J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No.

1 (2018) 108–120

EXPLORING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN THE ADOPTION

OF BIM AND DESIGN ERROR REDUCTION
JOHNNY K. W. WONG1, JASON X. ZHOU2 & ALBERT P. C. CHAN2
1School of the Built Environment, Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
2Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.

ABSTRACT
Ensuring a timely, efficient and cost-effective delivery of facilities is an ongoing major concern for
the construction industry. Human errors committed during the design and construction processes and
omissions and design changes contribute to delays, leading to rework and cost overruns. A previous
study has identified that the costs of design error related rework could add around 16% to the original
contract value, and delays have exceeded the original contract duration by over 50% in some construc-
tion projects. Minimizing rework helps to improve project performance and timely delivery. Although
building information modelling (BIM) is regarded as an effective technology with the potential to help
reduce the amount of rework on construction projects, there is no support yet for this view from empiri-
cal evidence. Current research on rework management in construction has paid insufficient attention to
the potential for improved communication and the self-consistent information flow between the project
actors and a BIM database. This study scrutinizes the role of BIM in reducing the frequency of design
errors, minimizing the amount of rework and enhancing the construction productivity in construction
projects in China. A conceptual design error reduction (DER) model was proposed based on the advice
and expertise of a total of 120 BIM and construction experts in China. Seven indicators are identified as
crucial factors influencing design error. Clash detection (CD) and design coordination (DC) were found
to be the two most important indicators from respondents’ rating. The study advances the understanding
of the extent to which BIM can be made use of to reduce the amount of design errors and help improve
project performance.
Keywords: building information modelling (BIM), construction projects, design error, reduction.

1  INTRODUCTION
Information technology (IT) has gradually played a growing important role in the design of
buildings and engineering facilities. The adoption of building information modelling (BIM)
in building design and construction planning appears to provide competitive advantage, tech-
nological opportunity and the ability to address structural and process problems that exist [1,
2]. In general, BIM can be used for the purposes of i) visualization (e.g. 3D renderings); ii)
fabrication/shop drawings generation; iii) real-time communication; iv) enhancing code
reviews/checking; v) cost estimating; vi) construction sequencing; vii) conflict, interference
and collision detection; and viii) forensic analysis, during the design and construction phases
[3]. It has been argued that BIM significantly improves the efficiency and effectiveness of
delivery processes and the constructed facility [4]. In this sense, BIM can play a pivotal role
in the transferring and sharing of knowledge and information [5], which has the potential for
preventing errors and reworks. However, limited research has been done in investigating the
role of BIM as a means of achieving these aims. The role of these design technological solu-
tions in helping to prevent design error and rework has not been well defined. While some
studies argued that these modelling technologies help to shorten project periods and reduce
design errors and the occurrence of reworks [6, 7], some other studies argued that these tech-
nological solutions carry with them increased risk of errors and reworks as each solution adds
to the number of possible interventions to be made and the interactions that occur as a result
[2]. That is, an over-reliance on visualization or BIM technology in design creates the

© 2018 WIT Press, www.witpress.com

ISSN: 1743-7601 (paper format), ISSN: 1743-761X (online), http://www.witpress.com/journals
DOI: 10.2495/SDP-V13-N1-108-120
 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018) 109

­ ossibility of enhanced responsibility on the part of the design professional, if the informa-
p
tion input into the system is incorrect or the software processes it incorrectly [2, 8]. Decisions
made based on data that are imprecise, incomplete or otherwise faulty can only lead to ‘gar-
bage in’ [2, 9]. Decision makers then have ineffective virtual models. An unhealthy reliance
on incompatible software can certainly have devastating consequences [10]. So far, there is
no theoretical or empirical foundation to support the view that BIM reduces rework in con-
struction projects. Thus, the primary objective of this paper is to provide some preliminary
findings on the potential roles that BIM that could have been played in preventing these errors
and reworks as well as to gather evidence of cases where BIM did help to prevent errors and
reworks in construction projects.

2  LITERATURE REVIEW
BIM has been evidenced by many researchers as an effective means for facilitating design
processes [11–15], reducing design error [2, 16, 17]. For example, Baoping et al. [17] pointed
out that the implementation of BIM could effectively integrate various professional design
information, and sufficiently boost the ability of sharing and re-using this information.
Previous studies also demonstrated that BIM has the ability to facilitate information sharing
and enhance communication among project practitioners, and furnish innovative solutions
for better design [18]. BIM made it possible for all the parties participating early in the pro-
jects to simultaneously address the design information with the purpose of shortening time
and reducing errors/omissions [11].
Previous studies suggested that clash detection (CD) can be the most effective means for
time and cost saving by using BIM. Conflicts, which may give rise to inconsistencies and
disputes of design, could be identified before the building was actually constructed, thereby
facilitating coordination between designers and contractors [19]. As stated by Azhar [3], BIM
technology could be primarily used as a virtual instrument to identify latent collisions or
clashes among a variety of structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. Early
detection via the BIM model in the design phase could be beneficial for error reductions, with
consequent cost and schedule savings. In addition, CD could be an efficient way to accelerate
the construction process, reduce project budgets, minimize errors and yield a better construc-
tion process [11]. Design coordination (DC) could be perceived as the major strength of
implementing BIM in the early design stage by integrating and coordinating all the design
systems with the goal of avoiding conflicts. A conceptual framework proposed by Wang et al.
[20] denoted that BIM could be utilized as a practical tool for integrating facility manage-
ment (FM) works into early design stages with the intention of consolidating collaboration
between the design team and the FM team, thereby reducing modifications. As indicated by
Eastman et al. [19], the application of BIM can coordinate all the design systems of a build-
ing, and synthesize them into one model.
Design consultants always ascertained that the implementation of BIM could enhance the
quality of the documents by reducing human error (HE) as well as motivate architects to
facilitate the building process from a virtual finalized project model in the design stage.
Reduced HE could yield better ability to decrease mistakes or omissions that would give rise
to design errors and hinder scheduled growth [21]. A ‘bad apple’ theory of HE proposed by
Love et al. [22] was regarded as latent conditions contributing to errors. A systemic model
was further developed with the aim of aiding BIM in reducing these errors. BIM can be uti-
lized as a tool for efficiently simulating and analysing design drawing and documents with
the purpose of reducing incomplete, incorrect, and remiss drawings or documents [3]. Four
detailed case studies that utilized BIM were analysed by Kaner et al. [23], revealing certain
110 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018)

amelioration in design quality due to error-free drawings. Sacks [24] explored that the cost of
drafting could be reduced by approximately 80%–84% through the 3D parametric modelling.
Another research carried out by Sacks and Barak [7] suggested that the underlying productiv-
ity gains from 3D modelling could be ranged from 15% to 41% of the time requisite for
drawing outputs. Bernstein et al. [25] also indicated that the production cycle of design pro-
cess could be substantially diminished by applying BIM in reducing document errors and
omissions. Any design changes incorporated in the BIM model could be automatically
updated, resulting in less rework by reducing drawing errors (DEs) and omissions [17, 20].
The successful implementation of BIM aids all project stakeholders engaged in the early
design phase in the enhancement of communication and collaboration compared with the
traditional processes [26]. As the diffusion of BIM implementation accelerates, collaboration
among project practitioners should be promoted. A case study reviewed by Aranda-Mena
et al. [27] implied that the implementation of BIM can increase the confidence of design
processes, improve coordination between various practitioners, thus reducing rework and
enhancing the functionality of design. Rajendran et al. [16] also stated that BIM has the abil-
ity to provide visible connections among project practitioners so as to foster design process
and faster collaboration. Meanwhile, synchronized information with respect to construction
time, cost and quality could be afforded in the BIM model with the aim of achieving common
objectives (such as error reduction) within all participants [18, 28]. It is believed that BIM
technology will substantially elevate the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery processes
and the constructability of a facility [13, 17]. Bynum et al. [29] ascertained that the ability to
apply BIM to virtually constitute a building prior to constructing the real-world building
yields an operative approach to examine its constructability in the real projects and to address
any indeterminacies or discrepancies during the design process. This resulted in more effi-
cient work of advancing design process and decreasing design errors. Also, the digital and
computable data could be easily utilized by project teams to enhance the constructability and
practicality (CP) of construction projects [3], as well as promote cooperation and coordina-
tion of all project participants [30].
KI could be interchanged and applied among construction practitioners and site engineers
to discover and alleviate problems on site and decrease the time and cost of addressing mat-
ters related to constructability [31, 32]. As ascertained by Linderoth et al. [15], BIM can
perform a vital role of facilitating knowledge, information and expertise sharing in order to
prevent design errors. Motawa and Almarshad [33] proposed an integrated knowledge-based
BIM system to capture information and knowledge with the purpose of perceiving the extent
to which a building is deteriorating, thus to carry out preventive or corrective measures. A
corresponding system developed by Ho et al. [32] indicated that the BIM-based knowledge
sharing management (BIMKSM) system could be an effective process for promoting knowl-
edge sharing among construction practitioners. A study performed by Josephson and
Hammarlund [34] suggested that lack of knowledge, information and motivation were gener-
ally considered to be the primary factors inducing defects due to design errors in building
construction projects. Results showed that a total of 62% of design defects could be ascribed
to inadequate knowledge and information.
Numerous researchers have earlier investigated the attributable factors affecting design
error [2, 34–36], attempting to seek out effective strategies to prevent or mitigate design
errors [10, 35, 37]. Managerial factors (e.g. adverse behaviour, ineffective coordination and
integration, inferior constructability) and organizational factors (e.g. inexperienced person-
nel, insufficient information and knowledge sharing pattern, inadequate quality assurance)
were identified to be the principal factors influencing design errors [21, 35, 36]. Prevention
 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018) 111

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of design error reduction model via BIM.

strategies, such as a system dynamics model, are identified by Love et al. [38], which can
enable designers and managers to effectively manage the process of design documentation,
thus ameliorating design errors. Despite these efforts, limited research has been conducted to
measure the impacts of BIM implementation in reducing design error, in particular, in the
construction projects in Chinese Mainland. Based on the literature review above, a concep-
tual model based on the different design error reduction (DER) indicators is proposed (Fig. 1).
These indicators include CD, DC, human error (HE), DE, teamwork and cooperation (TC),
CP, and knowledge and information sharing (KI).

3  METHODOLOGY
With the purpose of examining the conceptual model and identifying the impacts of BIM in
reducing design error, a questionnaire survey was conducted as the primary means of collect-
ing project-based data. Generally, questionnaire survey is applied to collect quantitative data
scaled by respondents, and thus for statistical analysis. The advantage of using questionnaire
survey is to have a large amount of quantitative data, allowing synthesizing the major findings
[39]. As suggested by Bradburn et al. [40], the mixed data collection methods, consisting of
literature review and semi-structured interviews, were employed in order to better design the
survey and to acquire more accurate, valid and detailed information with respect to the
respondents. In achieving this, an exploratory and thorough literature review was initially
carried out to gain a preliminary understanding of the attributable factors affecting design
errors through the implementation of BIM. Drawn on the information gleaned from the litera-
ture, a draft of the questionnaire survey was created in plain and clear language to strengthen
the respondents’ ability to make sound judgement [41], in order to collect data regarding
BIM-related factors influencing design error. Then, with the purpose of yielding a balanced
review of the research topic from different backgrounds, the questionnaire was sent to 14
experts in the field of BIM implementation. The aim of this pre-test process was to evaluate
the appropriateness and rationality of the questionnaire, examine the scope and content, as
112 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018)

well as identify the obscure expressions [41]. Based on the feedback from experts, the ques-
tionnaire was further modified and subsequently disseminated to targeted project-based
respondents.
The questionnaire items applied to measure the impacts of BIM in reducing design errors
were developed built on the information captured from the literature and experts’ views.
These factors were principally based on a comprehensive review of the frameworks presented
by [2, 3, 17, 22, 26], as well as the outcomes of preliminary expert interviews. With the addi-
tional modification based on the feedback, a total of 7 factors were ultimately encompassed
into the questionnaire (see Table 1). The overall impact of BIM implementation in reducing
design error was measured on a five-point scale. Then, respondents were asked to rate the
level of agreement on the importance of each separate items based on a five-point Likert scale
(i.e. 1 represents ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 indicates ‘strongly agree’), and their detailed
measurement items are presented in Table 1.
This preliminary study incorporated BIM and construction experts from the Chinese Main-
land. Since the implementation of BIM in China’s construction industry is relatively new and
slow, a completely random sampling or stratified sample would not be appropriate. The target
respondents were identified by selecting the informed senior and specialized personnel
directly participating in BIM-based projects. As a result, a wide variety of BIM-based pro-
jects in five cities in different geographic locations in China, including Beijing (the North),
Guangzhou, Shenzhen (the South), Shanghai (the East) and Chongqing (the West), together
with different project characteristics were selected to intensify the representativeness of the
sample and thus yield a better view of industry practice in China.
The finalized questionnaire involves two parts. The first part was designed to collect back-
ground information regarding the respondents and projects. The second part contained rating
the overall impact of BIM implementation in reducing design error and the contributory
factors. The data of questionnaire survey was collected by using three means including
e-mail invitation, online survey system (www.sojump.com) and personal visits. Over a
period of 3 months between November 2015 to January 2016, a total of 155 questionnaires
were returned from the above-mentioned cities. After excluding invalid or incomplete ques-
tionnaires, the remaining 120 valid questionnaires, representing a great response rate of
77.4%, was identified and used for subsequent analysis. After completing the questionnaires,
most respondents were willing to provide further support to our study and expected to obtain
the results of the questionnaires. Among the 120 valid responses, around 47% was collected
through the online survey system, with the remaining 35% and 18.33% gleaned by personal

Table 1: Proposed design error reduction (DER) indicators.

Code Items Reference
CD Clash detection [3, 11, 19]
DC Design coordination [19, 20]
HE Human error [2, 21, 22, 42]
DE Drawing error [3, 7, 16, 19, 23, 24, 25]
TC Teamwork and cooperation [16, 17, 26, 27, 28]
CP Constructability and practicality [3, 12, 16, 29]
KI Knowledge and information sharing [15, 31, 32, 33, 34]
 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018) 113

visits and e-mail invitations, respectively. Two statistical analysis, ANOVA and Chi-square
test, were employed to compare the results from different sources, and no significant differ-
ences were found. The demographic information of these 120 respondents is presented in
Table 2.

4  FINDINGS
Findings from a descriptive statistics analysis of responses derived from targeted respondents
are presented in Table 3, showing the mean score with standard deviation of each indicator.
The values in brackets in Table 3 also denote the ranking of importance ratings for each indi-
cator. As demonstrated by Fraenkel et al. [43], in case of two or more indicators processing
the same mean value, the one with lower standard deviation would be deemed as more influ-
ential. Therefore, the ranking of KI is much higher than that of TC with the same mean value.
Of all the seven indicators, CD and DC obtained the highest mean score with a value of 4.41
and 4.29, respectively. These are followed by DE (4.17), constructability and practicability
(4.03), and human error (3.92).
KI sharing, andTC, are the two least scored indicators. The aggregated impacts of BIM on
DER was also measured by the same respondents via the five-scale method. Results showed
a mean value of 4.03 with the standard deviation 0.81. This aggregated factor was used as the
dependent variable for subsequent regression analysis. Reliability of the constructs was tested
by deploying Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. The alpha levels for each of the constructs were
higher than the threshold of 0.70, indicating that the scales were a reliable measure to be
accepted [44]. A test for internal consistency and reliability of these indicators provided a
satisfactory Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of 0.874. ANOVA tests were then performed to

Table 2: Demographic information of targeted respondents.

Parameter Category N % Parameter Category N %
Nature of Client 25 20.83 Numbera 1–2 83 69.17
project Designer 24 20.00 3–4 25 20.83
participants
Contractor 43 35.83 5–6 8 6.67
Consultant 28 23.33 Above 6 4 3.33
Work experi- Below 2 22 18.33 Numberb Below 1 8 6.67
ence 2–5 39 32.50 1–3 67 55.83
5–10 42 35.00 3–5 30 25.00
10–15 12 10.00 5–7 10 8.33
Above 15 5 4.17 Above 7 5 4.17
Education Below junior col- 5 4.17
background lege
Junior college 9 7.50
Bachelor 65 54.17
Master 33 27.50
Doctor 8 6.67
aNumber of BIM-based projects involved; bNumber of years for implementing BIM.
114 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018)

Table 3: Results of design error reduction (DER) indicators.

Construct Code Items description Mean SD
Clash detection CD Early detection of collisions via BIM substantially 4.41(1) 0.66
reduced design error and subsequent rework
Design DC Integrating and coordinating all the design 4.29(2) 0.76
coordination systems with the goal of avoiding conflicts
and enhancing collaboration
Human error HE Human error could be reduced through the 3.92(5) 0.87
implementation of BIM
Drawing error DE Drawing errors/omissions could be greatly 4.17(3) 0.78
ameliorated through BIM implementation
Teamwork and TC BIM could enhance TC in the early design 3.88(7) 0.90
cooperation phase with the purpose of enhancing
communication and facilitating design process
Constructability CP BIM could substantially improve the 4.03(4) 0.83
& practicability efficiency and effectiveness of delivery
processes and the constructability of a facility
Knowledge & KI KI could be sufficiently interchanged and 3.88(6) 0.83
information applied among construction practitioners, thus
sharing to discover and alleviate problems in the early
design phase

identify how the aggregated impacts of BIM on DER are associated with the type of project
participants, respondents’ work experience and project size.
The ‘type of project participants’ is found to be insignificantly associated with the depend-
ent variable, indicating that the impacts of BIM on DER has no significant correlation with
the type of project participants (Table 4). A similar result is also revealed in the association
between respondents’ work experience and the impacts of BIM on DER. Both of the results
are further analysed by the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression method, which indicates
the same insignificant outcomes. Although no significant different association is evidenced
by an ANOVA test between the impacts of BIM on DER and project size, the result of OLS
regression analysis demonstrated that the two variables are statistically negatively associated
(F = 8.059, p = 0.005, B = -0.131). To examine the impacts of seven potential influential
indicators on design error reduction, multiple regression analysis was conducted. Multiple
regression analysis is used to analyse the relationship between a single dependent variable
(DER) and several independent variables, including CD, DC, HE, DE, TC, CP, KI. Multi-
collinearity is examined by the variance inflation factors (VIF), which is an index that
measures the severity of multi-collinearity among the independent variables. The rule of
thumb is that a VIF greater than 10 would be problematic [45]. Standardization of the coef-
ficient aims to find out which of the independent variables have a greater effect on the
dependent variable in a multiple regression analysis when the variables are measured in dif-
ferent units of measurement. Regression diagnostics have been undertaken to examine the
appropriateness of the assumptions made by fitting a regression model to a specific set of
data. With the utilization of SPSS, it is found that the regression model is generally fitted
 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018) 115

Table 4: Results of ANOVA tests for the aggregated impacts of BIM on DER by respondents’
background.
Parameter Category N Mean SD SSa F-value p-value
Nature of Client 25 3.76 0.83 Between 0.57 0.29 0.83
project groups
participants Designer 24 3.96 0.86 Within 76.09
groups
Contractor 43 3.84 0.65 Total 76.66
Consultant 28 3.79 0.96
Work Below 2 22 3.76 0.74 Between 3.64 1.43 0.23
experience groups
2–5 39 3.90 0.82 Within 73.03
groups
5–10 42 3.58 0.79 Total 76.67
10–15 12 3.86 0.86
Above 15 5 3.92 0.71
aSS = sum of squares

under the following assumptions of linearity (the relationships between the DER and the
outcome variable is linear), normality (the errors is normally distributed), homoscedasticity
(the errors variance is constant), and independence (the errors associated with one observa-
tion are not correlated with the errors of any other observation).

Table 5: Multiple regression analysis for DER model.

Model Design error reduction model
Unstandardized Standardized Multi-
coefficients coefficients t p collinearity
Independent Standard
variable B error b VIF
Constant 0.255 0.276
CD 0.506 0.600 0.433 1.759 0.001 1.866
DC 0.265 0.074 0.216 2.225 0.028 2.368
HE -0.022 0.063 -0.021 -0.346 0.230 1.748
DE 0.245 0.064 0.239 3.813 0.000 1.883
TC 0.049 0.062 0.021 0.256 0.032 2.186
CP 0.246 0.060 0.203 1.759 0.001 1.866
KI 0.122 0.063 0.105 1.936 0.026 2.019
Note: Where clash detection = CD, design coordination = DC, human error = HE, drawing
error = DE, teamwork and cooperation = TC, constructability and practicality = CP,
knowledge and information sharing = KI
116 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018)

The results of regressions on the single dependent variable DER and the independent
­ ariables are depicted in Table 5. The largest VIF (2.368) in Table 5 was greatly below the
v
cut-off point of 10, suggesting that multi-collinearity would not increase the standard errors
of the DER model estimate. Multiple regression equations (RPE) with six determining fac-
tors are finally constructed as eqn (1). The results from the best-fit run of multiple regression
analysis indicated a p-value of less than 0.05 and adjusted R2 values exceed 0.75, which
implied good-fit models. Results of the multiple regression analysis revealed that the value of
adjusted R2 was 0.752, indicating a good fit model. The Durbin-Watson value was 2.094,
which meant that the residual errors were also normally distributed.
As shown in Table 5, all the six independent variables (CD, DC, DE, TC, CP and KI) are
statistically significant with the dependent variable DER, except for HE. The p-value of this
independent variable indicated that human error was not significantly associated with DER at
the 5% level. Consequently, the regression analysis determined six significant independent
variables, which are positively associated with the dependent variable DER. They are CD
(Early detection of collisions via BIM substantially reduced design error and subsequent
rework), DC (Integrating and coordinating all the design systems with the goal of avoiding
conflicts and enhancing collaboration), DE (Drawing errors/omissions could be greatly ame-
liorated through BIM implementation), TC (BIM could enhance teamwork in the early design
phase with the purpose of enhancing communication and facilitating design process), CP (BIM
could substantially improve the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery processes and the con-
structability of a facility), and KI (Knowledge and information could be sufficiently interchanged
and applied among construction practitioners, thus to discover and alleviate problems in the
early design phase). Drawn on the six determining indicators, the design error reduction model
was modified (and the associated valences of the standardized β weights) to demonstrate the
causal relationship between the dependent and independent variables, as shown in Fig. 2. Final
model coefficients are presented in Table 5. The regression equation can be expressed as:
DER Model = 0.255 + 0.506CD + 0.265DC + 0.245DE + 0.049TC + 0.246CP + 0.122KI 
(1)

Figure 2: Revised design error reduction (DER) model.

 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018) 117

5  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study examined seven indicators that are found to be influential factors affecting design
error. CD and DC were found to be the two most important indicators from respondents’ rat-
ing. This corresponds with the previous investigations that BIM was frequently used as a
visualization tool allowing for automatic detection of errors related to building components
[2, 42]. Multiple regression analysis (OLSwas then deployed to inspect and verify the latent
indicators, and a total of six determining indicators were identified. The results found that six
attributable factors are statistically significant with the impacts of BIM on design error reduc-
tion, among which CD (standardized β = 0.433) has the best ability to positively affect design
error reduction. CD is perceived as the most beneficial factor from the implementation of
BIM in minimizing design error. Noteworthy, ‘human error (HE)’ was excluded from the
model as suggested by the result of multiple regression analysis using OLS method. This
outcome is consistent with the arguments of Reason [46] and Love et al. [2] that human error
is an innate feature of human nature. Foord and Gulland [47] also ascertained that it is impos-
sible to design technological systems to preclude human errors. Thus, the assertion that BIM
can reduce human errors during design stage is misguided, with respect to the diverse sets of
exogenous and endogenous variables affecting a designer’s cognition and capability to exe-
cute tasks [10, 22].
Despite these preliminary findings, as indicated by Love et al. [2], BIM will considerably
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of design process only by juxtaposing with other
organizational and project-related strategies that have been verified. Otherwise, BIM will
become a sole driver for error containment, which may give rise to the failures that would
impair the performance and productivity of construction projects.

REFERENCES
[1] Dossick, C.S. & Neft, G., Organizational divisions in BIM enabled commercial con-
struction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(4), pp. 459–467,
2010.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000109
[2] Love, P.E.D., Edwards, D.J., Han, S. & Goh, Y.M., Design error reduction: toward the
effective utilization of building information modeling. In Research in Engineering De-
sign, Springer-Verlag: London, 22, pp. 173–187, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-011-0105-x
[3] Azhar, S., Building Information Modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks and challenges
for the AEC industry. ASCE Journal of Leadership and Management in Engineering,
11(3), pp. 241–252, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000127
[4] Bernstein, P.G. & Taylor, J.E., Paradigm trajectories of building information modeling
in project networks. ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering, 25(2), pp. 69–76,
2009.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2009)25:2(69)
[5] Ho, S.-P., Tserng, H.-P. & Jan, S-H., Enhancing knowledge sharing management using
BIM technology in construction. The Scientific World Journal, p. 10, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/170498
[6] Al Hattab, M. & Hamzeh, F., Using social network theory and simulation to compare
traditional versus BIM-lean practice for design error management. Automation in Con-
struction, 52, pp. 59–69, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.02.014
118 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018)

[7] Sacks, R. & Barak, R., Impact of three-dimensional parametric modeling of buildings
on productivity in structural engineering practice. Automation in Construction, 17(4),
pp. 439–449, 2008.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2007.08.003
[8] Collins, M.P., Vecchio, F.J., Selby, R.G. & Gupta, P.R., Failure of an offshore platform.
Canadian Consulting Engineer, pp. 43–48, 2000.
[9] Brooks, D.T., Becker, B. & Marlatt, J.R., Computer applications in particular indus-
tries: securities. In Computers and the Law, American Bar Association, Section of Sci-
ence and Technology, 3rd edn., 1981.
[10] Busby, J.S., Error and distributed cognition in design. Design Studies, 22, pp. 233–254,
2001.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00028-4
[11] Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. & Liston, K., BIM Handbook a Guide to BIM for
Owners, Managers, Architects, Engineers, Contractors, and Fabricators, John Wiley
and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, 2015.
[12] Sacks, R., Radosavljevic, M. & Barak, R., Requirements for BIM based lean production
management systems for construction. Automation in Construction, 19, pp. 641–655,
2010.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.02.010
[13] Sacks, R., Koskela, L., Dave, B.A. & Owen, R., Interaction of lean and BIM in con-
struction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136, pp. 968–980,
2010.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000203
[14] Taylor, J.E. & Bernstein, P.G., Paradigm trajectories of BIM practice in project net-
works. Journal of Management in Engineering, 25, pp. 69–76, 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2009)25:2(69)
[15] Linderoth, H., Johansson, P. & Granath, K., The role of BIM in preventing design errors.
In 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1–3 September 2014, Portsmouth, pp. 703–712,
2014.
[16] Rajendran, P., Seow, T.W. & Goh, K.C., BIM in design stage to assist in time, cost and
quality in construction innovation. In 1st FPTP Postgraduate Seminar 2013, 23 Decem-
ber 2013, Fakulti Pengurusan Teknologi dan Perniagaan, UTHM, 2013.
[17] Baoping, C., Wei, W. & Xin, H., A research on construction project based on BIM.
E-Product E-Service and E-Entertainment (ICEEE), 2010 International Conference on,
2010. IEEE, pp. 1–5, 2010.
[18] Fan, S.L., Skibniewski, M.J. & Hung, T.W., Effects of BIM during construction. Jour-
nal of Applied Science and Engineering, 17, pp. 157–166, 2014.
[19] Eastman, C, Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. & Liston, K., BIM Handbook: a Guide to BIM for
Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors, 2nd edn., John Wiley and
Sons: New York, 2011.
[20] Wang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Yung, P. & Jun, G., Engagement of facilities management
in design stage through BIM: framework and a case study. Advances in Civil Engineer-
ing, pp. 1–8, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/189105
[21] Love, P., Lopez, R., Goh, Y.M. & Davis, P., Systemic modelling of design error causa-
tion in social infrastructure projects. Procedia Engineering, 14, pp. 161–168, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.019
 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018) 119

[22] Love, P., Edwards, D. J. & Han, S., Bad apple theory of human error and BIM: A sys-
temic model for BIM implementation. A Paper Presented at the 2011 Proceedings of
the 28th ISARC, Seoul, Korea. 2011.
[23] Kaner, I., Sacks, R., Kassian, W. & Quitt, T., Case studies of BIM adoption for precast
concrete design by mid-sized structural engineering firms. ITcon, 2008.
[24] Sacks, R., Evaluation of economic impact of three-dimensional modeling in precast con-
crete engineering. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 18, pp. 301–312, 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2004)18:4(301)
[25] Bernstein, H.M., Jones, S.A., Russo, M., Laquidara-Carr, D., Taylor, W., Ramos, J.,
Healy, M., Lorenz, A., Fujishima, H. & Fitch, E., The business value of BIM in North
America. Bedford: McGraw-Hill, 2012.
[26] Azhar, S., Khalfan, M. & Maqsood, T., BIM: now and beyond. Australasian Journal of
Construction Economics and Building, pp. 12–15, 2012.
[27] Aranda-Mena, G., Crawford, J., Chevez, A. & Froese, T., BIM demystified: does it
make business sense to adopt BIM? International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 2, pp. 419–434, 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370910971063
[28] Wu, W. & Issa, R., Integrated process mapping for BIM implemenation in green build-
ing project delivery. In 13th International Conference on Construction Applications of
Virtual Reality (CONVR 2013), 2013.
[29] Bynum, P., Issa, R.R.A. & Olbina, S., BIM in support of sustainable design and con-
struction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139, pp. 24–34, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000560
[30] Rajendran, P., Seow, T. & Goh, K.C., Application of BIM for managing sustainable
construction. In International Conference of Technology Management, Business and
Entrepreneurship 2012, 18–19 December 2012, Melaka, Malaysia, 2012.
[31] Benjaoran, V. & Bhokha, S., Enhancing visualization of 4D CAD model compared to
conventional methods. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16,
pp. 392–408, 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980910970860
[32] Ho, S.-P., Tserng, H.-P., & Jan, S.-H., Enhancing knowledge sharing management using
BIM technology in construction. The Scientific World Journal, pp. 1–10, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/170498
[33] Motawa, I. & Almarshad, A., A knowledge-based BIM system for building mainte-
nance. Automation in Construction, 29, pp. 173–182, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.09.008
[34] Josephson, P.E. & Hammarlund, Y. (1999). The causes and costs of defects in construction:
A study of seven building projects. Automation in Construction, 8, pp. 681–687, 1999.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(98)00114-9
[35] Love, P.E., Lopez, R., Kim, J.T. & Kim, M.J., Influence of organizational and project
practices on design error costs. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 28,
pp. 303–310, 2012.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(98)00114-9
[36] Lopez, R., Love, P.E., Edwards, D.J. & Davis, P.R., Design error classification, cau-
sation, and prevention in construction engineering. Journal of Performance of Con-
structed Facilities, 24, pp. 399–408, 2010.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000116
120 J. K. W. Wong, et al., Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plann. Vol. 13, No. 1 (2018)

[37] Love, P.E., Edwards, D.J. & Irani, Z., Forensic project management: An exploratory
examination of the causal behavior of design-induced rework. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 55, pp. 234–247, 2008.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2008.919677
[38] Love, P.E., Mandal, P., Smith, J. & Li, H., Modelling the dynamics of design error induced
rework in construction. Construction Management & Economics, 18, 567–574, 2000.
https://doi.org/10.1080/014461900407374
[39] Creswell, J.W., Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches, Sage publications, 2013.
[40] Bradburn, N.M., Sudman, S., Blair, E., Locander, W., Miles, C., Singer, E. & Stocking,
C., Improving interview method and questionnaire design: Response effects to threaten-
ing Questions in Survey Research, University Microfilms, 1992.
[41] Aibinu, A. & Jagboro, G., The effects of construction delays on project delivery in
Nigerian construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20, pp.
593–599, 2002.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00028-5
[42] Lee, H.W., Oh, H., Kim, Y. & Choi, K., Quantitative analysis of warnings in BIM.
Automation in Construction, 51, pp. 23–31, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.12.007
[43] Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E. & Hyun, H.H., How to design and evaluate research in
education, McGraw-Hill New York, 1993.
[44] Cronbach, L.J., Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
pp. 297–334, 1951.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
[45] Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C. & Neter, J., Applied linear regression models, McGraw-
Hill/Irwin, 2004.
[46] Reason, J., Human error: models and management. Western Journal of Medicine; San
Francisco, 172, pp. 393–396, 2000.
[47] Foord, A. & Gulland, W., Can technology eliminate human error? Process Safety and
Environmental Protection, 84, pp. 171–173, 2006.
https://doi.org/10.1205/psep.05208