplest, is a process to share and communicate information between stakeholders,
about every aspect and element within and connected with a building in 3D over the
lifecycle of a building from inception to eventual demolition. ‘BIM used progressively
reduces the cost, time and uncertainty of design, construction and operation of
buildings by making previously laborious and ambiguous processes quicker and more
accurate’ (Saxon, 2013). BIM is defined by the BuildingSMARTalliance (2007), but
also states, ‘A basic premise of the model is collaboration by different stakeholders at
different phases of the life cycle of a facility to insert, extract, update or modify
information in the modelling process to support and reflect the roles of that
stakeholder’. This is partly supported by reports such as Contractor’s Business
Management Report of 2008, which suggest that is not just a piece of software but
something more akin to a process change to workflow for design teams, contractors,
and clients. Whilst true, what most authors do not mention is the fact, it is used a
lifecycle management tool for facilities. It is important to look at BIM from the
perspective of all stakeholders involved with a project, Bedrick and Rinella cited in
Bedrick‐Gerber et al., suggest in 2006, that BIM technologies and methodologies are
set to revolutionize the construction industry because of its potential to drastically
improve collaboration among the wide‐ranging expertise needed to design and
construct a building and to improve efficiency. Pniewski (2011) considers it as being
about the total information required to manage the facility effectively rather than just
model geometry leading to a 3D Model. A model that is constructed virtually, before
actual construction on site, (Carmona and Irwin, 2007) (GSA, 2007). This is truer to
the definition set out by the BuildingSMARTalliance (2007) in which all stakeholders
are involved from the outset and is supported by Beck (200 ) who states ‘it fosters a
collaborative effort’ supporting the theory of a collaborative workflow that includes
all stakeholders. Steel et al. (2010) concluded that BIM tools are useful, not only for
design but also for the exchange of information between stakeholders. This idea is
furthered by Azhar, in 2011, where he states that BIM can be viewed as a virtual
process that encompasses all; aspects, disciplines and systems of a facility within a
single, virtual model, allowing all design team members to collaborate more
accurately and efficiently than using traditional processes. BAM Group Ireland stated
in 2014, that for them, BIM is paying real dividends in terms of improved
collaboration, improved workflows and improved value to clients. BIM manager for
BAM, Michael Murphy said: “For BAM, BIM is a legitimate form of prototyping
which is an extremely powerful way of mitigating risk on a project. A cooperative
approach from all project stakeholders delivers better results.”
46
BIM and Sustainability
Moakher and Pimplikar (2012) state that sustainable design has become another buzz
word in the construction industry, emerging out of global concern for the state of our
natural environment. The use of BIM is increasing among Architects and designers as
the demand for sustainable building with minimal environmental impact is increasing,
(Saxon, 2013; Stubbs, 2013; McGraw Hill, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014;
BIMIreland, 2014). In 2011, Azahar et al. cite rising energy costs and growing
environmental concerns as the catalysts for such high demand. Mc Lennan (2004)
stated that, sustainable design is a philosophy that seeks to maximize the quality of the
built environment whilst reducing or eliminating negative impacts on the natural
environment. As BIM allows for multi-disciplinary information to be incorporated
into one model, it creates an opportunity for sustainability measures to be integrated
throughout the design process (Autodesk, 2008, Mc Farlane, 2008). Therefore BIM
can be a vital sustainability design tool allowing designers to compare various designs
options and their resultant impact on green building performance (Autodesk, 2005).
BIM may enable many energy-efficient and sustainable designs, such as passive
design concepts, to be addressed early in a project, when the building's size, shape,
massing and orientation are developed, using real coordinates, to perform in
conjunction with the natural elements, substantially reducing requirements for heating,
cooling, ventilation and energy (Kriegel and Nies, 2008; Azhar et al. 2011; Hardin,
2011). A view supported by (Azhar and Brown, 2009) and (Azhar, 2011) who state
that, the early design phase is the most critical time to make decisions on
sustainability features. McGraw Hill (2010) state ‘the strong growth of the green
building market can encourage BIM adoption in the design and construction industry’
and goes on to say that BIM contributes to sustainable outcomes because it supports
the use of integrated design. Autodesk (2011) assert that BIM is core to its sustainable
design approach. BIM is ideally suited to deliver information needed for improved
design and building performance. Two most significant benefits of BIM for
sustainable building design are: integrated project delivery (IPD) and design
optimization. However, there are also barriers to adopting BIM for sustainable design.
(Wong and Fan, 2013). Bank et al. (2010) highlight that, measuring the sustainability
of buildings remains problematic as numerous protocols are currently in use for
sustainability assessment. A view supported by Anastas and Zimmerman (2003)
because different countries have differing; standards, protocols and sustainability
indicators. Improving sustainability performance of buildings can be difficult, due to
the difficulties in calculating the improvements of one decision versus another on
sustainability and the challenge of trying to predict future performance, during the
design stage, when capacity to influence project costs are greatest. BIM in itself
cannot provide answers, it requires a framework or indicators. Nguyen et al. (2010)
state; ‘Sustainability indicators represent a generic expression for quantitative or
qualitative sustainability variables’. These indicators are taken from standards or
protocols and are created as project parameters or shared parameters and exported to
databases. The output can then be used to make informed decisions. Azahar et al.
(2011) conclude that BIM-based sustainability software quickly generates results as
compared to the traditional methods but warn that discrepancies were recorded
between software and manual results. However, Dowsett and Harty (2013) state that
literature regarding the integration of sustainability tools with BIM has shown
improvement in assessment processes and effectiveness through comprehensive and
efficient data extraction. This leads to a reduction in the time, effort and cost of an
assessment, multi-disciplinary sustainable design decisions made at the design stage
47
that enable relatively fast and inexpensive improvements to be made, relative to
changes made during and after construction and a reduction in human error through
the use of standardised and authorised information. It is because designers must keep
the entire life cycle of the building and its associated materials in mind that promotes
sustainable development practices through these rating systems by recognizing
projects that implement strategies for better environmental and health performance
(USGBC, 2011). A common assessment method used is, Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA). This is a tool for evaluating environmental concerns (Khasreen et al., 2009).
The integration of LCA software and BIM software to automate the process allows
not only greater efficiencies in LCA assessment procedures but also enables design
changes to be made prior to construction and assist building managers to optimise a
building’s environmental footprint throughout its operation (Russell-Smith & Lepech
2012). While LCA can be used to assess the sustainability of the built environment, its
technique provides comprehensive coverage of the product’s Environmental impacts
(EI), therefore it is very useful to apply it at the conceptual design phase of building
projects. Jrade and Jalaei, (2013). When working on a sustainable design, the focus of
designers is on their ability to evaluate the EI of the selected products by using
available methods and tools. The idea of LCA has emerged as the collection and
evaluation of the inputs and outputs as well as the potential EI of a product throughout
its life cycle (Guinée et al., 2011). In 2002, Scheuer & Keoleian reveal that
approximately 95% of energy consumption and emissions occur in the operational
phase but Blanchard & Reppe stated as far back as 1998, that using optimisation
technologies, the effects on life cycle energy and emissions from the operational phase
can be moved back to the material production and construction phase. There are a
number of BIM-based tools and systems that have been and are being investigated and
developed to confront sustainability concerns across the construction process from,
design inception to facilities management and LCA (Azhar et al., 2009; Che et al.,
2010; Capper, 2012; Geyer, 2012; Park and Kim, 2012). However Ceranic et al.
(2015) warn that although a significant amount of work has been undertaken on the
technical interoperability aspects of BIM and sustainable design analysis (SDA), the
practice is still fairly new and general practitioners are perplexed by both the amount
and complexity of software solutions on the market. Whilst these technologies may
aid in attaining the outcomes required by sustainable assessment methods, the
mechanistic and linear approach required to achieve credits fails to capture, and may
even prevent, the more humanistic and developmental benefits BIM may bring in
terms of dialogic stakeholder engagement, common understanding and internalisation
of sustainability values that add value to the end user through continuous analysis and
discussion of sustainability throughout the design and construction process with
relevant stakeholders. (Dowsett and Harty, 2013). Although BIM and sustainable
design have emerged from somewhat different underlying market factors, they share a
significant common thread: the success of both endeavours depends heavily on a front
loaded, deeply integrated building design philosophy that aims to include all team
players from the very beginning of a project. Moakher and Pimplikar (2012). Many of
the philosophies and ideals of BIM used in conjunction with; sustainability, LCA and
SDA are mirrored by the tenets and concepts of Lean Construction.
BIM and Lean Construction
Lean construction processes have been developed from the processes used in
manufacturing and based on the ‘Toyota Production’ system; improved scheduling of
resources and materials, streamlining of construction, just in time deliveries.
48
(Sugimori, et al., 1977; Womack at al., 1990; Hines et al., 2004; Howleg, 2006). Lean
could be seen as a philosophy through which a project may be undertaken. One
definition of Lean quoted by Terry and Smith (2011) is it is; ‘a way of thinking and
delivering value, innovation and growth by doing more with less; less human effort,
less equipment, less materials, less time and less space aligning effort closer to meet
customers value expectations at the heart of Lean are flexible, motivated team
members, continuously solving problems.’ This definition is similar to those put
forward for sustainability. In short, it aims to balance the shortcomings of the time-
cost-quality triangle trade-off paradigm within health and safety legislation. BIM at
the design stage has the ability to aid in this. Through better coordination and
sequencing it allows for offsite fabrication, Just In Time (JIT) deliveries, improved
scheduling, improved procurement, improved materials management etc. The BIM
Handbook (2008) also states in its introduction that building information modelling
provides a basis for new capabilities in construction and allows for changes in roles
and relationships among a project team. It goes on say that when it is implemented
appropriately, BIM facilitates a better integrated design and construction process,
resulting in better quality buildings costing less with a reduced project timescale.
Dave et al (2013) state that Lean construction has two main goals to serve during the
construction process and are;
1. Minimise physical and process waste.
2. Improve the value generation to the client.
It can be seen that BIM is able to provide a foundation and a mechanism for the
outcomes that lean construction is expected to deliver. Eastman et al. (2008, Ch. 9)
cited in Sacks et al. (200 ) comment that ‘Lean construction techniques require
careful coordination between the general contractor and subs to ensure that work can
be performed when the appropriate resources are available onsite’. It has been shown
that BIM provides an accurate, detailed model of the design and can schedule the
materials required for each of the programmed phases and provides a base for
improved planning and scheduling of sub-contractors and as stated, can aid in JIT
deliveries of people, plant, and materials.’ It should also be remembered that these
processes in conjunction can aid in the ‘value engineering’ of a project and lead to an
increase in value for money for the client. It should be noted however that lean
construction and BIM are not reliant on one another, and can be adopted
independently but there are advantages to running the two simultaneously. However
Sacks et al. (2009) state, that the individual concepts of lean construction and BIM
have been researched extensively in recent years but there seemed to be much less
research that utilised both of these areas as a collective process. A survey by Mc Graw
Hill in 2007, illustrates that lean construction, despite its advantages, ranked lowest on
the factors for using BIM and in 2010, Becerik-Gerber and Rice looked at the popular
tasks for which BIM is used in the USA and lean construction was not included. It is
clear that this discrepancy in knowledge between these principles needs to be
addressed.
RESEARCH METHOD
Three tiers of research were sequentially carried out for this paper; an in depth
literature review, two semi structured interviews and a focus group were held with
industry professionals and qualitative analysis. The information gathered through the
49
literature review is enhanced by the gathering and interpretation of further results from
the qualitative analysis. The semi structured format was chosen as a method to elicit
as much relevant information as possible, as one question can lead to another and
gives the interviewee an opportunity to provide as much information as possible and
freely express their thoughts and opinions. Results from the interviews / focus group
were then inputted into qualitative mapping software package called ‘Decision
Explorer’ version 3.3.2 by Banxia was used.
This allows the unstructured information gathered to be mapped, structured and
documented in a way that shows relationships between clusters in the data.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Qualitative results and analysis
The interviews and focus group took place over a number of days with Architects in
Belfast and in the Republic of Ireland. The cognitive mapping software is used to
analysis the data and can run different outputs for analyses. The two types chosen for
this report are;
 Domain Analysis. ~ This shows concepts which may have several links.
 Central Analysis. ~ This shows those concepts which will have the greatest
effect.
Domain analysis
Using the software a domain analysis was run using the same model of mapped
concepts. This analysis method determines the concepts that possess the most links. It
should be noted that like the central analysis only the top 5 were used for this report
but more exist in the actual results produced by the software. This form of analysis
highlights concepts that the interviewees and focus group found interesting and
discussed, also how these topics or concepts as discussed or answers to the questions
posed, are linked. The analysis illustrates that there are more benefits or advantages to
be derived from the inclusion of BIM at the design stage over the disadvantages of
use. Of the 23 concepts ranked in the top five in the domain analysis only one was a
disadvantage, or 4% of the top five ranked concepts. This may illustrate that the
interviewees are clearly aware of the possible benefits and are more interested in them
and therefore talked more about them.
Central analysis
This analysis identifies and orders each concept according to its effect or impact on
the mapped model. The higher the score in the central analysis, the more of an effect
that concept has on the map. Only the top five concepts are discussed. The first
disadvantage was ranked 16th in interview A, it was then ranked 25th and 24th in
interview B and in the focus group, respectively. This could be said to prove the
importance of BIM to the design process. Whilst disadvantages are reported, these are
far outweighed by the reported benefits. It is interesting to note that within central
analysis, sustainability ranked higher than project cost savings for all three groups.
However so did ‘improved corporate image’ and promotion of ‘green credentials’.
These were also higher than concepts such as; less ‘materials wasted’, ‘sustainable
design’, ‘collaboration between stakeholders’, ‘client satisfaction’ etc. Does this mean
50
further cost savings are being sacrificed to promote Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) and the portrayed image of sustainability or that the ‘green’ corporate image is
more important than the issues that could provide effective sustainability?
Advantages identified by interviewees
Table 1 illustrates which participant identified which advantage and those held in
common.
Table 1: Advantages identified by interviewees
Interview A Interview B Focus Group

Allows for design changes to be made  
Asset Management 
Attract new clients  
Better informed team and client  
Better materials management   
Better scheduling procedures   
Client can be involved earlier & better decisions 
Comparative data analysis  
Cost control  
Digital 'O & M' Manual  
Early clash detection  
Early fault elimination 
Early involvement of specialist contractors   
Easier comparison of cost models   
Easy to compare / models design options   
Easy to produce energy usage reports   
Efficient use of manpower and resources   
Elements can be quickly changed in design  
Encourages collaboration between stakeholders   
Encourages sustainable design   
Energy use analysis  
Enhanced tendering 
Environmental considerations at an early stage  
Eradication of blame culture 
Facilities Management   
Grants to promote sustainability 
Greater flexibility in design  
Greater sharing of information  
Improved Company image (CSR)   
Improved construction management  
Improved data analysis 
Incorporation of local environment data   
Increased client satisfaction & relationship   
Increased value management & savings  
JIT deliveries  
Lean Construction 
Less materials wasted   
Less rework   
Marketing opportunities  
More Efficient practice 
Offsite fabrication 
Open and transparent procedures 
Project cost savings   
Promotion of green credentials 
Quick to make design changes   
Reduced lead in times 
Retain existing clients 
Roles less adversarial 
Streamlined construction phase 
51
Sustainable protocols integrated (BIM)   
Thermal modelling 
Waste designed out  
Disadvantages identified by interviewees

Table 2 is comprised of the disadvantages identified by interviewees. It illustrates
which participant identified which disadvantage and those held in common.
Table 2: Disadvantages identified by interviewees
Interview A Interview B Focus Group

Contractual problems  
Costs of additional software (plugins)   
Database ownership  
Incorrect reports / models produced  
Initial hardware costs  
Initial software costs  
Lack of standards and protocols 
Legal problems  
Legislation 
Mistakes easily made by inexperienced staff   
Reduced productivity during training  
Software costs   
Staff being poached by rivals 
Staff training 
Subscription costs   

Uninformed client  
DISCUSSION
There have been many advantages identified through the research to the use of BIM.
These were exposed through the literature review and the discussions with industry
professionals. It was found that advantages outweighed the disadvantages by a ratio of
approximately 3:1. The advantages and disadvantages identified in tables one and two
have been amalgamated under the following headings.
Economic Advantages
The economic and cost control advantages of using BIM are; many, varied and reach
out across all aspects of the project from inception to demolition. (Autodesk, 2008,
Mc Farlane, 2008) In the design phase BIM can enable the correct choice of design,
with the right materials, correct plant etc. Also identified by; (Saxon, 2013; GSA,
2007; Kriegel and Nies, 2008; Azhar et al. 2010). It also aids in the construction
process, the research has identified many areas where economic savings and
advantages exist. In the construction phase it aids in lean construction, (BIM
Handbook , 2008; Dave et al. 2013) materials management, increased trades
productivity, reductions in project time, early clash and scheduling detections and
systems conflicts, it allows designers to provide; floor, space and equipment layouts
etc. captures and records handover data allows contractors to provide; equipment
52
make, model, serial, warranty etc, all of which can be used as a digital owners’
manual post handover for use in; asset management, facilities management and the
formulation of maintenance plans.(Pniewski, 2011), (Interviews A and B, Focus
Group)
Sustainability Advantages.
The use of BIM is increasing as the demand for sustainable building with minimal
environmental impact is increasing, Azahar et al. (2010) cite rising energy costs and
growing environmental concerns as a catalyst. It can be a vital design tool for
sustainability as it allows the comparison designs options and their impact on green
building performance. BIM may enable many energy-efficient and sustainable
designs, such as passive design concepts, to be addressed early in a project. When the
building's size, shape, massing and orientation are developed to perform in partnership
with the natural elements, requirements for heating, cooling, ventilation and energy
requirements can be reduced substantially. (Autodesk, 2008, Mc Farlane, 2008). It is
clear that when used in conjunction with lean construction that sustainable
development is achievable. (Kriegel and Nies, 2008; Azhar et al. 20110; Autodesk,
2005).It is interesting to note that although many of the principles of lean construction
were identified as being advantages of BIM only one of those interviewed (interview
A) actually identified lean construction in conjunction with BIM.
Corporate Advantages.
It can be said that all of the advantages to BIM feed back at corporate level, economic
advantages such as reduced project costs, lean construction, sustainable construction,
better working practices, enhanced tendering, all benefit the organization. It was
identified in the research that it was felt that overall, BIM made for a more efficient
practice and because the operations became more collaborative, open and transparent,
led to a better customer service and increased client satisfaction, all of which the
organisation could use in its’ marketing and promotion. (Interviews A and B, Focus
Group)
Lean Construction subsumed by BIM?

During the exploratory meetings and the interview process, those involved admitted to
knowledge of the Lean Construction process but only one interviewee stated that they
used Lean Construction practices. Those involved, during the discussion and
questioning, could see the relationship between BIM and Lean Construction and
whilst not adhering to the tenets of Lean Construction could admit to carrying out a
form of Lean Construction, albeit accidentally. BAM Ireland, in their Sustainability
report of 2014, state that they adopted BIM as a “Lean Process” because it increases
efficiency in the design and construction procedure and its’ advantages in sustainable
project delivery but do not mention Lean Construction. As stated, Lean Construction
was not included among popular tasks for which BIM is used in the USA, Becerik-
Gerber and Rice (2010). A Mc Graw Hill survey in 2007, demonstrates that lean
construction, despite its advantages, ranked lowest on the factors for using BIM. This
was furthered in 2009 by Sacks et al. who state, that the individual concepts of lean
construction and BIM have been researched extensively but there was much less
research that utilised both as a collective process. Will the increased use of BIM in all
its levels, lead to the demise of Lean Construction.
53
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The use of BIM has been shown to; reduce the cost, time and uncertainty of design,
improve quality, streamline construction and aid in the operation and maintenance of
projects. It also has been shown to make previously laborious and ambiguous
processes quicker, increase accuracy of design and reporting in an open and
transparent manner. It is not just a piece of software to produce a 3D model but
intrinsically it is a process. One that shares and communicates information between
stakeholders, about every aspect and element within and connected to a building, in
3D format over the complete lifecycle of a building. (Bedrick and Rinella cited in
Bedrick‐Gerber et al., 2006; BuildingSMARTalliance, 2007; Eastman et al., 2008;
Contractor’s Business Management Report, 2008; Steel et al., 2010; Pniewski, 2011;
Saxon, 2013 BAM Group Ireland, 2014).
During one of the discussions held as part of the research, one professional described
it as “Cradle to cradle” or “Cradle to grave” management of building information.
This gives an interesting perspective to the philosophy of BIM and could be described
as “whole life cycle management” of a project. Starting from client brief at inception,
through construction, handover, through use and maintenance, refurbishment and
renewal and on to its’ obsolescence and demolition and back again to client brief at
inception and onto a new project. Much of the literature reviewed concentrates on
BIM at the design stage, (Mc Lennan, 2004;Autodesk, 2008; Mc Farlane, 2008;
Kriegel and Nies, 2008; Azhar et al. 2011; Hardin, 2011; Azhar and Brown, 2009;
Azhar, 2011), whilst this is where it is most useful and was its primary function, it has
been revealed that it much more than this. It can utilized for existing buildings where
it can be a vital asset to a buildings’ owner or Facilities Manager in the; management,
operation, maintenance and asset management, where the data base becomes a ‘digital
owners’ manual’. (Pniewski, 2011), (Interview B and Focus Group)
The use of BIM is increasing among design teams as the demand for sustainable
projects with minimal environmental impact is increasing, rising energy costs and
growing environmental concerns have been cited as reasons. (McGraw Hill, 2007,
2008, 2009, 2010, 2014; Azahar et al., 2011; Saxon, 2013; Stubbs, 2013; BIMIreland,
2015). BIM is therefore a vital sustainability design tool as it allows designers to
compare designs options and their resultant impact on green building performance.
BIM may enable many more energy-efficient and sustainably designed buildings to
perform in conjunction with the natural elements, substantially reducing requirements
for heating, cooling, ventilation and energy usage. It should also be remembered that
the integrated methodology can aid in the ‘value engineering’ of a project and lead to
an increase in value for money for the client. BIM is also capable of providing a
foundation many of the outcomes that lean construction is expected to deliver, as the
process of BIM provides an accurate, detailed model of the design and can schedule
the materials required for each of the programmed phases and delivers a platform for
improved planning, scheduling of sub-contractors, manpower plant and materials
through JIT deliveries. (Sugimori, et al., 1977; Womack at al., 1990; BAM Group
Ireland, 2014; Hines et al., 2004; Howleg, 2006; Terry and Smith, 2011; Dowsett and
Harty, 2013) (Interview A and Focus Group). It achieves this through an integrated
54
methodology to design, construction, and operation. This can enhance; design quality,
sustainability, buildability, materials management, reduce waste, reduce maintenance
needs and consequently reduce whole-life costs.
As many of the principles of BIM and Lean Construction are so similar as to be the
same, this may lead to Lean Construction being subsumed by BIM. The integrated
methodology requires a collaborative effort from all the stakeholders, which BIM has
been stated to foster and Lean Construction require. However with high rates of
litigation in an adversarial industry, things may not be as easy as this and BIM may
not be the cure as is hoped, as the nature of the interactions and relationships have not
changed, just the way they are carried out. Race (2012) states that, ‘technology has
simply served to speed up the process of reaching the point at which claims and
litigation to create profit margin can be attained’. That being said this research has
highlighted that there exists, three times as many advantages for BIM than
disadvantages.
Recommendations and implications for practice
The research has shown that the UK construction industry has taken up the process of
BIM but with only approximately 50% of practitioners using it, it still has a long way
to go, despite the obvious advantages. There is a need for better promotion of BIM
and the advantages it can bring to a project. It is more than just software to produce
3D models for visualisation. Its’ use in materials management, WLC / LCC,
sustainability, operations and maintenance, scheduling, Lean Construction, Lean
Project Delivery and value management requires further exploration and promotion.
BIM can help address the problems associated with implementation and use of Lean
Construction and sustainability, it can aid in their advancement and further research in
this area is recommended.
REFERENCES
Anonymous (2008) 'What in the World Is BIM?' Contractor's Business Management
Report, (6), 1.
Alshawi, B., Ingirige, B., (2003). Web-enabled project management an emerging
paradigm in construction. Automation in Construction 12 (4), 349–364.
Anastas, P. T., and Zimmerman, J. B. (2003). "Design Through the 12 Principles of
Green Engineering. Environmental Science and Technology (Mar. 1), 94 - 101.
Autodesk (2005). Building information modelling for sustainable design. Available:
http://www.autodesk.com/adsk/files/bim_for_sustainable_design_white_paper.pdf.
Accessed [21st ~July 2015]
Autodesk (2008). Improving building industry results through integrated project
delivery and building information modelling. Available: http://images.autodesk
.com/adsk/files/bim_and_ipd_whitepaper .pdf. Accessed [21st ~July 2015]
Autodesk. (2011). Building Information Modelling for Sustainable Design:
Conceptual Building Performance Analysis Overview.
Azhar, A. Hein, M. Sketo, B. (2008). Building Information Modelling (BIM):
Benefits, Risks and Challenges. Alabama. McWhorter School of Building Science.
55
Azhar A, Brown J (2009). BIM for sustainability analyses. International Journal of
Construction Education and Research, 5b (4): pp. 276 -292.
Azhar, S, Carlton, W, Olsen, D, & Ahmad, I (2011). Building information modelling
for sustainable design and LEED® rating analysis. Automation in Construction, 20(2),
217–224.
Azhar, S. (2011). Building Information Modelling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks and
Challenges for the AEC Industry. Leadership and Management in Engineering. Vol
11, Issue (3): pp. 241-252. American Society of Civil Engineers.
BAM Ireland (2014). Sustainability Report 2014. [online] download available at:
www.bamireland.ie/public/userfiles/files/BAM-Ireland-Sustainability-2014.pdf
Accessed [23rd September 2106]
Bank, L. McCarthy, M. Thompson, B. Menassa, C. (2010). Integrating BIM with
system dynamics as a decision-making framework for sustainable building
design and operation. First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanization
(ICSU 2010) Hong Kong, China, 15-17 December 2010.
Becerik‐Garber B., Des D., Kent D., (2006). Implementation of Integrated Project
Delivery and Building information Modelling on a small Commercial Project, p. 3,
Becerik-Gerber, B and Rice, S. (2010). The perceived value of building information
modelling in the U.S. building industry, Journal of Information Technology in
Construction. vol 15, pp 185–201
Beck, I. (2009). Barriers to BIM. Electrical Contracting and Maintenance. Vol: 108
Issue 3, pp. 22.
BIMIreland, (2014). Irish Building Magazine. BIM collaboration (BAM Group &
Diatec Amicus Technology) [Online] available: http://www.irishbuildingmagazine.ie
/2014/09/17/building-information-modeling-bim-bim-collaboration-bam-group-
autodesk/ [Accessed 16th October 2016].
BIMIreland, (2016). Irish Building Magazine. [Online] available:
http://www.bimireland.ie/category/top-stories/ [Accessed 21st September 2016].
Biswas T, Wang T-H, Krishnamurti R (2008). Integrated sustainable building rating
systems with building information modeling. In: Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, Chiang Mai,
Thailand, pp. 193 -200.
Blanchard, S. Reppe, P. (1998). Life cycle analysis of a residential home in Michigan.
School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan.
BuildingSMARTalliance. (2007). United States National Building Information
Modelling Standard, Version 1 –Part 1: Overview, Principles and Methodologies.
National Institute of Building Sciences.
Capper, G. (2012). Incorporating embodied energy in the BIM process. In: CIBSE
ASHRAE Technical Symposium, 18-19 April 2012, Imperial College London, pp. 1–
11.
Carmona, J., and Irwin, K. (2007). “BIM: Who, what, how and why.” Building
Operating Management. [Online] available:
〈http://www.facilitiesnet.com/software/article/ BIM-Who-What-How-and-Why–7546〉
[Accessed 15th October 2016].
56
Ceranic, B. Latham, D. Dean, A. (2015). Sustainable Design and Building Information
Modelling: Case Study of Energy Plus House, Hieron's Wood, Derbyshire UK.
Energy Procedia 83, pp. 434 – 443
Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D. Chan, A.P.L. (2004). Factors affecting the success of a
construction project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Che, L. Gao, Z. Chen, D. Nguyen, T. (2010). Using building information modeling for
measuring the efficiency of building energy performance, In: Tizani (Ed.),
"Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building
Engineering", 30 June-2 July, Nottingham, Nottingham University Press
Clough, R.H., Sears, G.A., Sears, S.K., (2008). Construction Project Management: A
Practical Guide to Field Construction Management. Wiley, New Jersey.
CRC. (2007). Adopting BIM for facilities management: Solutions for managing the
Sydney Opera House. Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Construction
Innovation
Dave, B, Koskela, L, Kiviniemi, A, Owen, R, and Fazenda, P T (2013.) Implementing
Lean in construction: Lean and BIM, C725, CIRIA, London
Dowsett, R., Harty, C. (2013). Evaluating the benefits of BIM for sustainable design:
a review. In: Smith, S D (Ed.) and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (Ed.), Proceedings 29th
Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK, Association of
Researchers in Construction Management., 13–23.
Eastmann, C. Teicholz, P. Sacks, R. Liston, K. (2008). BIM Handbook: A Guide to
Building Information Modelling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and
Contractors. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Geyer, P. (2012). Systems modelling for sustainable building design. Advanced
Engineering Informatics, 26(4), 656-668.
GSA (General Services Administration) (2007). Building Information Modelling
Guide Series 01, Overview. [online] Available: http://www.gsa.gov/graphics
/pbs/GSA_ BIM_Guide_v0_60_Series01_Overview_05_14 07.pdf. [Accessed 27th
April 2014].
Guinée, J. Heijungs, R. Huppes, G. Zamagni, A. Masoni, P. Buonamci, R. Ekvall,
T. Rydberg, T. (2011). Life cycle assessment: Past, present, and future. Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 45: pp. 90 - 96.
Hardin, B (2011) BIM and construction management: proven tools, methods and
workflows. Sybex.
Hines, P. Howleg, M. Rich, N. (2004). Learning to Evolve: A review of contemporary
lean thinking. International Journal of Operations & Production Management Vol. 24
No. 10, pp. 994-1011
Howleg, M. (2006). The Genealogy of Lean Production. Journal of Operations
Management Vol. 25. Pp. 420 – 437
Jrade, J. Jalaei, F. (2013). Integrating building information modelling with
sustainability to design building projects at the conceptual stage. Journal of Building
Performance Simulation. Taylor and Francis. vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 429–444
Kelly, J. Hunter, K. (2009). Life Cycle Costing of Sustainable Design. Construction
Journal, November – December, P.10.
57
Khasreen, M. Banfill, P. Menzies, G. (2009). Life-cycle assessment and the
environmental impact of buildings: A review. Sustainability, 1: pp. 674 - 701
Kriegel E, Nies B (2008). Green BIM: Successful Sustainable Design with Building
Information Modelling. Indianapolis, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
McFarlane B (2008). How a major design firm adapted to a paradigm shift. Healthcare
Design, [online] Available: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine .com/article/how-
major-design-firm-adapted-paradigm-shift?page=3. [Accessed 27th April 2014].
McGraw-Hill Construction. (2007). SmartMarket Report: Interoperability in the
Construction Industry. New York: McGraw-Hill Construction.
McGraw Hill Construction (2008), “Smart Market Report; Building Information
Trends,” Gudgel JE (Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Construction.
McGraw Hill Construction (200 ), “Smart Market Report; The Business Value of
BIM,” Gudgel JE., (Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Construction.
McGraw-Hill Construction. (2010). SmartMarket Report: The Business Value of BIM
in Europe. Bedford, Massachusetts, USA, McGraw-Hill Construction. [Online]
available:http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/business_value_of_bim_in_europe_s
mr_final.pdf [Accessed 27th April 2014].
McGraw-Hill Construction. (2014). SmartMarket Report: The Business Value of BIM
for Construction in Major Global Markets: How Contractors Around the World Are
Driving Innovation With Building Information Modelling. New York: McGraw-Hill
Construction.
Mc Lennan, J. (2004). The Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Missouri: Ecotone
Publishing
NBS (2015), National BIM Report 2015, pp. 08–18, RIBA Enterprises Ltd
Moakher, P. Pimplikar, S. (2012). Building Information Modelling (BIM) and
Sustainability Using Design Technology in Energy Efficient Modelling. IOSR Journal
of Mechanical and Civil Engineering. Vol. 1, Issue (2). Pp. 10-21
Nguyen,T. Shehab, T. Gao, Z. (2010). Evaluating Sustainability of Architectural
Designs Using Building Information Modelling. The Open Construction and Building
Technology Journal. Vol. 4.
Park, J. Kim, J. (2012) Building information modelling based energy performance
assessment system: An assessment of the Energy Performance Index in Korea.
Construction Innovation, Vol 12, Issue (3), pp. 335–354.
Pniewski, V. (2011). Building Information Modelling (BIM) Interoperability Issues in
Light of Interdisciplinary Collaboration, Collaborative Modelling Ltd.
Race, S. (2012). BIM Demystified- An architect’s guide to Building Information
Modelling / Management (BIM). London: RIBA Publishing.
RICS. (2009). Life Cycle Costing of Sustainable Design. Research Report. London:
RICS.
Russell-Smith, S. Lepech, M. (2012). Activity-Based Methodology for Life Cycle
Assessment of Building Construction. In: “CIBSE ASHRAE Technical Symposium",
18-19 April 2012, Imperial College London, 1–13.
58
Sacks, R. Koskela, L. Dave, B. Owen, R. (2009) The Interaction of Lean and Building
Information Modelling in Construction. Submitted to the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management
Saxon, R. (2013). Growth through BIM. London: Construction Industry Council.
Scheuer, C. Keoleian, G. (2002). Evaluation of LEED using life cycle assessment
methods. NISTGCR, pp.79.
Sir John Egan. (1998). Rethinking Construction. The Report of the Construction Task
Force. London: HMSO.
Sir Michael Latham.(1994). Constructing the Team. Joint Review of Procurement and
Contractual Arrangements in the United Kingdom Construction Industry. London:
HMSO.
Steel, J. Drogemuller, R. Toth,B. (2010). Model interoperability in building
information modelling. Software and System Modelling, Vol. 11, Issue (1). pp. 99 -
109.
Stubbs,B. (2013). Sustainability and BIM. [Online] available at
https://www.fgould.com/uk-europe/articles/sustainability-and-bim/[Accessed 22nd
September 2016].
Sugimori. Y. Kusunoki, K.Cho, F. Uchikawa,S. (1977). Toyota production system
and Kanban system: materialisation of just-in-time and respect-for-human
system,International Journal of Production Research 15 (6) pp. 553–564.
Taxén, L., Lilliesköld, J. (2008). Images as action instruments in complex projects.
International Journal of Project Management 26 (5), 527–536
Terry, A. Smith, S (2011), Build Lean. Transforming construction using Lean
thinking, C696.
USGBC (US Green Building Council) (2011). Introduction to LEED. [online]
Available: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988. [Accessed
15th October 2016].
Van Nederveen, G.A. & Tolman, F., (1 2), “Modelling Multiple Views on
Buildings,” Automation in Construction, December, Volume 1, Number 3, pp 215–
224.
Womack, J.P. Jones, D.T. Roos, D. (1990). The Machine That Changed the World.
New York: Rawson Associates.
Wong, K. Fan, Q. (2013) "Building information modelling (BIM) for sustainable
building design", Facilities, MCB University Press. Vol. 31 Iss: 3/4, pp.138 - 157
59
REFLECTING ON A RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
EXPLORING THE VALUE OF BIM IMPLEMENTATION FOR
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
PRACTICES
Hugh Geoghean
Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture, Department of Architecture and

Civil Engineering, University of Bath, UK
ABSTRACT
The paper reflects on a novice researchers experience in structuring a mixed method
approach to a complex socio-technical phenomenon, BIM level 2 compliance. The
explorative nature of the research attempted to identify value parameters for
sustainable design as a result of BIM implementation within an EU and UK ‘context’.
The research methodology was conditioned by an initial literature review and further
by semi-structured interviews which assumed alternate perspectives upon the research
context. The research identified the convergence of BIM and sustainability objectives
through an ‘informant’ and ‘applicant’ group. ‘Informants’ are those informing the
production of BIM policy & ‘Applicants’ are those applying policy in practice. The
research was conducted in 5 stages;1Primary Literature Review (Keyword search,
document and content analysis)2.Semi-Structured Interviews 3. CSH 12 Boundary
Questions 4. Survey Questionnaire 5. Data Analysis
Keywords: Sustainability, BIM, Value, Construction Industry Reform, RIBA Plan of
Work
INTRODUCTION
A 2010 RIBA study entitled ‘Building Futures’ highlighted that the architectural
profession would be forced to adapt to altering market conditions and re-evaluate its
position within this context of sustainability and BIM (Building Information
Modelling). Research has highlighted that BIM will require more integrated and
collaborative approaches to building procurement (Hardin et al 2015, Fouchal, 2016,
Hooper,2010) and is already fundamentally changing the manner in which the
building professions are approaching undergraduate and postgraduate courses (Mac
Donald, 2012, Succar & Sher,2014). The research was instigated by an architectural
practitioner, as a reaction to these findings, wanting to better understand the complex
manifestation that is BIM and its potential to offer value to those pursuing sustainable
approaches to building design.
The research was underpinned by an ‘interpretivist’ approach, adopting a research
methodology employing qualitative and quantitative techniques. The research
attempted to map contextual factors (policy) affecting technologically innovative
processes (BIM) in accordance with implementation by a professional subject group
60
(Architects.) The subjective nature of sustainability within the research is explored
through the literature review and the documental analysis. Contextual mapping
reflects upon ‘levels of influence’ and highlights the convergence of BIM policy
through practitioners to further sustainable objectives. The research was conducted
against the background of an industry push toward BIM level 2 compliance and the
perceived implications it had for practitioners. The research design is highlighted in
Table 1.
Table 1: Epistemological Design (After Crotty, 1998)

Epistemology Perspective Methodology Method
Subjectivism Interpretivism Exploratory 1.Literature Review
Hermeneutics 2.Semi-Structured
interviews
3.Interpretative
4.Document Analysis
5.Survey Questionnaire
Observations
RESEARCH CONTEXT
The research focuses on conversations as reflective devices to illuminate unperceived
scenarios in the current BIM discourse (Hardy et al, 2005). The research wanted to
better understand the perceived ‘value’ of BIM in its context of implementation and
the legacy of its supposed benefits to the construction process. At the heart of BIM is
collaboration and this can be seen as the legacy of firstly, Latham (1994)
‘Constructing the Team’ & later Egan (1 8) ‘Rethinking Construction’ and the
research picks this theme up with the work of Paul Morrell as Government Chief
Construction Advisor (2009-2012). These themes have been introduced through the
initial literature review and were expanded upon through process mapping and
unfolding of sources of influence. Improved collaboration is the main objective for the
construction industry reformists through BIM (PAS,2013). For the purposes of this
research collaboration should be seen as: ‘cooperative, inter-organisational action that
produces innovative, synergistic solutions and balances divergent stakeholder
concerns. In this process conversations produce discursive resources that create a
collective identity and translate it into effective collaboration.’ (Hardy 2005:58)
This counters the traditionally partisan tendencies of construction industry participants
and their short term aspects on project involvement. The basis of Hardy’s discursive
approach aids the research in uncovering the communication practices of participants
but also by highlighting the the processual and temporal nature of collaboration at
both organizational (Applicants) and societal (Informant) levels. Table 2 highlights
the nature of the exploratory approach.
61
Table 2: Exploratory mixed methods approach
Qualitative Mixing Quantitative Interpretation
Data Collection Developing Data Collection General emphasis
instrument or on qualitative:
Data Analysis Data Analysis
theory based on quantitative
Results qualitative results Results results generalize
to test & test
quantitatively
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY REFORM

In 1962, one year prior to the production of the first RIBA Plan of Work (PoW) there
was an attempt on behalf of the architectural profession to identify and enact positive
change in their approach to practice. In the report ‘The architect and his office’ (1 62)
social scientists were consulted to inform the findings of a group assembled by RIBA
to evoke necessary reform. Former RIBA president (1993-95) Frank Duffy (2011:315)
highlighted that since the initiation of the RIBA PoW Work there has been resistance
to what we now know as Post Operation Evaluation (POE) or what he refers to as
‘Deep evaluation.’ The RIBA report was produced a year before the first RIBA PoW
(1963) and highlighted the following proposals;
Table 3: RIBA (1962) Report Proposals
1 Architectural education should be diversified to being back technical skills into the
profession
2 Architectural education should consist of a planned mix of practical training and
syllabus taught in architectural schools
3 Fees should be related to the size and complexity of the project
4 Architects should be taught managerial skills to take advantage of, for example, of the
application of standardization and industrialization to the production of architecture.
The Banwell Report (1964) was notable in the context of this research for its analysis
of the disparity between design and construction, going on to criticize the partisan
approach undertaken by project participants. These sentiments were later mirrored in
the PIG Report (1978) a report compiled by the BRE (Building Research
Establishment) highlighting the issues associated with incomplete, untimely and
inaccurate design information in construction. According to Boyd et Al (2003:82) The
Tavistock reports were exceptional in that they were commissioned by diverse
stakeholders within industry and sought to better understand social and technical
perspectives of divergent participants to facilitate issues with collaboration and
adversarial behaviour. This report highlighted the importance of context, the
62
investigation involved process-mapping, highlighting an attempt to better understand
the relationships between machines, people and organizations.
Contextualising an Architects perspective on ‘Value’

Work on behalf of Macmillan & Saxon ‘Be CRISP’ (2004) identified the concept of
‘value’ and aided the government’s approach to identifying value in the supply chain.
At the heart of this is an attempt to perceive value across the supply chain, for diverse
stakeholders. Mac Millan engaged in multiparty interviews with CI stakeholders to
identify consensus regarding ‘value’ factors beyond cost. The study looked beyond
cost parameters to identify intangible benefits arising from good design within the
built environment. Saxon’s publication of the ‘Be Valuable’ report in 2005
consolidated this aspect on value highlighting 6 value factors: Exchange value, Use
value, Image value, Social value, Cultural value. Soft- landings, benchmarking &
KPI’s were identified in this work as a means to address actual versus in-use building
performance. This work still underpins the RIBA approach to value as identified in
their value Toolkit (Snook,2009).
Better Information
As highlighted by Snook (2013) the industry has long suffered from problems
associated with information management and ineffective means of communication.
The architectural profession, among other design team members, have been charged
with the provision of inaccurate and untimely construction information which has in
turn hampered rather than facilitated collaborative processes. The antidote as
proposed by the CPIc (Construction Project Information Committee) was the
production of a series of protocols funded by then Department of Trade & Industry
(DTI, 2002). The programme was initiated as ‘Avanti-ICT enabled collaborative
working’ which developed into the BS11 2 - 2007 after the publication of the Avanti
Report in 2007. The report highlighted substantial savings in time and effort
associated with improvements in collaborative processes. Snook finishes by referring
to the ‘Building Down Barriers’ initiative whereby the then Design Build Foundation
(now Constructing Excellence) were tasked with the implementation of a collaborative
toolkit on behalf of the Ministry of Defense Estates, industry wanted to perpetuate
cultural change. This attempt at standardizing the format of information is continued
through the PAS 1192:2 (2013) documents whose creators, Paul Shilcock and Mervyn
Richards, have had a long involvement in the CI (Construction Industry) reform
agenda.
Operating as Designed
Initiatives such as CarbonBuzz (RIBA, 2012) are important in highlighting the
convergence between these objectives and sustainability, whereby architects through
presenting their scheme for post operation evaluation (PoE) facilitate transparency and
accountability in the delivery of client requirements in the ‘final product.’ Architects
are invited to ‘upload’ their projects as a means of gauging projected versus actual
performance in use. This theme of getting what you paid for is continued in the
revised RIBA PoW (2013) which allows for feedback on through stage 7 in – use. 49
63
years after it was initially proposed, PoE now becomes an important part of the RIBA
PoW (2013).
The BIM Task group within the ‘context’ of construction industry

Reform
BIM was proposed as a collaborative platform from which to address performative
problems and facilitate sustainable objectives (IGT,2010) A review of progress since
the publication of the Egan report in 1998 and subsequent Wolstenholme review
‘Never waste a good crisis’ (2013) concluded that little of the targets proposed by
Egan had been achieved. Previous reports identify that the CI has traditionally
underperformed, been wasteful and inefficient due to a lack of standardization and the
fragmented nature of the supply chain (Latham,1994, Potts Report, 1967). As part of
the revised RIBA PoW 2013 Soft landings are an important platform to realise the
transition from design to use, ensuring that the client could use the built asset
appropriately and it was operating in accordance with the design requirements
The Government Construction Strategy (2011) proposed Six task groups (see Table 4)
for the preparation of the BIM level 2 compliance documents. Though the
standardization of BIM compliance documents it is hoped that information
management, particularly for architects, should be improved. The revised PoW
highlights that decisions made at the initial briefing stages can contribute to better
approaches to facilities (FM) and operational management (OM) and that a shift to
‘outcomes’ rather than ‘outputs’ in the process. The six tasks groups which formed
part of the BIS BIM strategy work group are highlighted the table below;
Table 4: Six Task Groups (2011)

1 Procurement/lean Supply.
2 Standards/Lean supply
3 FM/Soft Landings
4 Data and Benchmarking
5 BIM Strategy
6 Performance management
The investigation was informed by a literature review which contextualised the RIBA
PoW (2013) as part of a longitudinal analysis of construction industry reform. The
literature review sought to identify the motivation on behalf of the UK government for
the Level 2 BIM mandate. EU legislation is impacting all of the participant contexts
BIM approach through government policy either through Energy Directives,
competition reform or drives for digitisation of member state construction industries
(EUPD,2014: EU,2020).
Convergence of BIM and Sustainability
The document review concluded that while BIM had been informed by successful
implementation on behalf of Senate properties (2007) in Finland and the United States
64
US Federal Government’s General Services Administration (GSA) through the
provision of BIM mandates, an initial emphasis on sustainability through carbon
quantification had been superseded by the UK government for the proposed
efficiencies brought about by BIM implementation (IGT,2011, GCCG,2011).
The convergence of BIM and sustainability within the research would appear to be
incidental rather than prescriptive and reliant upon the client. While there have been
positive attempts to integrate an ‘industry’ wide approach to BIM implementation
within the UK the percentage of the target audience affected is small and client
awareness of the benefits afforded by BIM need to be substantially improved
(Elmualim, 2014). The research continued a series of interviews of the ‘SME’ and
‘Educator’ groups as part of secondary interviews highlighted issues for BIM
Implementation by smaller ‘ADP’s and innovative approaches to affecting change in
architectural education as a reaction to market demand for BIM ‘literate’ architectural
graduates.
Redefining Roles and Responsibilities
Mills et al (2009) highlight the importance of design managers as the champions of
the design process, identifying that sustainable construction is dependent upon
sustainable design. This research attempted to focus on BIM managers within ADP’s
and questions their perspectives on sustainable design to identify convergences in
BIM & Sustainability. Mills et al (2009) identified how a lack of clarity regarding
what design management constituted as a barrier to the implementation of sustainable
objectives in design firms. Lack of skills were also identified as a contributory factor.
Hakkinen et al (2011) through a study of the barriers and drivers for sustainable
building identified the resistance to the adoption of new methods as issues in the
implementation of sustainable design, risk being a major contributory factor; ‘These
hindrances can be reduced with help of learning what kind of decision-making phases,
new tasks, actors, roles and ways of networking are needed.’
Complexity
The explorative nature of the research highlighted that the issues to be addressed in
architectural discourses are becoming ever more complex. The motives behind BIM
implementation are positive and the movement toward standardization at at EU levels
will help to improve collaboration among CI participants. The Smart cities initiatives
are a positive step in the right direction, where BIM is helping to inform and facilitate
citizen decision making. However, the ‘trickle-down’ effect of BIM implementation
among the supply chain appears to be slow highlighting a resistance on behalf of
SME’s to implementing innovative technologies (Murphy et al 2015).
Value
Value as perceived by architects is far more multi-faceted than that of the other
stakeholders within the CI (Saxon,2005). BIM is seen as a tool, an innovative
technology which can facilitate improved processes through a new emphasis on
outcomes and collaboration. It is also extremely expensive, requires upskilling of
work forces and business process re-engineering and a commitment to change on
behalf of the profession. It forms part of construction industry reform agenda which
has focused on improving inherent failings in the industry as highlighted in various
industry reports. The developments of the UK BIM task group deserve credit and their
prominent role within the EU BIM Task group highlight positive developments.
65
1. Information Systems literature review
The initial literature review was conducted between August to December 2015 in
accordance with an Information systems approach (Levy & Ellis, 2006). The proposed
framework follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three major
stages;
Table 5: Stages of Literature Review
Inputs Processing Output
Literature gathering, Documental Analysis Literature Review
screening, analysis Content Analysis
The research sought an understanding of BIM & Sustainability from a social and
behavioural perspective though a thorough understanding of the existent body of
knowledge (BoK). A secondary literature review was conducted to reflect further
critical reflection between January/March 2016 to explore the emergence of further
critical literature and developments in BIM legislation. The processing stage of the
literature review proposed a 6 stage approach as highlighted below;
Table 6: Information Systems Literature Review
1. Know the 2.Comprehend 3.Apply 4.Analys 5.Synthesise 6. Evaluate
Literature the Literature e
The research sought an understanding of BIM & Sustainability from a social and
behavioural perspective though a thorough understanding of the existent body of
knowledge (BoK). The data sources are highlighted in Table 7 below;
Table 7: Classification of Data sources for the Research
Data Type Detail Perspective Convergence
Academic Google BIM_Architecture_Sustainabil EU Multi- EU Legislation
Literature Scholar ity_Benefits(150) Stakeholder
(Keyword BIM_Sustainability_Value
Search) (50)
BIM_Sustainability_Implemen
tation (50)
BIM_Sustainability_Innovatio
n (50)
BIM_Sustainability_Socio-
Technical Process (50)
PAS1192:2 (50)
BREEAM_BIM_RIBA Plan
of Work (50)
Document Policy UK Govt. Policy National Govt. & EU
Analysis Multi- Legislation
EU BIM Task Group
66
European Union Public Stakeholder
Procurement Directive
(EUPPD)
CEN/TC 442 on Building
Information Modelling (BIM)
European Economic and
Social Committee of the
regions (EESC)(CoR) on
resource efficiency
opportunities in the building
sector
Semi - Qualitative Informant & Applicant Groups Multi- Ethics, Values
Structured Stakeholder
Interviews
Snowball Qualitative Ad-Hoc*Resulting from Informant Industry
Sampling recommendations made on Reform
behalf of interviewees Discourse
Survey Quantitati Applicant Groups UK & Architects Client
Questionnaire ve Ireland
2. Semi-Structured Interviews
Novak et al (2014) identified how initiating and maintaining the values of sustainable
design present a challenge to design teams and proposed an evaluation method based
on systems thinking whereby the design team was viewed through a lens. Egan had
emphasized, reflecting upon the work undertaken as part of ‘Constructing Innovation’
(2008), that one of his objectives was to ‘learn.’ The formulation of the 12 boundary
questions aided the researchers attempt to better understand and learn what BIM
actually meant in accordance with the relevant contexts. The mapping of the
interviews facilitated ‘boundary critique’ allowing funnelling of the research towards
key terms. The research involved constant reappraisal of the research though emergent
learning facilitated by interaction with the research participants. Content analysis of
the literature is an analysis method which can be used to categorize the themes in a
systematic approach. This was used as a way of better understanding of what BIM &
Sustainability mean to those informing policy but also as a way of clarifying the
genesis of the term and its definition within the context of its application (Bryman,
2001).
A discursive or ‘expert-driven’ approach was taken to the production of the CSH
questions whereby interviews were designed around CSH questions focusing on
seminal contributions to the ‘research context’ on behalf of a number of high profile
contributors to the 8 Pillar documents of BIM level 2 compliance (Bentley, 2015).
These questions were used within all research contexts to identify commonalities
among the research participants.
Through identifying key movements towards standardization at European and
National level, prominent organizations engaged in furthering the BIM &
67
Sustainability agenda a broader and more complete aspect can be provided for the
research. ‘Informant’ and ‘Applicant’ groups involved in the process of BIM
implementation within 3 alternate European contexts have been identified and
interviewed. Through comparing approaches and national perspectives hopes to
identify to identify common ‘value’ attributes or areas of convergence between BIM
sustainability which can aid the current discourse rather than perpetuating and
reaffirming the technical benefits afforded by BIM.
A major barrier to the research participation was a reluctance on behalf of those in the
applicant group to participate as they did not see themselves as BIM level 2
‘compliant’. Prior to the interview, interviewees were reminded that the questions
should be seen in accordance with a relevant document they had produced or
(Informant) in accordance with their position in their respective ADP (Applicant).
While the interviews were structured, there was no attempt to discourage interviewees
from reflecting upon issues they thought relevant. Boundary categories and questions
were a framework for the participants to share subjective aspects on BIM &
Sustainability as outlined in the Table – 8 below;
Table 8: Generic Semi-Structured Questionnaire for Applicant and Informant Group
Contexts BIM Level 2 Compliance (After Bentley,2015)
United How would you describe your contribution to a 'sustainable built
Kingdom environment’?
(ADP’s) (identifying research context)
Sustainability
What is a sustainable built environment?
(identifying subjective contextual factors)
What value does sustainable building offer?
BIM
What is Building Information Modelling (BIM)?
What value does Building Information Modelling (BIM) offer?
Procurement (identifying with BIM as part of a process within a supply
chain
What (in your opinion) is the most prominent piece of legislation
relating to sustainability and the built environment within the EU?
What constitutes a sustainable approach to building procurement?
Carbon
(Document analysis had highlighted BIM as a quantifier of Carbon
within the UK)
Benchmarking & Key Performance Indicators for Sustainable building
such as BREEAM, ISA (international Sustainability Alliance) what is
68
their value?
What does CAPEX (capital expenditures), OPEX (operational
expenditures), and TOTEX total expenditure (holistic) mean to you?
Take-up of BREEAM In-Use International/ISA Key Performance
Indicators (1-9) within the EU suggests that the property market
anticipates increased demand for a common standard of certification
(Source ISA Benchmarking Report October 2011)
Do you see robust asset data proposed through BIM as a catalyst to
sustainable Design?
Mapping Context
While assuming the perspective of architects, the literature review facilitated the
mapping of ‘commonalities’ in the research contexts. Mapping was used to identify
emergence of the research and to avoid a deterministic approach to the research
findings (Kitchin et al, 2007). The mapping process was used to aid transparency for
the research but also as an aid to the creation of ‘new knowledge’. There was a
deliberate attempt to uncover the ‘genealogy’ of BIM in the research context utilizing
the ability of mapping to identify or uncover context dependent relationships
(2007:10). Through mapping the research perspective a better understanding of
context was attained though the identification of ‘embeddedness.’ In this sense
subjective attitudes which may be embedded within standards, individuals and/or
policy. Mapping has been used as an aid to navigate through the complexity of the
subject matter, reflecting upon those who practice (Elden, 2002). The research uses
mapping to reflect upon social, political and technical factors to identify relational
perspectives within diverse contexts and cultures. The research aims to resist the
‘technological determinism’ (Dainty et al, 2014) approach which has dominated BIM
discourse and seeks to explore and reflect upon policy, those informing it and those
applying it.
The Interviews and survey questionnaires were guided by assumptions that the
participant group want to act sustainably, encourage sustainable behaviours and
facilitate a sustainable process within their respective ADP. ADP’s were defined as
larger architectural practises (>70 employees) who are RIBA registered and are
obliged to be compliant with the level 2 mandate as part of government tenders. The
sample for the ‘applicant’ group have a strong reputation for sustainable design within
their respective markets. There was an assumption that all participant ADP’s want to
act sustainably and engage in sustainable practices when possible.
3. (a) CSH (Critical Systems Heuristics) after Uhlrich & Reynolds, 2010
The CSH approach was used as a complementary process to the initial literature
review and was vital as a platform for improving understanding regarding the
perceived stakeholder role (beneficiary, decision – maker) within the research context.
In parallel to the literature the interviews explored the concept of BIM in relation to
sustainability and attempted to analyse and understand the ‘subjective’ aspects of
sustainability in accordance with those ‘actors’ informing the implementation of BIM.
CSH has a rich history in environmental studies and is seen as highly beneficial as
69
part of a complementary study process helping to elucidate implicit patterns of
understanding among a sample group.
(b) Processual Analysis (Pettigrew, 1996)

Processual Analysis was used as part of the second stage of the project to compliment
the CSH approach. The initial literature review highlighted the complexity associated
with the topic of research. A literature review was conducted relating to keywords this
aided a quantitative approach to BIM and its potential value for sustainable design.
The document analysis proved invaluable in framing the context of the research in
accordance with the creation of a strategic approach to BIM Level 2 compliance as a
result of UK Government Policy. The research used a CSH approach to highlight and
better understand contextual factors. 12 Boundary questions were identified as
highlighted below in Table 8;
Table 8: Boundary Categories and questions of CSH (Adapted from Uhlrich et al
1996:44)
Sources of Boundary Judgements informing a System of Interest (S)
Influence
Social Roles Specific Concerns Key Problems The

(Stakeholding issues) Involved
(Stakeholders) (Stakes)
Sources of 1. Beneficiary 2. Purpose What 3. Measure of

Motivation Who ought to be/ ought to be/is the improvement what
Who is the purpose of S? ought to be/is S’s
intended measure of success?
beneficiary of the
system (S)?
Sources of 4. Decision Maker 5. Resources What 6. Decision

Control Who ought to be conditions of Environment What
/is in control of success ought to conditions of success
the conditions of be are/are under ought to be/are
success of s? the control of S? outside the control of
the decision maker?
Sources of 7. Expert Who 8.Expertise What 9. Guarantor What

Knowledge ought to be/is ought to be/are ought to be/are
providing relevant relevant new regarded as
knowledge and knowledge and assurances of
skills for S? skills for S? successful
implementation?
Sources of 10. Witness Who 11. Emancipation 12. World view What
Legitimacy ought to be/is What ought to space ought to be/is
representing the be/are the available for
interests of those opportunities for reconciling differing
negatively those negatively world views
70
Sources of Boundary Judgements informing a System of Interest (S)
Influence
affected by but not affected to have regarding S among

involved with S? the expression and those involved and
freedom from the affected?
worldview of S?
The
Affected
The questionnaires were later consolidated in accordance with recurring themes as

highlighted in Table 9:
Table 9 United Kingdom: Boundary Categories and questions of CSH (Adapted from
Uhlrich et al 1996:44) ADP’s perspective on BIM – United Kingdom
Boundary Judgements informing a System of Interest (S) - ADP’s Perspective on BIM
- United Kingdom
Sources of Social Roles Specific Concerns Key Problems The

Influence (Stakeholders) (Stakeholding issue Involve
(Stakes)
s) d
ought’ Citizens Consultation regarding Sustainability of the

decisions for Built Built Environment
Environment
is’ Government as Improved Data Value for Money

Public sector management (VfM), Return on
Client efficiencies investment (ROI)
Sources of 1. Beneficiary: 2. Purpose; What ought 3. Measure of

Motivatio Who ought to be/ to be/is the purpose of improvement: what
n Who is the (S)? ought to be/is (S)’s
intended measure of success?
beneficiary of
the system (S)?
ought’ Citizens Data for LCA (Life Efficiency,

Cycle Analysis) of collaboration,
Built Assets sharing, Information
management, better
decision making less
waste
is’ Govt. as public Realizing efficiencies Cost reduction

sector client/ in the
Citizens commissioning/operati
on of Built Assets
71
Sources of 4. Decision 5. Resources What 6. Decision
Control Maker Who conditions of success Environment What
ought to be /is in ought to be/is under the conditions of
control of the control of (S)? success ought to
conditions of be/is outside the
success of (S)? control of the
decision maker?
ought’ BIM Life Cycle Analysis Policy/Client

Champion/ADP’ (LCA) initiation on requirements
s completion
is’ Client (as above) (as above)
Sources of 7. Expert Who 8.Expertise What ought 9. Guarantor What

Knowledg ought to be/is to be/are relevant new ought to be/are
e providing knowledge and skills regarded as
relevant for (S)? assurances of
knowledge and successful
skills for (S)? implementation?
ought’ Government Collaboration with a Convergence

Steering Groups BIM platform between
& Industry theoretical and
actual building
performance
is’ Clients/Client 8 Pillar level 2 Compliance with 8

representatives Compliance Pillar level 2
Documents- BIM Compliance
Mandate (2016) Documents
Sources of 10. Witness Who 11. Emancipation What 12. World view The
Legitimac ought to be/is ought to be/are the What space ought to Affecte
y representing the opportunities for those be/is available for d
interests of those negatively affected to reconciling differing
negatively have the expression and world views
affected by but freedom from the regarding (S) among
not involved worldview of (S)? those involved and
with (S)? affected?
ought’ Policy Makers Open Standards/Smart Interface between

cities Formal
(Government)
networks and
Informal Networks
(Social Media)
is’ ADP’s Informal Networks BIM Task Group

(Social Media)
72
4. Survey Questionnaires
The semi-structured interviews informed the preparation of the survey questions. The
literature had highlighted BIM’s role as an innovative technology. The questionnaire
sought to understand the perspective of architects on BIM standardization for them as
practitioners. The explorative nature of the research and the alternate aspects on BIM
and sustainability meant that questions formed a platform for discussions regarding
the interviewees perspective on BIM and sustainability and their convergence in
practice. The RIBA PoW (2013) was used as the ‘process’ for analysis. The semi-
structured interviews had allowed for ‘funneling’ of the research. The focus of the
research questions related to the changes which had been undertaken regarding the
RIBA PoW BIM overlay (Sinclair,2011) and the Green Overlay (Gething, 2011).
Processual analysis as a methodology is seen as a complementary process to the CSH
approach. Processual Analysis (Langley,2010:736) facilitates a a process of unfolding
a phenomenon which has evolved over time. At the centre of this processual analysis
is the RIBA PoW 2013. The interview process has highlighted the role of the RIBA
PoW as a driver toward innovative processes incorporating BIM and sustainability
overlays as highlighted in Table 10 below:
Table 10: Assumptions regarding processual analysis (Pettigrew 1996:340)

1 Embeddedness- studying processes at EU & National Contexts
governmental and organizational level
2 Temporal Interconnectedness - studying RIBA PoW 2013 ( 1963,
processes in past, present and future time 2007, 2013) set against
Construction Reform
Discourse
3 A role in explanation for context and action ‘Informants’ & ‘Applicants’
4 A search for holistic rather than linear Multi-perspective
explanations of process
Developing Questions
After the initial keyword search it became apparent that an explorative approach to the
research would prove futile unless constrained by an operative approach to the
research. Whilst the literature review was informed by an Information systems
approach a Snowball sampling (Atkinson et al, 2001) approach was used for the
document analysis as a result of conversations had with the informant & applicant
groups; ‘In its simplest formulation snowball sampling consists of identifying
respondents who are then used to refer researchers on to other respondents.’ (Atkinson
et al, 2001).
Scale of Measurement
The questionnaire was measured using a psychometric assessment scale, Likert scale
(Fellows et al, 2015). The suitability of the Likert scale was dictated by the
questionnaire seeking to better understand the attitudes of the participants to the
research questions.
73
Delivery Strategy
Survey Monkey was used to distribute the questionnaire. Prior to the distribution of
the questionnaire informed consent forms were sent by post to all participants. This
informed consent form was included as a preamble to the survey questionnaire. The
Pilot questionnaires were also conducted using Survey Monkey.
Data Collection Strategy
A pilot study was conducted with a sample group of 4 engineers, 3 of whom have
conducted doctorate studies, all of whom are involved in data analysis in their
respective professions. The survey based quantitative evaluation was used to assess
attitudes towards a policy intervention (UK BIM Level 2 Mandate.) The aim of the
interviews had been to identify commonalities at a regional level (EU) and a national
level through mapping of the standards in context. Questions were derived from
feedback from the interviewees as to the importance of relevant aspects of the BIM
Level 2 compliance documents (BIM) & the revised RIBA PoW (2013).
Table 11: Data Collection Strategy
1. 2. 3. Literature 4. 5. 6.
Review Survey
Literature Interviews Pilot Review
Question
Review Semi- Document Questionn
naire
Structured Analysis aire
Questionnaire
Pilot Study Methodology

A pilot study was conducted with a sample group of 4 engineers, 3 of whom have
conducted doctorate studies, all of whom are involved in data analysis in their
respective professions. The survey based quantitative evaluation was used to assess
attitudes towards a policy intervention (UK BIM Level 2 Mandate.) The aim of the
interviews had been to identify commonalities at a regional level (EU) and a national
level through mapping of the standards in context. Questions were derived from
feedback from the interviewees as to the importance of relevant aspects of the BIM
Level 2 compliance documents (BIM) & the revised RIBA PoW (2013).
Pilot Study results and conclusions
The object of measure was attitudes towards the revision of the RIBA PoW and the
use of the relevant 8 pillar documents at various stages (Bentley,2015). The questions
were derived from the BIM Task Group - core content and guidance notes (EIR’s)
2013 and the CPIx Protocol (BEP’s) 2013. The questions were relevant to the stages
of the PoW (2013). BREEAM was identified as the most recognised sustainability
assessment accreditation within the respective contexts and identified as a referent for
the purposes of sustainability accreditations (BREEAM,2013). Questions were revised
after the pilot stages in accordance with a survey checklist validation process (After
Brace, 2004 Lietz, 2010).
74
ANALYSIS
Likert type rating scales were used to measure the attitudes of the participants (Allen
et al, 2007, Jamieson, 2004) 5 categories of response were used, alternating between 1
= Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly agree these were reverse coded in some questions.
The analysis technique assumes an emphasis on the sample size and the distribution to
facilitate a descriptive analysis (summary of a sample). Goeb et al (2007) highlight
that for the measurement of attitude through Likert scales should be measured through
ordinal means, although this is a subject of contention among some social researchers.
For clarity, the ordinal data measures differences rather than the distance or magnitude
between these differences (not cardinal). The research emphasizes the role of ordinal
scale as a facilitator of comparability. Through the use of data correlation analysis the
research adopted a ‘problem solving method’ appropriate to measure the attitudes of
the participants, through;
1. Clarity
2. Exactness
3. Informational value
4. Simplicity
5. Availability
(After Gob et al, 2009)
By using a Likert scale in the research with the provision of a comments box, the
research attempts to continue the theme of the research from the interviews by
exploring the attitudes of the survey participants to reflect upon individual aspects on
BIM & Sustainability contextualized by the research framework.. Likert scale is used
here to identify attitudes through the ordinal ranked categories which have resulted
from the literature reviews, document analysis and semi-structured interview
processes. This measure is used to identify patterns in the use of the RIBA PoW.
While the population sample is seen as representative of those affected by BIM
compliance documents (Architects in Large ADP’s) the information was presented in
a manner befitting the attitudes across the population, in this case a bar chart.
Demographics
All respondents were from large ADP’s (<70 employees), working in the UK on large
Public sector projects, with a diverse portfolio and an explicitly sustainable design
agenda. The respondents were nominated ‘points of contact’ within their firms for
BIM. Of the 10 respondents, only 1 was female. The 2 incomplete questionnaires were
by senior BIM coordinators. All 8 other participants were between 30 - 35 years of
age. 5 of the 8 held architectural degrees, 1 was an Industrial designer, 1 a civil
engineer, 1 had a bachelor of science. 3 had attended a relevant accreditation course
for BIM level 2.
75
FINDINGS
Through semi-structured interviews and a survey questionnaire, it was found that BIM
is yet to to be implemented in a manner which offers real ‘value’ to the sustainable
design in the participant ADP’s. The mandate toward standardization of BIM Level 2
in the UK is stimulating at transition toward better collaborative approaches, however
there appears to be much work needed still needed for BIM to have its desired impact.
Interviews of SME groups in the respective contexts highlight adaptions being made
on behalf of architects toward professional practice. All participants emphasised that
clients need to play a more informed role in procuring BIM at the project initiation
phases, policy has a role to play here. Interviews of Educator groups with the research
contexts highlight strong relationships between BIM Education and Industry,
independent of government intervention.
The semi-structured interviews of both groups informed the preparation of a survey
questionnaire which sought to explore the applicant groups perspective on the
amended RIBA PoW (2013) and their approach to using this process. The semi
structured questionnaires of both informant and applicant groups within the research
contexts were analysed using a CSH approach (Uhlrich & Reynolds, 2006) whereby
12 critical boundary questions were applied to a critical reflection on the interview
questionnaire. 40 Interviewees participated, 58 were approached and 18 had either
declined to participate after initial agreement.
The results reflect the current transition being undertaken by the ADP’s in the UK
market toward compliance with the mandate. A total of 10 responses were received
from the ADP group within the UK for the survey questionnaire and 1 ADP in the
ROI. 2 of the participants did not complete the questionnaire in full. A number of key
observations were made which are summarised in table 12 below;
Table 21: Summary of Survey Questionnaires
Q.1 There was no consensus as to whether architects should lead the BIM
process.
Q.4 There was general agreement on behalf of ADP’s that Sustainability needs
to be a legislative requirement as part of a BREEAM or other
accreditation.
Q.7 The DRM’s (Design Responsibilities Matrix) were used by the majority of
participants highlighting collaborative tendencies.
Q.8 There was general agreement that Facilities managers should be more
involved in the preparation of the EIR’s.
Q.9 There was general agreement that Clients needed to understand more
regarding BIM’s importance.
Q.10 There was no consensus as to whether BIM was seen as an important tool
for sustainable design.
Q.11 The NBS Toolkit had been well received and were being integrated by the
majority of ADP’s.
Q.12 IFC was not widely used and comments would appear to confirm industry
76
reports regarding issues with interoperability (Eadie et al.2015)
Q.13 A lack of knowledge regarding BREEAM hindered the answering of these
/14 questions, although the majority did seem to agree that the process of
certification would benefit from alignment with BIM technologies.
Q.15 There was complete agreement that re procurement routes were needed for
BIM processes.
Q.16 While GSL (Government Soft landings) were appreciated by the
participants there importance was limited.
Q.17 The majority of participants were engaged in reflecting upon ‘lessons
learned.’
Q.20 Only 3 of the participants had attended a certified practitioner scheme for
BIM Level 2.
Q.21 BIM manager was the most common title among participants.
Limitations
The research area in all contexts was ‘messy’ and open to interpretation. While the
researcher tried to remain objective the nature of the interviews necessitated time and
effort to approach the participants, explain the nature of the research and engage with
them in participation. The researcher acknowledges that this will have impacted upon
the research.
While the research focused on architects as applicants of BIM approaches the
consensus regarding their approaches was they would, in accordance with client
requirements alter their approaches to facilitate the necessary ‘outputs’ required by the
mandate. This highlights why many of the participants were yet to have filled in or
participated in the preparation of EIR’s (Employee Information Requirements) or
BEP’s (BIM Execution Plans). There appeared to be a general distrust on behalf of the
participant ADP’s regarding the motivations of government for the provision of these
regulations suggesting a degree of fatigue, perhaps even cynicism, on behalf of the
participants regarding Government involvement in the CI. The architectural profession
is a stressful profession with long hours and high demands on the time of the
participants. The research highlighted a primarily: white, male, middle class sample
population, of 40 participants, 1 was female, suggesting BIM is very much a male
domain.
CONCLUSIONS
The questionnaire was produced after an initial Information systems literature review
in September of 2015. The questions were structured in accordance with 3 areas; BIM,
Sustainability and the supposed value of both. Question relating to BIM and
sustainability were ‘open’ while those relating to context were ‘closed.’ The relevance
of the contextual questions to all participants proved weak. Many were unfamiliar
with terms such as procurement and BREEAM accreditations were often provided by
a single point of contact in the office making it difficult for participants to provide an
informed opinion. On occasion there was real resistance from the ‘informant’ group to
77
engage in some of the questions, highlighting a BIM ‘fatigue’ in evidence among this
group. Some interviewees completely subverted the interview process to focus on
their own perspective or voice concerns they had regarding BIM implementation
and/or sustainability. The semi - structured interview informed the survey
questionnaire. The researcher highlighted commonalities between the research
contexts and focused on these elements to structure the questionnaire. Due to the
explorative nature of the research and fast changing nature of contextual factors
affecting BIM implementation in the UK the validation of a questionnaire for the
research context proved difficult.
The prescriptive nature of a questionnaire in the midst of an industry reacting to BIM
standardization compliance documents proved limited. Many participants were yet to
attend a relevant certification course or engage with the preparation of an EIR or BEP
in accordance with the PAS1192 process. There is a perception that by trying to attend
to the whole industry the compliance documents are unnecessarily complex. The
results of the questionnaire highlight the complexities of contextual factor affecting
BIM ’Champions’ in the research context.
The research highlighted a weariness on behalf of the ‘applicant’ group regarding
government intervention in the CI. Many highlighted the role of clients as being the
primary determinant for project success, a group they felt had received too little
attention from the government. The preparation and piloting of the questionnaire
highlighted that the industry is still in a period of transition. BREEAM proved to be a
specialized topic within each of the ADP’s, usually with a specified person of external
consultant providing advice regarding the best approach toward obtaining
accreditation.
The convergence of BIM and sustainability within the research would appear to be
incidental rather than prescriptive and reliant upon the client. While there have been
positive attempts to integrate an ‘industry’ wide approach to BIM implementation
within the ‘EU’ the percentage of the target audience affected is small and the role of
client awareness needs to be substantially improved. The interviews of the ‘SME’ and
‘Educator’ groups as part of secondary interviews highlighted issues for BIM
Implementation by smaller ‘ADP’s and innovative approaches to affecting change in
architectural education as a reaction to market demand for BIM ‘literate’ architectural
graduates.
The semi-structured questionnaire was a starting point for the exploration as well as a
way to build trust, many participants were reluctant to be involved. All participants
were interviewed face to face where possible. The researcher contends that trust is
such an issue in the UK market that the interview was a necessity, facilitating the
mixed method approach, whereby once people understood the nature of the research
they were willing and positive participants. For these reasons the role of conversation
as ‘discursive resources’ became extremely important.
REFERENCES
Allen, I.E. and Seaman, C.A., 2007. Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress,
40(7), p.64.
78
Barlish, K., & Sullivan, K. (2012). How to measure the benefits of BIM—A case
study approach. Automation in construction, 24, 149-159.
Banwell.h (1964) Banwell Report The Placing and Management of Contracts for
Building and Civil Engineering Work’
Bentley (2015) 8 pillars of BIM Level 2 Compliance available from :
http://www.slideshare.net/COMITprojectLtd/cd-march-2015bentley Accessed Online
:08102016
BIM Task Group (2011). BIM: Management for value, cost and carbon improvement
Strategy, Paper for the Government Construction Client Group From the BIM
Industry Working Group – March 2011. http://www.bimtaskgroup.org, (Feb. 17,
2013).
Boyd, D., & Wild, A. (2003). Tavistock studies into the building industry:
communications in the building industry (1965) and interdependence and uncertainty.
Construction Reports 1944-98, 69-85.
BSI (2013). PAS 1192-2:2013 Specification for information management for the
capital/delivery phase of construction projects using building information modelling,
http://shop.bsigroup.com/Navigate-by/PAS/PAS-1192-22013/
Brace, I. (2004). Questionnaire design. London: Kogan page.
BREEAM (2013) International New Construction 2013
Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Carbon Buzz http://www.carbonbuzz.org RIBA available from: accessed online
05052106
Construction Industry Board (Great Britain), & Construction Industry Board (Great
Britain). Working Group 11. (1996). Towards a 30% productivity improvement in
construction. Thomas Telford.
Construction Project Information Committee (CPIC) (1998). Common Arrangement
of Work Sections for Building Works, [html] Available from:
http://www.cpic.org.uk/en/publications/common-arrangement-listing.cfm Accessed
020716
Construction Project Information Committee (CPIC) (2009). Production Information:
A Code of Procedure for the Construction Industry, [html]Available
from:http://www.cpic.org.uk/en/publications/production-information/index.cfm
Accessed 020716
Dainty, A., Leiringer, R., Fernie, S., & Harty, C. (2015, June). Don’t Believe the
(BIM) Hype: The Unexpected Corollaries of the UK ‘BIM Revolution’. In
Engineering Project Organizations Conference.
Duffy, F. (2011). Reflections on Stage M: The Dog that Didn’t Bark. Enhancing
Building Performance, 315
Egan, J. (1 8), ‘Rethinking Construction’, Report from Construction Task Force,
Department of the Environment Transport and Regions, HMSO: London
Egan, J. (2002). Accelerating change: a report by the strategic forum for construction.
Rethinking Construction. SF f. Construction, London.
79
Elden, S. (2002). Mapping the present: Heidegger, Foucault and the project of a
spatial history. A&C Black.
Elmualim, A., & Gilder, J. (2014). BIM: innovation in design management, influence
and challenges of implementation. Architectural Engineering and design management,
10(3-4), 183-199.
Elmualim, A., Shockley, D., Valle, R., Ludlow, G., & Shah, S. (2010). Barriers and
commitment of facilities management profession to the sustainability agenda.
Building and Environment, 45(1), 58-64.
EU BIM Task Group available from: http://www.eubim.eu/ accessed online
23032016
EU Energy Efficiency Directive available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-
directiveAccessed Online 23022016
EU Energy Performance of Buildings Available from: http://www.epbd-ca.eu
EU Sustainability of construction works CEN/TC 350 Available from:
http://portailgroupe.afnor.fr/public_espacenormalisation/CENTC350/index.html
EU CEN/TC 442 – Building Information Modelling (BIM) Available from:
https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:1991542&cs=16AA
C0F2C377A541DCA571910561FC17F Accessed Online 23022016
EU Horizon 2020 Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/
EU Procurement Directive Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32014L0024 Accessed Online 23032016
Fouchal, F., Masior, J., Wei, S., Hassan, T. M., & Firth, S. K. (2015). Decision
support to enable energy efficient building design for optimised retrofit and
maintenance. CIB.
Fellows, R. F., & Liu, A. M. (2015). Research methods for construction. John Wiley
& Sons.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications.
Foddy, W. (1994). Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires: theory
and practice in social research. Cambridge university press
Gething, B (2011) Green Overlay RIBA
Göb, R., McCollin, C. and Ramalhoto, M.F., 2007. Ordinal methodology in the
analysis of Likert scales. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), pp.601-626.
Häkkinen, T., & Belloni, K. (2011). Barriers and drivers for sustainable building.
Building Research & Information, 39(3), 239-255.
Hardin, B., & McCool, D. (2015). BIM and construction management: proven tools,
methods, and workflows. John Wiley & Sons.
80
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role
of conversations and collective identity. Academy of management review, 30(1), 58-
77.
Hardy, J., & Pittard, S. (2015). If BIM is the solution, what is the problem? A review
of the benefits, challenges and key drivers in BIM implementation within the UK
construction industry. Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal & Valuation, 3(4), 366-
373.
HMG (2008) Strategic Forum Strategy for Sustainable Construction
HMG (2010) IGT Innovation & Growth Team Low Carbon Construction IGT: Final
Report
HMG (2012) Government Construction Task Group, Government Construction
Strategy: Final Report of the Procurement/Lean Client Task Group. July 201
HMG (2013) Construction 2025, Strategy: Government and Industry in Partnership
Hooper, M., & Ekholm, A. (2010, November). A pilot study: towards bim integration-
an analysis of design information exchange & coordination. In Proceedings of the CIB
W (Vol. 78, p. 2010).
Jamieson, S., 2004. Likert scales: how to (ab) use them. Medical education,38(12),
pp.1217-1218
Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2007). Rethinking maps. Progress in Human Geography,
31(3), 331-344
Langley, A. N. N., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process
studies of change in organization and management: unveiling temporality, activity,
and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1-13.
Latham, M. (1 4), ‘Constructing the Team, Joint review of the procurement and
contractual arrangements in the UK Construction Industry’, Department of the
Environment, HMSO: London
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature
review in support of information systems research. Informing Science: International
Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9(1), 181-212.
Lietz,P ( 2010) Research into Questionnaire Design - A summary of the literature
Journal of market Research Vol.52 Issue
Macdonald, J. A. (2012, July). A framework for collaborative BIM education across
the AEC disciplines. In 37th Annual Conference of Australasian University Building
Educators Association (AUBEA) (Vol. 4, pp. 4-6).
Macmillan, S. (2004). Designing better buildings: quality and value in the built
environment. Taylor & Francis.
Macmillan, S. (2006). Added value of good design. Building research & information,
34(3), 257-271.
Macmillan, S. (2006). The value handbook: getting the most from your buildings and
spaces.
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.
81
Mills, F. T., & Glass, J. (2009). The construction design manager's role in delivering
sustainable buildings. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 5(1-2), 75-
90.
Morrell.P 012 LRUG Presenation Screencast BIM - Barriers to Adoption & How can
the Government Help? Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkQxL4iVfJw accessed online 21.01.2016
Murphy, M. E. (2014). Implementing innovation: a stakeholder competency-based
approach for BIM. Construction Innovation, 14(4), 433-452.
Murphy, R. (2015). The emerging hypercarbon reality, technological and post-carbon
utopias, and social innovation to low-carbon societies. Current Sociology, 63(3), 317-
338.
Novak, V. M. (2014). Design management of sustainability values: a learning
organization perspective. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 10(3-4),
218-232.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is a processual analysis?. Scandinavian journal of
management, 13(4), 337-348.
RIBA (2010) The Future for Architects Building Futures RIBA Publishing
RIBA. (2013) RIBA Plan of Work 2013,
http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Practice/RIBAPla
nofWork2013Overview.pdf , (June 3, 2013)
Saxon, R. (2005). Be Valuable: A guide to creating value in the built environment.
Constructing Excellence, London.
Sinclair, D. (2012). BIM overlay to the RIBA outline plan of work. London, UK:
RIBA.
Sinclair, D (2013 ) RIBA plan of Work 2013 and BIM Taskgroup Newsletter Edition
22
Smiley.JP, Fernie.S & Dainty.A (2014) Understanding construction reform
discourses, Construction Management and Economics, 32:7-8, 804-815
Snook,K (2009) RIBA Value Toolkit
Snook K. (2013) BIM - Its about the Planet (BRE)
Succar, B., & Kassem, M. (2015). Macro-BIM adoption: Conceptual structures.
Automation in Construction, 57, 64-79.
Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2012). Measuring BIM performance: Five
metrics. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 8(2), 120-142.
The Tavistock Report: (1966) Interdependence and Uncertainty: A study of the
building industry
Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to
Practical Philosophy, Bern und Stuttgart, Haupt.
Ulrich, W. & Reynolds, M. (2010). Critical Systems Heuristics Systems Approaches
to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. In: Reynolds, M. & Holwell, S. (eds.).
Springer London. 243–292.
82

BIM Enabled Health and Safety Coordinati

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

BIM Enabled Health and Safety Coordinati

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIM Enabled Health and Safety Coordinati

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROCEEDINGS OF

ARCOM Doctoral Workshop

WORKSHOP CONVENOR AND PROCEEDINGS EDITOR:

Editorial Lloyd Scott 3

Anushka Rathnayaka and Paul Coates

Daniel Clarke-Hagan and John P. Spillane

The built environment is recognised by all stakeholders as having a significant role to

• The management of sustainability through BIM

• Integrating Design, BIM and Sustainability

• Integrating Design, BIM and Sustainability within SMEs

• Visioning and sustainability assessment

• Sustainability appraisal and BIM

• Lean, sustainability and BIM

• Education for Sustainability and BIM

Clarke-Hagan and Spillane consider Sustainability, BIM and Lean construction

Geoghean, in the final paper, explores the methodological considerations for

“What we find changes who we become.” Peter Morville

Professor Lloyd Scott, October, 2016

APPLICATION OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING

The UK Government's industrial BIM strategy report prepared by the Department of

In terms of its application in the UK construction industry, a study conducted by Eadie

THE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT

These uncertainties, as a result culminated into introduction of the CDM2007 on 6

Undeniably though, there were some improvements in the implementation of CDM

THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Briefly, content analysis is defined by Bryman (2012) as an approach that seeks to

Table 1: Main duties of the Principal Designer (PD)

Table 2: Main duties of the PD categorised

Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture, Department of Architecture and

Keywords: Context, BIM mandate, Construction industry reform, Value.

The UK government has identified BIM as medium of reform (DBB,2015).

EU Sustainability of construction works CEN/TC 350 Available from:

EU Horizon 2020 Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/

EU Procurement Directive Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

EU Smart Cities Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eip/smartcities/ Accessed Online

Fernie, S., Leiringer, R. and Thorpe, T. (2006). Rethinking change in construction: a

Foley, J., & Macmillan, S. (2005). Patterns of interaction in construction team

Gholami, Elaheh, et al. "Exploiting BIM in energy efficient domestic retrofit:

Grilo, A., & Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2010). Value proposition on interoperability of

Harty, C., & Dainty, A. (2016). Opening Up the ‘Sociological Imagination’:

Slaughter, E. S. (1998). Models of construction innovation. Journal of Construction

Snook K. (2013) BIM - its about the planet (BRE)

Watt, J. (2015). To what extent can sustainability be embedded in decision-making for

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIM EDUCATION UK

Figure 1: Overlapping aspects of BIM and sustainability education ( Zhang ,

Figure 1, showing the overlapping aspects of sustainability education and AEC

INTREGRATING BIM WITH SUSTAINABILITY

FINDINGS AND SUMMARY

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Interview A Interview B Focus Group

Disadvantages identified by interviewees

Table 2: Disadvantages identified by interviewees

Interview A Interview B Focus Group

Lean Construction subsumed by BIM?

Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture, Department of Architecture and

Table 1: Epistemological Design (After Crotty, 1998)

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY REFORM

Contextualising an Architects perspective on ‘Value’