Building Information

Modeling (BIM): Trends,

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Benefits, Risks, and

Challenges for the
AEC Industry
SALMAN AZHAR, PH.D., A.M.ASCE

ABSTRACT: Building information modeling (BIM) is one of the most promising recent
developments in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. With
BIM technology, an accurate virtual model of a building is digitally constructed. This
model, known as a building information model, can be used for planning, design, con-
struction, and operation of the facility. It helps architects, engineers, and constructors
visualize what is to be built in a simulated environment to identify any potential design,
construction, or operational issues. BIM represents a new paradigm within AEC, one
that encourages integration of the roles of all stakeholders on a project. In this paper,
current trends, benefits, possible risks, and future challenges of BIM for the AEC industry
are discussed. The findings of this study provide useful information for AEC industry
practitioners considering implementing BIM technology in their projects.

T
he architecture, engineering, and con- and construction activities required to realize the
struction (AEC) industry has long building (Eastman et al. 2008). After completion, this
sought techniques to decrease project model can be used for operations and maintenance
cost, increase productivity and quality, purposes. Fig. 1 depicts the typical applications of
and reduce project delivery time. BIM at different stages of the project life cycle.
Building information modeling (BIM) A building information model characterizes the
offers the potential to achieve these objectives (Azhar, geometry, spatial relationships, geographic informa-
Nadeem et al. 2008). BIM simulates the construction tion, quantities and properties of building elements,
project in a virtual environment. With BIM technol- cost estimates, material inventories, and project sched-
ogy, an accurate virtual model of a building, known as ule. The model can be used to demonstrate the entire
a building information model, is digitally constructed. building life cycle (Bazjanac 2006). As a result, quan-
When completed, the building information model tities and shared properties of materials can be readily
contains precise geometry and relevant data needed extracted. Scopes of work can be easily isolated and
to support the design, procurement, fabrication, defined. Systems, assemblies, and sequences can be

Leadership and Management in Engineering 241 JULY 2011

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1. Different components of a building information model: MEP = mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (Courtesy of
Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).

shown in a relative scale within the entire facility or themselves as adversaries (Azhar, Hein et al. 2008).
group of facilities. Construction documents such as BIM also supports the concept of integrated project de-
drawings, procurement details, submittal processes, livery, which is a novel project delivery approach to
and other specifications can be easily interrelated integrate people, systems, and business structures
(Khemlani et al. 2006). and practices into a collaborative process to reduce
BIM can be viewed as a virtual process that encom- waste and optimize efficiency through all phases of
passes all aspects, disciplines, and systems of a facility the project life cycle (Glick and Guggemos 2009).
within a single, virtual model, allowing all design
team members (owners, architects, engineers, contrac-
APPLICATIONS OF BUILDING INFORMATION
tors, subcontractors, and suppliers) to collaborate more
MODELING
accurately and efficiently than using traditional proc-
esses. As the model is being created, team members A building information model can be used for the
are constantly refining and adjusting their portions following purposes:
according to project specifications and design changes • Visualization: 3D renderings can be easily generated
to ensure the model is as accurate as possible before in house with little additional effort.
the project physically breaks ground (Carmona and • Fabrication/shop drawings: It is easy to generate
Irwin 2007). shop drawings for various building systems. For ex-
It is important to note that BIM is not just software; ample, the sheet metal ductwork shop drawings can
it is a process and software. BIM means not only using be quickly produced once the model is complete.
three-dimensional intelligent models but also making • Code reviews: Fire departments and other officials
significant changes in the workflow and project may use these models for their review of building
delivery processes (Hardin 2009). BIM represents a projects.
new paradigm within AEC, one that encourages • Cost estimating: BIM software has built-in cost
integration of the roles of all stakeholders on a project. estimating features. Material quantities are automa-
It has the potential to promote greater efficiency tically extracted and updated when any changes are
and harmony among players who, in the past, saw made in the model.

JULY 2011 242 Leadership and Management in Engineering

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

 • Construction sequencing: A building information • A savings of up to 10% of the contract value
model can be effectively used to coordinate material through clash detections, and
ordering, fabrication, and delivery schedules for all • Up to 7% reduction in project time.
building components.
• Conflict, interference, and collision detection:
Because building information models are created
to scale in 3D space, all major systems can be in- ROLE OF BIM IN THE AEC INDUSTRY:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

stantly and automatically checked for interferences. CURRENT AND FUTURE TRENDS
For example, this process can verify that piping does In this section, the role of BIM in the AEC industry
not intersect with steel beams, ducts, or walls. and its current and future trends are discussed based
• Forensic analysis: A building information model can on the results of two questionnaire surveys. McGraw-
be easily adapted to graphically illustrate potential Hill Construction (2008) published a comprehensive
failures, leaks, evacuation plans, and so forth. market report of BIM’s use in the AEC industry in
• Facilities management: Facilities management de- 2008 and projections for 2009 based on the findings
partments can use it for renovations, space planning, of a questionnaire survey completed by 82 architects,
and maintenance operations. 101 engineers, 80 contractors, and 39 owners (total
The key benefit of a building information model is sample size of 302) in the United States. Some of
its accurate geometrical representation of the parts of the key findings are as follows:
a building in an integrated data environment (CRC • Architects were the heaviest users of BIM—43%
Construction Innovation 2007). Other related benefits used it on more than 60% of their projects—while
are as follows: contractors were the lightest users, with nearly half
(45%) using it on less than 15% of projects and only
• Faster and more effective processes: Information is a quarter (23%) using it on more than 60% of
more easily shared and can be value-added and projects.
reused. • Eighty-two percent of BIM users believed that
• Better design: Building proposals can be rigorously BIM had a very positive impact on their company’s
analyzed, simulations performed quickly, and per- productivity.
formance benchmarked, enabling improved and • Seventy-nine percent of BIM users indicated that
innovative solutions. the use of BIM improved project outcomes, such
• Controlled whole-life costs and environmental data: as fewer requests for information (RFIs) and de-
Environmental performance is more predictable, creased field coordination problems.
and lifecycle costs are better understood. • Sixty-six percent of those surveyed believed
• Better production quality: Documentation output is use of BIM increased their chances of winning
flexible and exploits automation. projects.
• Automated assembly: Digital product data can be • Two-third of users mentioned that BIM had at
exploited in downstream processes and used for least a moderate impact on their external project
manufacturing and assembly of structural systems. practices.
• Better customer service: Proposals are better under- • Sixty-two percent of BIM users planned to use it on
stood through accurate visualization. more than 30% of their projects in 2009.
• Lifecycle data: Requirements, design, construction,
and operational information can be used in facilities The report predicted that prefabrication capabilities of
management. BIM would be widely used to reduce costs and im-
prove the quality of work put in place. As a whole,
After gathering data on 32 major projects, Stanford BIM adoption was expected to expand within firms
University’s Center for Integrated Facilities Engineer- and across the AEC industry.
ing reported the following benefits of BIM (cited in Kunz and Gilligan (2007) conducted a question-
CRC Construction Innovation 2007): naire survey to determine the value from BIM use
and factors that contribute to success. The main find-
• Up to 40% elimination of unbudgeted change, ings of their study are as follows:
• Cost estimation accuracy within 3% as compared to
traditional estimates, • The use of BIM had significantly increased across all
• Up to 80% reduction in time taken to generate a phases of design and construction during the
cost estimate, past year.

Leadership and Management in Engineering 243 JULY 2011

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

 • BIM users represented all segments of the design realized in developing and using a building informa-
and construction industry, and they operated tion model for the project planning, design, precon-
throughout the United States. struction, and construction phases. All the data
• The major application areas of BIM were construc- reported in this section were collected from the
tion document development, conceptual design Holder Construction Company (HCC), a midsize gen-
support, and preproject planning services. eral contracting company based in Atlanta, Georgia
• The use of BIM lowered overall risk distributed (hereinafter referred to as the general contractor,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

with a similar contract structure. or GC).

• At the time of the survey, most companies used
BIM for 3D and 4D clash detections and for plan- Case Study 1: Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn,
ning and visualization services. Atlanta, Georgia
• The use of BIM led to increased productivity, The Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn project comprised a
better engagement of project staff, and reduced mixed-use hotel, retail shops, and a parking deck.
contingencies. Brief project details are as follows:
• A shortage was noted of competent building infor-
mation modelers in the construction industry, and • Project scope: $46 million, 484,000-square-foot
demand was expected to grow exponentially with hotel and parking structure
time. • Delivery method: Construction manager at-risk
(CM at-risk)
The results of these surveys indicate that the AEC • Contract type: Guaranteed maximum price
industry still relies very much on traditional drawings • BIM scope: Design coordination, clash detection,
and practices for conducting its business. At the same and work sequencing
time, AEC professionals are realizing the power of • BIM cost to project: $90,000, or 0.2% of project
BIM for more efficient and intelligent modeling. Most budget ($40,000 paid by owner)
of the companies using BIM reported in strong favor of • Cost benefit: Over $200,000 attributed to elimina-
this technology. The survey findings indicate that tion of clashes
users want a BIM application that not only leverages • Schedule benefit: 1,143 hours saved
the powerful documentation and visualization capabil-
ities of a CAD platform but also supports multiple Although the project had not been initially de-
design and management operations. BIM as a technol- signed using BIM technology, beginning in the
ogy is still in its formative stage, and solutions in the design development phase, the GC led the project
market are continuing to evolve as they respond to team to develop architectural; structural; and
users’ specific needs. mechanical, electrical, and plumbing models of the
proposed facility, as shown in Fig. 2. These models
were created using detail-level information from sub-
contractors based on drawings from the designers.
BIM BENEFITS: CASE STUDIES After the initial visualization uses, the GC began to
In the above-mentioned surveys, the AEC industry use these models for clash detection analysis. This BIM
participants indicated that BIM use resulted in time application enabled the GC to identify potential col-
and cost savings. However, no data were provided lisions or clashes between various structural and
to quantify and support these facts. The following mechanical systems. During the design development
four case studies illustrate the cost and time savings phase, 55 clashes were identified, which resulted in a

Figure 2. Building information models of the Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn Project (Courtesy of Holder Construction
Company, Atlanta, GA).

JULY 2011 244 Leadership and Management in Engineering

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

 cost avoidance of $124,500. Just this stage alone tables) before actual construction begins. Thus, the
yielded a net savings of $34,500 based on the original net adjusted cost savings was roughly considered to
building information model development cost of be $200,392.
$90,000. At the construction documents phase, the During the construction phase, subcontractors also
model was updated and resolved collisions were made use of these models for various installations.
tracked. Each critical clash was shared with the design Finally, the GC’s commitment to updating the model
team via the model viewer and a numbered collision to reflect as-built conditions provided the owner a dig-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

log with a record of individual images of each collision ital 3D model of the building and its various systems
per the architectural or structural discipline. The col- to help aid operation and maintenance procedures
lision cost savings values were based on estimates for down the road.
making design changes or field modifications had the In a nutshell, the Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn
collision not been detected earlier. More than 590 project realized some excellent benefits through the
clashes were detected before actual construction be- use of BIM technology and certainly exceeded the
gan. The overall cost savings based on the 590 colli- expectations of the owner and other project team
sions detected throughout the project was estimated at members. The cost benefits to the owner were signifi-
$801,565, as shown in Table 1. For calculating net cant, and the unknown costs that were avoided
cost savings, a conservative approach was adopted through collaboration, visualization, understanding,
by assuming that 75% of the identified collisions and identification of conflicts early were in addition
can be detected through conventional practices (e.g., to the reported savings. After this project, the archi-
sequential composite overlay process using light tect and GC began to use BIM technology on all major

Table 1. An Illustration of Cost and Time Savings via Building Information Modeling in the Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn Project
Collision phase Collisions Estimated cost avoidance Estimated crew hours Coordination date
100% design development conflicts 55 $124,500 n/a 30-Jun-06
Construction (MEP collisions)
Basement 41 $21,211 50 hrs 28-Mar-07
Level 1 51 $34,714 79 hrs 3-Apr-07
Level 2 49 $23,250 57 hrs 3-Apr-07
Level 3 72 $40,187 86 hrs 12-Apr-07
Level 4 28 $35,276 68 hrs 14-May-07
Level 5 42 $43,351 88 hrs 29-May-07
Level 6 70 $57,735 112 hrs 19-Jun-07
Level 7 83 $78,898 162 hrs 12-Apr-07
Level 8 29 $37,397 74 hrs 3-Jul-07
Level 9 30 $37,397 74 hrs 3-Jul-07
Level 10 31 $33,546 67 hrs 5-Jul-07
Level 11 30 $45,144 75 hrs 5-Jul-07
Level 12 28 $36,589 72 hrs 5-Jul-07
Level 13 34 $38,557 77 hrs 13-Jul-07
Level 14 1 $484 1 hrs 13-Jul-07
Level 15 1 $484 1 hrs 13-Jul-07
Subtotal construction labor 590 $564,220 1,143 hrs
20% MEP material value $112,844
Subtotal cost avoidance $801,565
Deduct 75% assumed resolved via conventional methods ($601,173)
Net adjusted direct cost avoidance $200,392
Source: Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA.
Note. MEP = mechanical, electrical, and plumbing.

Leadership and Management in Engineering 245 JULY 2011

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

 projects, and the owner used the developed building For this project, the GC coordinated with the
information model for sales and marketing presenta- architect and the owner at the predesign phase to pre-
tions (Azhar and Richter 2009). pare building information models of three different
design options. For each option, the BIM-based cost
Case Study 2: Savannah State University, estimates were also prepared using three different cost
Savannah, Georgia scenarios (budgeted, midrange, and high range), as
This case study illustrates the use of BIM at the project shown in Fig. 3. The owner was able to walk through
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

planning phase to perform options analysis (value all the virtual models to decide the best option that fit
analysis) for selecting the most economical and work- his requirements. Several collaborative 3D viewing
able building layout. The project details are as follows: sessions were arranged for this purpose. These collabo-
• Project: Higher education facility, Savannah State rative viewing sessions also improved communications
University, Savannah, Georgia and trust between stakeholders and enabled rapid
• Cost: $12 million decision making early in the process. The entire pro-
• Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maxi- cess took 2 weeks, and the owner achieved roughly
mum price $1,995,000 cost savings at the predesign stage by se-
• BIM scope: Planning, value analysis lecting the most economical design option. Although
• BIM cost to project: $5,000 it could be argued that the owner may have reached
• Cost benefit: $1,995,000 the same conclusion using traditional drawings, the

Figure 3. Scope and budget options for the Savannah State Academic Building: GSF = gross square foot; sf = square foot
(Courtesy of Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).

JULY 2011 246 Leadership and Management in Engineering

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

 use of BIM technology helped him make a quick, Case Study 4: Emory Psychology Building,
definitive, and well-informed decision. Atlanta, GA
The Emory Psychology Building is a LEED-certified,
110,000-square-foot facility on the campus of Emory
Case Study 3: The Mansion on Peachtree, University in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a multipurpose
Atlanta, Georgia structure designed to provide instructional and re-
The Mansion on Peachtree is a five-star mixed-use search space. The project details are as follows:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

hotel in Atlanta, Georgia. The project details are as

follows:
• Cost: $35 million
• Schedule: 16 months
• Cost: $111 million • Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maxi-
• Schedule: 29 months (construction) mum price
• Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maxi- • BIM scope: Sustainability analyses
mum price • BIM cost to project and cost benefit: n/a
• BIM scope: Planning, construction documentation The project architect developed the building infor-
• BIM cost to project: $1,440 mation model of the facility at the early design phase
• Cost benefit: $15,000 to determine the best building orientation and evalu-
It was a fast-track project, and the GC identified ate various skin options such as masonry, curtain wall,
the following issues at the project planning phase: and window styles, as shown in Fig. 5. The building
information model was also used to perform daylight
• Incomplete design and documents, studies, which, in effect, helped to decide the final
• Multiple uncoordinated consultants, positioning of the building on the site. To achieve
• Field construction ahead of design, this, views of the facility were established within
• Constant design development, and BIM software using the software’s sun positioning fea-
• Owner’s frequent scope changes. ture. Subsequently, shading and lighting studies and
The biggest challenge was how to maintain sched- right-to-light studies were conducted to determine
ule and ensure quality with incomplete and uncoordi- the effects of the sun throughout the year and the ef-
nated design and how to minimize risk and rework. fects of the facility on surrounding buildings. Right-
The project team decided to use BIM for project plan- to-light studies were also conducted to evaluate light-
ning and coordination. First, contract documents were ing conditions at the proposed facility’s courtyard
space and those spaces adjacent to the courtyard.
analyzed to flush out discrepancies and identify miss-
As a direct result of these studies, the building’s
ing items. Then coordinated shop drawings were pre- design was adjusted as follows:
pared via model extractions. These shop drawings
were reviewed with the design team to resolve any • Window openings on the west façade were reduced.
conflicts and issue a field use set to subcontractors • The penthouse, which is located on the roof of the
for coordination and construction. building, was reduced in overall square footage.
Initially, the project designers presented two finish- • The overall height of the building was reduced.
ing options (brick vs. precast) to the owner, as shown As all of these design adjustments were able to be in-
in Fig. 4(a). Via BIM viewer software, the owner corporated during the design phase, the analyses pre-
visually compared both options and selected the pre- vented costly and time-consuming redesign at later
cast one based on appearance and cost. Then, based on stages in the project life cycle.
the project drawings, the GC prepared the 3D interior
elevations to clarify interior details, as illustrated in
BIM RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
Fig. 4(b). If any component was found missing or con-
The return on investment (ROI) analysis is one of
flicting with the other component, an RFI was issued
the many ways to evaluate a proposed investment. It
to the designer to resolve this conflict before construc- compares the gain anticipated (or achieved) from an
tion. Finally, a 4D scheduling model was prepared investment against the cost of the investment (i.e.,
(Fig. 4(c)) to decide the construction sequence and ROI = earning/cost). ROI is typically used to evaluate
align all resources. Through these measures, the pro- many types of corporate investments, from research
ject team was able to complete the project on time and and development projects to training programs to
within budget. fixed asset purchases (Autodesk 2007).

Leadership and Management in Engineering 247 JULY 2011

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 4. Use of BIM in the Mansion on Peachtree Project (Courtesy of Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).

The McGraw-Hill Construction (2008) survey of level or above. It also found that the initial system cost
AEC industry participants indicated that 48% of did not seem to be a problem. Doubling the system
respondents were tracking BIM ROI at a moderate cost could reduce ROI only by up to 20% (Autodesk

JULY 2011 248 Leadership and Management in Engineering

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 5. Use of BIM for options analysis and sun studies in the Emory Psychology Building (Courtesy of Holder
Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).

2007). For this study, detailed cost data from 10 proj- projects. In some projects, BIM savings were measured
ects were acquired from HCC to perform the BIM ROI using “real” construction phase “direct” collision de-
analysis. The results are shown in Table 2. tection cost avoidance, and in other projects, savings
As evident from Table 2, the BIM ROI for different were computed using “planning” or “value analysis”
projects varied from 140% to 39,900%. On average, it phase cost avoidance. Also, none of these cost figures
was 1,633% for all projects and 634% for projects account for indirect, design, construction, or owner
without a planning or value analysis phase. Because administrative or other “second wave” cost savings
of the large data spread, it is hard to conclude a specific that were realized as a result of BIM implementation.
range for BIM ROI. The probable reason for this Hence, the actual BIM ROI can be far greater than
spread is the varying scope of BIM in different reported here.

Table 2. Building Information Modeling Return on Investment Analysis

Year Cost ($M) Project BIM scope BIM cost ($) Direct BIM savings ($) Net BIM savings ($) BIM ROI (%)
2005 30 Ashley Overlook P/PC/CD 5,000 (135,000) (130,000) 2600
2006 54 Progressive Data Center F/CD/FM 120,000 (395,000) (232,000) 140
2006 47 Raleigh Marriott P/PC/VA 4,288 (500,000) (495,712) 11560
2006 16 GSU Library P/PC/CD 10,000 (74,120) (64,120) 640
2006 88 Mansion on Peachtree P/CD 1,440 (15,000) (6,850) 940
2007 47 Aquarium Hilton F/D/PC/CD 90,000 (800,000) (710,000) 780
2007 58 1515 Wynkoop P/D/VA 3,800 (200,000) (196,200) 5160
2007 82 HP Data Center F/D/CD 20,000 (67,500) (47,500) 240
2007 14 Savannah State F/D/PC/VA/CD 5,000 (2,000,000) (1,995,000) 39900
2007 32 NAU Sciences Lab P/CD 1,000 (330,000) (329,000) 32900
Total all types 260,528 4,516,620 4,256,092 1633%
Totals without planning/VA phase 247,440 1,816,620 1,569,180 634%
Source: Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA.
Note: CD = construction documentation; D = design; F = feasibility analysis; FM = facilities management; GSU = Georgia State University;
NAU = Northern Arizona University; P = planning; PC = preconstruction services; ROI = return on investment; VA = value analysis.

Leadership and Management in Engineering 249 JULY 2011

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

 BIM RISKS owner of the building files suit over a perceived design
BIM risks can be divided into two broad categories: le- error. The architect, engineers, and other contributors
gal (or contractual) and technical. In the following para- to the BIM process look to each other in an effort to try
graphs, key risks in each category are briefly discussed. to determine who had responsibility for the matter
The first risk is the lack of determination of owner- raised. If disagreement ensues, the lead professional
ship of the BIM data and the need to protect it through not only will be responsible as a matter of law to
copyright laws and other legal channels. For example, the claimant but may have difficulty proving fault
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

if the owner is paying for the design, then the owner with others such as the engineers (Rosenberg 2007).
may feel entitled to own it, but if team members As the dimensions of cost and schedule are layered
are providing proprietary information for use on the onto the building information model, responsibility
project, their proprietary information needs to be pro- for the proper technological interface among various
tected as well. Thus, there is no simple answer to the programs becomes an issue. Many sophisticated
question of data ownership; it requires a unique re- contracting teams require subcontractors to submit
sponse for every project depending on the participants’ detailed critical path method schedules and cost
needs. The goal is to avoid inhibitions or disincentives breakdowns itemized by line items of work prior to
that discourage participants from fully realizing the the start of the project. The general contractor then
model’s potential (Thompson 2001). To prevent dis- compiles the data, creating a master schedule and cost
agreement over copyright issues, the best solution is breakdown for the entire project. When the subcon-
to set forth in the contract documents ownership rights tractors and prime contractor use the same software,
the integration can be fluid. In cases where the data
and responsibilities (Rosenberg 2007).
are incomplete or are submitted in a variety of sched-
When project team members other than the owner
uling and costing programs, a team member—usually
and architect/engineer contribute data that are inte-
a general contractor or construction manager—must
grated into the building information model, licensing
re-enter and update a master scheduling and costing
issues can arise. For example, equipment and material
program. That program may be a BIM module or an-
vendors offer designs associated with their products for
other program that is integrated with the building in-
the convenience of the lead designer in hopes of induc- formation model. At present, most of these project
ing the designer to specify the vendor’s equipment. management tools have been developed in isolation.
While this practice might be good for business, licens- Responsibility for the accuracy and coordination of
ing issues can arise if the designs were not produced by cost and scheduling data must be contractually
a designer licensed in the location of the project addressed (Thompson and Miner 2007).
(Thompson and Miner 2007). One of the most effective ways to deal with these
Another contractual issue to address is who will con- risks is to have collaborative, integrated project deliv-
trol the entry of data into the model and be responsible ery contracts in which the risks of using BIM are shared
for any inaccuracies. Taking responsibility for updat- among the project participants along with the rewards.
ing building information model data and ensuring its Recently, the American Institute of Architects released
accuracy entails a great deal of risk. Requests for com- an exhibit on BIM to help project participants define
plicated indemnities by BIM users and the offer of lim- their BIM development plan for integrated project de-
ited warranties and disclaimers of liability by designers livery (Building Design and Construction 2008). This
are essential negotiation points that need to be resolved exhibit may assist project participants in defining
before BIM technology is used. It also requires more model management arrangements, as well as author-
time spent inputting and reviewing BIM data, which ship, ownership, and level-of-development require-
is a new cost in the design and project administration ments, at various project phases.
process. Although these new costs may be dramatically
offset by efficiency and schedule gains, they are still a
cost that someone on the project team will incur. Thus, BIM FUTURE CHALLENGES
before BIM technology can be fully used, not only must The productivity and economic benefits of BIM to
the risks of its use be identified and allocated, but the the AEC industry are widely acknowledged and
cost of its implementation must be paid for as well increasingly well understood. Further, the technology
(Thompson and Miner 2007). to implement BIM is readily available and rapidly ma-
The integrated concept of BIM blurs the level of turing. Yet BIM adoption has been much slower than
responsibility so much that risk and liability are likely anticipated (Azhar, Hein et al. 2008). There are two
to be enhanced. Consider the scenario in which the main reasons, technical and managerial.

JULY 2011 250 Leadership and Management in Engineering

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

 The technical reasons can be broadly classified into facilities managers to enter the picture at a much ear-
three categories (Bernstein and Pittman 2005): lier stage, in which they can influence the design and
construction. The visual nature of BIM allows all
1. The need for well-defined transactional construc-
stakeholders to get important information, including
tion process models to eliminate data interoper-
tenants, service agents, and maintenance personnel,
ability issues,
before the building is completed. Finding the right
2. The requirement that digital design data be
time to include these people will undoubtedly be a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

computable, and
challenge for owners.
3. The need for well-developed practical strategies
for the purposeful exchange and integration of
meaningful information among the building
information model components. CONCLUSIONS
The management issues cluster around the imple- Building information modeling is emerging as an in-
mentation and use of BIM. Right now, there is no novative way to virtually design and manage projects.
Predictability of building performance and operation
clear consensus on how to implement or use BIM.
is greatly improved by adopting BIM. As the use of
Unlike many other construction practices, there is no
BIM accelerates, collaboration within project teams
single BIM document providing instruction on its
should increase, which will lead to improved profit-
application and use (Associated General Contractors
ability, reduced costs, better time management, and
of America 2005). Furthermore, little progress has
improved customer–client relationships. As shown
been made in establishing model BIM contract docu- in this paper, average BIM ROI for projects under
ments (Post 2009). Several software firms are cashing study was 634%, which clearly depicts its potential
in on the “buzz” of BIM and have programs to address economic benefits. At the same time, teams imple-
certain quantitative aspects of it, but they do not treat menting BIM should be very careful about the legal
the process as a whole. There is a need to standardize pitfalls, which include data ownership and associated
the BIM process and to define guidelines for its im- proprietary issues and risk sharing. Such issues must
plementation. Another contentious issue among the be addressed up front in the contract documents.
AEC industry stakeholders (i.e., owners, designers, BIM represents a new paradigm within AEC, one
and constructors) is who should develop and operate that encourages integration of the roles of all stake-
the building information models and how the devel- holders on a project. This integration has the potential
opmental and operational costs should be distributed. to bring about greater efficiency and harmony among
To optimize BIM performance, either companies or players who all too often in the past saw themselves as
vendors, or both, will have to find a way to lessen the adversaries. As in most paradigm shifts, there will
learning curve of BIM trainees. Software vendors have undoubtedly be risks. Perhaps one of the greatest risks
a larger hurdle of producing a quality product that is the potential elimination of an important check and
customers will find reliable and manageable and that balance mechanism inherent in the current paradigm.
will meet the expectations set by the advertisements. An adversarial stance often brings a more critical
Additionally, the industry will have to develop review of the project in a kind of mutual guarding of
acceptable processes and policies that promote BIM each participant’s own interests. In the early stages of
use and govern today’s issues of ownership and risk BIM, constructors worked from architectural plans
management (Post 2009). since digital models were not shared by architects with
Researchers and practitioners have to develop suit- contractors. The construction modelers inevitably
able solutions to overcome these challenges and other discovered errors and inconsistencies in the plans as
associated risks. As a number of researchers, practi- they created the building information models.
tioners, software vendors, and professional organiza- This brought about a natural redundancy as the con-
tions are working hard to resolve these challenges, struction model put the design to this virtual building
it is expected that the use of BIM will continue to test. With a more trustful sharing of architectural
increase in the AEC industry. drawings, which can easily be imported and serve
In the past, facilities managers have been included as the basis for the building information model, there
in the building planning process in a very limited may be a loss of this critical checking phase. In other
way, implementing maintenance strategies based on words, when all players see themselves as being on the
the as-built condition at the time the owner takes same team, they may cease to look for and find mis-
possession. In the future, BIM modeling may allow takes in each other’s work. In the past, a lack of critical

Leadership and Management in Engineering 251 JULY 2011

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

 review has been at least one of the component ingre- Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., and Liston, K.
dients of building failure. (2008). BIM handbook: A guide to building informa-
The future of BIM is both exciting and challeng- tion modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers
ing. It is hoped that the increasing use of BIM will and contractors, Wiley, New York.
enhance collaboration and reduce fragmentation in Glick, S., and Guggemos, A. (2009). “IPD and BIM:
the AEC industry and eventually lead to improved Benefits and opportunities for regulatory agen-
performance and reduced project costs. cies.” Proc., 45th Associated Schools of Construction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 2001:448a:6102:d80a:ace6:3cae:7604:8689 on 01/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

National Conference, Gainesville, FL.

Hardin, B. (2009). BIM and construction management,
REFERENCES Wiley, Indianapolis, IN.
Associated General Contractors of America. (2005). Khemlani, L., Papamichael, K., and Harfmann, A.
The contractor’s guide to BIM, 1st Ed., AGC (2006). “The potential of digital building
Research Foundation, Las Vegas, NV. modeling.” 〈http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/
Autodesk. (2007). “BIM’s return on investment.” potentialofdigital.pdf〉 (August 11, 2009).
〈http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/bim_roi Kunz, J., and Gilligan, B. (2007). “Values from VDC/
_jan07_1_.pdf〉 (August 30, 2009). BIM use.” 〈http://cife.stanford.edu/VDCsurvey
Azhar, S., Hein, M., and Sketo, B. (2008). “Building .pdf〉 (August 22, 2009).
information modeling: Benefits, risks and chal- McGraw-Hill Construction. (2008). Building informa-
lenges.” Proc., 44th Associated Schools of Construction tion modeling: Transforming design and construction to
National Conference, Auburn, AL. achieve greater industry productivity, New York.
Azhar, S., Nadeem, A., Mok, J. Y. N., and Leung, B. Post, N. (2009). “Building team members see progress
H. Y. (2008). “Building information modeling and problems.” Eng. News-Rec., 262(12), 28.
(BIM): A new paradigm for visual interactive Rosenberg, T. L. (2007). “Building information
modeling and simulation for construction proj- modeling.” 〈http://www.ralaw.com/resources/
ects.” Proc., First International Conference on Construc- documents/Building%20Information%20
tion in Developing Countries, Karachi, Pakistan, Modeling%20-%20Rosenberg.pdf〉 (August 22,
435–446. 2009).
Azhar, S., and Richter, S. (2009). “Building informa- Thompson, D. B. (2001). “e-Construction: Don’t get
tion modeling (BIM): Case studies and return- soaked by the next wave.” Construction Law Brief-
on-investment analysis.” Proc., Fifth International ing Paper. 〈http://www.minnlaw.com/Articles/
Conference on Construction in the 21st Century, 68553.pdf〉 (August 29, 2009).
Istanbul, Turkey, 1378–1386. Thompson, D. B., and Miner, R. G. (2007). “Building
Bazjanac, V. (2006). “Virtual building environments information modeling—BIM: Contractual risks
(VBE)—Applying information modeling to are changing with technology.” 〈http://www
buildings.” 〈http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/ .aepronet.org/ge/no35.html〉 (August 22, 2009).
LBNL-56072〉 (August 29, 2009).
Bernstein, P. G., and Pittman, J. H. (2005). “Barriers
to the adoption of building information modeling
in the building industry.” Autodesk Building Solu- Salman Azhar is assistant professor,
tions Whitepaper, Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA. McWhorter School of Building Science, College of
Building Design and Construction. (2008). “New AIA Architecture, Design and Construction, Auburn
documents include BIM agreement and two new University, Auburn, AL. The author expresses
IPD contracts.” 〈http://www.bdcnetwork.com/ his gratitude to Mr. Michael Lefevre, Vice Presi-
article/CA6600255.html〉 (August 29, 2009). dent, Holder Construction Company, Atlanta,
Carmona, J., and Irwin, K. (2007). “BIM: Who, what, GA, for providing necessary data and feedback.
how and why.” Building Operating Management. Appreciation is also due to undergraduate stu-
〈http://www.facilitiesnet.com/software/article/ dents Mr. Blake Sketo, Ms. Sara Richter, and
BIM-Who-What-How-and-Why–7546〉 (Au- Mr. Russell Glass for collecting the necessary lit-
gust 21, 2009). erature and compiling the presented information.
CRC Construction Innovation. (2007). Adopting BIM This study was supported by Seed Grant 2008
for facilities management: Solutions for managing the provided by the College of Architecture, Design
Sydney Opera House, Cooperative Research Center and Construction, Auburn University. Dr. Azhar
for Construction Innovation, Brisbane, Australia. can be contacted at [email protected]. LME

JULY 2011 252 Leadership and Management in Engineering

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252