This item was submitted to Loughborough's Research Repository by the author.

Items in Figshare are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The advantages of information management through building information

modelling
PLEASE CITE THE PUBLISHED VERSION

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.777754

PUBLISHER

© Taylor & Francis

VERSION

AM (Accepted Manuscript)

LICENCE

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

REPOSITORY RECORD

Demian, Peter, and David Walters. 2019. “The Advantages of Information Management Through Building
Information Modelling”. figshare. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/12185.
 This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository
(https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the
following Creative Commons Licence conditions.

For the full text of this licence, please go to:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
 Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754

The Advantages of Information Management through Building

Information Modelling

Abstract

As Building Information Modelling (BIM) is positioned by governments and construction professionals as a

solution to the problems in the construction industry, research is needed into the benefits BIM actually confers.

The focus here is on the effectiveness of BIM as a medium for communicating information within a

construction team. A case study of an off-site precast concrete fabrication facility was conducted. At the time

of the study, the facility was supplying precast units for four public sector projects, and using four information

management systems: email, a construction project extranet tool, an Enterprise Resource Planning system

and a new BIM-based system. The flow of information through the four media was measured and visualised

as the projects progressed. This quantitative measurement of information flow was combined with qualitative

data from interviews with facility staff. It was found that the introduction of the BIM-based system diverted

information flow through the building model and away from the extranet system. The use of email was largely

unaffected. that BIM allowed considerably more accurate, on-time and appropriate exchange of information. It

is concluded it is possible to quantify some of the benefits of BIM to information management. This research

paves the way for future research into the management of more construction project information linked more

closely to building models.

Keywords

Building Information Modelling, Information Management, Construction Information

1
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
1 Introduction

The emergence of Building Information Modelling (BIM) warrants a fresh look at information flows and

communication in building design and construction. A review of historical data (Teicholz 2001) showed that

while productivity in all non-farming industries had more than doubled over a 40-year period, construction

productivity had fallen by around 5%. Another study suggests that communication and data handling

accounts for between 75% and 90% of a project manager’s time in the construction industry (Fisher & Yin

1992). Although comparisons across different industrial sectors are difficult to make and interpret, such

published findings suggest that the recent innovations in information management and the level of

collaboration seen in other industries have not yet been fully realised in construction. Even within

construction, a more recent study (Eastman and Sacks 2008) implies that innovations such as BIM are

facilitating productivity gains in offsite (more than in onsite) construction.

Whilst there is a consensus that construction is a low-performing sector in terms of innovation (Sexton and

Barrett 2003, Pries and Janszen 1995, Slaughter 1998), the reasons for this remain unclear; Reichstein et al.

(2005) identify six factors, unique to the industry, affecting the UK construction industry’s ability to innovate.

Those are the:

• Liability of projects

• Liability of immobility

• Liability of uncertain demand

• Liability of smallness

• Liability of separation

• Liability of assembly

These liabilities go some way to explaining why concepts from mass production and lean thinking have

never been particularly relevant to construction (Winch 2003), but ideas centred on information

management systems bear significantly more relevance to the project-driven nature of construction. In

particular, recent and ongoing developments in BIM hold the potential to bring significant benefits to the

transfer, storage and access of construction project information (Eastman et al. 2008, Huang et al. 2009).

The aim is to measure the benefits and challenges involved in the application of a BIM-based system for

construction information management, through analysis of primary data collected at an off-site precast

2
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
concrete fabrication facility. This is achieved by measuring the volumes of information and workflow rates

through BIM and other media. The off-site precast concrete fabrication facility was a subsidiary of the large

general contractor, but was run autonomously. The two organisations had independent information

management platforms, but the close relationship between the two facilitated some degree of coordination

between the various information systems, and allowed measurements to be taken for the purpose of this

research.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Construction Information Management

A number of studies have highlighted both the extent (Hendrickson and Au 2003) and importance (Howell

1999) of information management activities in construction. Despite significant research and investment,

studies formulating and applying new financial models to large-scale construction projects in the US have

shown that construction organisations are largely dissatisfied with their IT investments (Pena-Mora et al.

1999), from the perspective of managers monitoring return on investment. Jacobsson and Linderoth (2010)

find in a Swedish case study that the transient nature of project teams (“temporary organisations”) limits the

drive to deploy information management technologies. They report (2012) that the end users of these

technologies are generally “fairly satisfied”. Those studies seem to lean more towards qualitative data and

user perceptions as a research approach, in contrast to the research presented here which favours

quantitative data and numerical measurement of information flow.

In trying to propose new technologies and frameworks for information management, researchers have found

that information management and exchange within construction typically still takes place manually, with

individuals or organisations reformatting and manually distributing information (Dawood et al. 2002),

normally on a document level (Anumba et al. 2008). This leads to wasted time and cost through data loss

when information is exchanged or converted, inefficiencies through rework, further wasted time spent

identifying the useful information in a document (Anumba et al. 2008), and the late, incomplete,

uncoordinated and/or inappropriate exchange of information. The fragmented nature of the construction

industry frequently leads to incompatibilities in semantics, process and software between collaborating

organisations (clients, designers, contractors, suppliers, and so on), amplifying the waste mentioned above

(Anumba et al. 2008, Abukhder and Munns 2005).

3
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754

Taken cumulatively, it is therefore clear that the key requirement in any improved information management

system is the co-ordination of information exchange. Dawood et al. (2002) discuss the challenges involved

in creating a system that will ‘meet the different views and needs of the multiple professional disciplines

involved in the construction process’. BIM is well positioned to meet these needs in construction. Sacks et

al (2010) have identified the synergies between the principles of BIM and lean construction, and observed

that information can be managed according to lean principles. However little work is published specifically

on measuring information flows through BIM to evaluate its impact on the challenge of information exchange

and co-ordination.

2.2 What is Building Information Modelling?

BIM means different things to different people and in different contexts. BIM is generally ‘a modelling

technology and associated set of processes to produce, communicate and analyse building models’

(Eastman et al. 2008). BIM builds upon the concepts of 3D modelling by incorporating non-graphical object

data into the model. Many studies define BIM through the benefits it confers, including parametric modelling

(Huang et al., 2009), detailed building analysis (Krygiel et al. 2008), 4D programming whereby the

construction programme is linked into the building model (Mahalingam et al. 2010), 5D modelling, whereby

cost data is also integrated into the building model (Goedert and Meadati, 2008) and more generally nD

modelling (Marshall-Ponting and Aouad, 2005). For the purposes of the research presented here, BIM is

defined as a comprehensive accumulation of information (including documents) about the design,

construction and operation of a building, anchored to a geometric (2D/3D) model of the building (as such a

model emerges). The fundamental subtlety that makes a building model a BIM model (rather than, say, a

CAD model) is the object orientation and the symbolic information linked to the geometry. A 3D shape

might have the symbol “column” labelling it, enabling other information systems as well as human users to

use that geometric information as a building object more effectively.

BIM now constitutes a set of maturing technologies and work processes. BIM research has been widely

published in Construction Management and Economics (Fox and Hietanen, 2007, Li et al., 2011) and

elsewhere. BIM technology has already delivered benefits in building construction (Giel and Issa, 2010;

Aranda-Mena et al., 2008; Leicht and Messner, 2008; Lee et al 2012). However no studies could be found

4
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
which attempt to measure the volume of information flowing through a BIM model as a communication

medium, compared to other media.

2.3 Barriers to BIM Adoption

Whilst the documented benefits are widespread and significant, sizeable research effort has also been

expended identifying the current barriers to implementing BIM more extensively. Eastman, et al (2008)

highlight that ‘BIM is not a thing or a type of software but a human activity that ultimately involves broad

process changes in construction.’ In order to gain the full benefits of BIM, these changes must be made

gradually and within multiple collaborating organisations, with decisions regarding the implementation made

on a project-by-project basis.

A broad category of process changes relates to the significant volume of training required. A relatively

steep learning curve is associated with a switch to BIM technologies, with the first employees to undergo

training likely to be unproductive, especially as they will need to customize tools for the company’s own uses

(Krygiel et al. 2008).

From a contractual standpoint, the increased collaboration between organisations employing BIM means an

increased entwining of fortunes. Current contract terms do not allow for this collective responsibility, nor do

current tools provide enough support for tracking and monitoring changes. The closer collaborative working

facilitated by BIM also highlights the problem of interoperability. In an evaluation of the interoperability issue

in BIM, Grilo and Jardim-Goncalves (2010) identify interoperability as a major barrier to BIM adoption. In

the US, studies suggest that inadequate interoperability within the capital facilities industry costs $15.8

billion each year (Gallaher et al., 2004). Standards are common throughout the construction industry

already (Björk and Laakso, 2010), but the implementation of BIM requires the development of new

standards, particularly those specifically for construction.

2.4 Attempts to Measure Information Flow

Despite numerous research efforts identifying the benefits and barriers to the use of BIM, relatively few

studies have attempted to measure these in use. This study adapts the measurement techniques built by

Tribelsky and Sacks (2010), who took the concepts of lean thinking (Womack, Jones and Roos, 1990) and

leveraged them as a system of measuring and quantifying information flow in the detailed design phase of
5
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
construction projects. Based on Hicks’ (2007) definition of waste within information management, the study

analysed information flow during the design development phase of 14 construction projects, utilising 7

indices; action rate, package size, work in process, batch size, development velocity, bottlenecks, and

rework.

3 Method

3.1 Methodology

This research spans construction management and information management, a young field deserving

careful choice of research method(s) to address a particular type of research question. Researchers in

information systems (Fitzgerald and Howcroft 1998) have taken a humorous look at the tension between

“hard” and “soft” research in that field. Standard texts on construction research methods (e.g. Fellows and

Liu 2003) often implicitly map the friction between hard and soft research to the distinction between

collecting and analysing quantitative versus qualitative data. As part of measuring the benefits and

challenges of applying BIM, the research reported here attempts to quantify information flows through BIM

and other systems. This suggests taking a quantitative, positivist approach and is reflected in the method

adopted of measuring and visualising information flows. Still, it is recognised that such quantities are

context dependent; the world is sometimes best understood through an interpretivist lens, whereby reality is

socially constructed. The measurements of information flow were therefore accompanied by interviews with

staff from the fabrication facility to allow a holistic consideration of the projects studied, the systems used for

information management and the relationship between the fabrication facility and the other project

stakeholders.

3.2 Primary Data

A mixed methods approach was adopted, combining quantitative measurement of actual information flows

with qualitative recordings of perceptions of the quality of information flow. Measurement data consisted of

information flow logs exported from the four primary information systems used by an off-site fabrication

facility in the UK. This quantitative data was supplemented with interviews with five employees from the

business. Four case study building construction projects were selected:

1. Project 1 – a university project in the South-East of England, requiring the fabrication and delivery of

795 units.

6
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
2. Project 2 – a Building Schools for the Future scheme project in the South-East of England, requiring the

fabrication and delivery of 695 units.

3. Project 3 – a Building Schools for the Future scheme project in the South-East of England, requiring the

fabrication and delivery of 369 units.

4. Project 4 – a small hospital project in the South-West of England, requiring the fabrication and delivery

of 72 units.

These four projects were selected because they spanned the rollout of a new BIM-based workflow system,

and as such would provide a good opportunity for comparison, since Projects 1 and 2 would not be utilising

the new BIM-based workflow, whilst Projects 3 and 4 would. The window during which data was collected

was just after Project 1 was completed, with all units prefabricated and delivered. Projects 2, 3, and 4 were

“live” during data collection, with production and delivery on-going as weekly information flow logs were

exported. The figures for precast units quoted above give an indication of the scale and complexity of the

four projects; all four were public sector projects of moderate complexity and stakeholder team sizes, with

Project 4 significantly smaller than Projects 1, 2 and 3. The four projects selected form only a part of the

total operational activity of the facility.

Four primary information systems were analysed;

1. Email – general communications,

2. Asite – storage and transfer of design, commercial and planning information,

3. SAP – for transfer and storage of commercial information, used internally only,

4. PPManager – new BIM-based information management and co-ordination tool under continuing

development by Nemetschek, for the management and transfer of design and planning information

through the building model.

While other information flows were present within the facility (telephone calls, printed documents and face-

to-face discussion), the four primary flows above form the foundation for the majority of information

exchange, and as such provide as near to a comprehensive view of the information workflows as is

possible. A comprehensive study would quantitatively analyse the entire information flow through the

facility, through all channels, but time and resourcing constraints made this unrealistic.

7
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
Email remains a popular medium, despite the appearance of new technologies for information and

document exchange in construction. Many construction projects use an extranet to address the problems of

version control and co-ordination inherent in email. Asite is such an extranet system, whereby project

participants have controlled access to a central repository of project documents and project workflow forms

over the Internet. SAP is an enterprise application software package used to manage enterprise

information internally; in the projects studied for this research, SAP was used primarily to manage

commercial information such as cost estimates, formal price quotations, commercial approval documents

and formal order forms. PPManager (Precast Part Manager) is an object-oriented system which allows all

building information (such as cost data, production and delivery dates) to be linked to objects in the

graphical model, driven by an underlying database system. The database operates using a client-server

software architecture, allowing views of the central model to be retrieved over the internet. In this sense,

PPManager fits within the working definition of BIM adopted here as it is designed specifically to facilitate

information flow though models of precast concrete components. The interaction between the four systems

(Email, Asite, SAP and PP Manager) was only possible through documents. Report documents could be

exported from SAP, PPManager and Asite; these documents could be circulated through email and Asite,

or linked to particular components in the PPManager model.

3.3 Visualising and Measuring Information Flows

In order to analyse the information flow measurement data in a structured way, a hierarchical information

paradigm was utilised (Tribelsky and Sacks, 2010, Tribelsky and Sacks, 2011), in which the fundamental

units for measurement are defined. As illustrated in Figure 1, these are:

1. Information Object – A component or constituent part of a building or facility, about which information is

being conveyed (e.g. a wall).

2. Information Attribute – ‘a technical, engineering or management attribute of an information object such as

its dimensions, material type, supplier name, colour, price, etc. The value of an information attribute may

appear in any number of information packages.’ (Tribelsky and Sacks, 2010)

3. Information Package – A document used for the communication and transfer of information attributes.

This includes 2D drawings, spreadsheets, text documents or email exchanges, and ‘are the basic units

that are transferred between project team members’ (Tribelsky and Sacks, 2010).

8
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
4. Information Batch – A collection of information packages transferred by a project participant

simultaneously.

5. Project Action – a project participant performs an action in order to communicate information, either

specifically to an individual or generally to the entire project.

These definitions were then used to formulate a number of visualisation and measurement tools, allowing

characteristic analysis of information flow over time, and at numerous levels of detail.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]

Table 1 summarises the information flow measurement metrics developed. The action rate allows analysis

of the total quantity of information being transferred either over the whole project, between two project

events, or between two arbitrary dates. To calculate the action rate between dates t1 and t2:

Where represents the cumulative number of project actions up to date t1, and represents the

project week number at date t1.

The revision rate is a further extension of the action rate, and expresses the rate at which revised information

packages are transferred between two dates;

Revision Rate

Where represents the cumulative number of revised information packages transferred up to date t1,

and represents the project day number at date t1.

The information iteration metric is a measure of the quantity of revised information packages, in relation to

the total number of information packages transferred;

Where represents the number of revised packages transferred on day , and denotes the

total number of information packages transferred on day . It should be noted that this metric includes for
9
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
multiple revisions of the same package; if a revision is issued of a previously revised package, both revised

packages are included in the summation.

The systems utilisation metric looks at the relative proportions of information attributes transferred through

the four primary information systems;

Where denotes the number of information packages transferred on the th day through system ,

and indicates the number of information packages transferred on the th day through all systems.

The information inventory metric measures the time taken for information packages to be used when issued

to a team member; it measures the delay in information usage, whereby a higher result indicates poorer flow.

This can be measured overall for a project or in relation to a particular team member, whereby the

information inventory metric for team member at time ;

Where denotes the number of information packages uploaded by time , denotes the time at

which package was uploaded, and is equal to 1 if package has not been downloaded or viewed

by team member ; if the package has been viewed or downloaded.

The final metric, batching, measures the average size of information batches as defined above. Whilst

batching of information is commonplace within the industry, high levels of batching can indicate particularly

poor flow, as well as the appearance of bottlenecks. For information system ;

Where indicates the total number of information packages transferred through system , and

represents the total number of project actions carried out through system .
10
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754

These metrics form the basis for the measurement of information flows across the four primary information

systems and the four projects. Alongside the visualisation measurements described above, they allow

comparison between projects as well as assessment of the impact of implementing the PPManager model-

based information management system.

[INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]

4 Results: Analysis of Information Flows

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in parallel with quantitative data collection and analysis, allowing

one to inform the other. Four primary themes emerged, under which headings the subsequent analysis is

presented:

1. Information transfer (especially using email),

2. Information storage,

3. Accessibility of information, and

4. Information redundancy.

4.1 Information Transfer

In Figure 2, information flow for Project 2 (which did not use PPManager) is visualised at three levels of

detail; at the project action level, the information package level and the information attribute level (as defined

above), whereby a project action includes one or more information packages, and an information package

conveys one or more information attributes. On each chart, the x-axis represents time, against the number

of items transferred on the primary y-axis. Information items are aggregated for the SAP, Asite and

PPManager and are categorised as either planning, design or commercial. Categorisation was manual, with

a small subset re-categorised by a second researcher to ensure validity of categorisation. A secondary bar

chart illustrates the number of project emails, providing further context to the information transfer data.

(Categorisation of emails transpired to be a practically impossible task because of the volume of emails and

the complexity of their contents.) Interviews suggested that these measurements are in line with the

perceived flows, but also highlight a number of undesirable phenomena.

[INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE]

11
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
It is evident that the programme is being used as a ‘live’ tracking tool. Planning actions took the form of

updating the project programme document and circulating it using Asite. The planning line in the project

actions chart in Figure 2 suggests that the project programme document was revised 10 times a week

during the production phase, involving the repeated transfer of one information package, containing a large

number of information attributes. Analysis of Asite data shows that the project programme has seen 129

revisions, and 199 downloads. The Action Rate metric reflects this, with a value of 11.2 planning packages

transferred per week during the production phase. This practice was corroborated through the interviews,

and creates challenges in access and interpretation of information, since large quantities of information are

repeatedly transferred; this is manifested in an increase in email traffic to aid interpretation.

Further data analysis demonstrates how the use of PPManager mitigates against this undesirable

information transfer process. Figure 3 compares the transfer of planning information attributes during the

production phases of Project 1 (without PPManager) and Project 3 (with PPManager).

[INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE]

Project 1 shows a dumbbell curve of i transfer over the production phase; at its peak, the project participants

were transferring nearly 90,000 information attributes in a week, with a weekly action rate for planning

packages of 9.65. This suggests that for Project 1, the programme was being revised twice a day. Such

huge data transfer is both largely redundant and difficult to access. There seems to be a rough correlation

between the flow of planning information through email and that through the other information systems (for

Project 1, this was predominantly Asite, but also included nominally SAP). This implies that uploading an

updated programme to Asite lacked richness, and necessitated supplemental email communication to

provide context and rationale to this exchange of information attributes.

Project 3 used PPManager to distribute the majority of its planning data; after an initial large generation of

data, day-to-day changes were reflected within a ‘live’ planning view of the PPManager model accessible by

all users. This greatly improves information visibility, and drastically reduces the amount of redundant

information flow, and hence the amount of time spent searching and retrieving information. In Project 3, the

absolute quantities of information flow (through both PPManager and email) are much smaller, and there is
12
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
a weaker correlation between the two. When comparing absolute values of information flow, it must be

noted that the projects differed slightly in scale (with Project 1 requiring delivery of 795 precast units,

compared to 369 units for Project 3).

4.2 Email for Information Transfer

Contradicting impressions of email were inferred from the qualitative and quantitative data. Interviewees felt

that email was incorrectly and over-used, but measurement data suggests it is a highly relied upon tool; a

total of 3,322 emails were recorded across four projects, with a peak of 160 emails for one project within a

week.

It is hypothesised that the use of PPManager on a project increases the ease with which information is

transferred, thereby causing a drop in the use of and reliance on email. This hypothesis was supported by

the interviews, and theoretically manifests itself through a reduction in the systems utilisation metric for

email, and a corresponding drop in the number of planning-related emails.

Figure 4 displays the systems utilisation metric calculated using the equation given above, for the four

projects and systems. Projects 3 and 4 see a significant drop in the use of Asite, as the majority of the

planning and design information previously transferred through Asite is now maintained in PPManager; but

a drop of between 1% and 6% can be seen in the use of email between those projects using PPManager,

and those that did not. Analysis of email data showed there was no discernible change in the number of

planning-related emails transferred, thereby not supporting the hypothesis. This is possibly caused by a

‘legacy effect’ of the recent implementation of PPManager, since users were not yet entirely comfortable

with the new system.

The average size (in megabytes) of email messages dropped by 30% in those projects utilising PPManager.

This could be a reflection of reduced reliance on email to transfer large files, but could equally reflect

differences in project size and scope; it cannot therefore confirm or disprove the above hypothesis.

[INSERT FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE]

4.3 Information Storage

13
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
The quantitative data indicated a significant shift away from Asite and towards PPManager, as shown in

Figure 4. Interviewees noted a number of benefits associated with this change, most notably including a

reduction in the ‘significant amount of administration’ associated with using Asite for information storage, as

well as an easing of document control-related problems. Interviewees noted that Asite ‘can only cope with

quite a small number of file types’, inhibiting its use for storage of files of certain proprietary formats.

Interviewees noted document control as a central benefit of PPManager. A significant difference between

PPManager and Asite as information management tools is the storage structure they each employ. Whilst

Asite uses a folder and file metaphor, all PPManager data is linked to the building model. Since many

issues relating to use of incorrect or outdated information stem from information storage problems, the fact

that PPManager minimises the opportunity for human error helps to reduce these problems. Interviewees

noted that the current use of spreadsheets for planning information is ‘prone to human error’, suggesting

that PPManager could take away half of all spreadsheet-based work.

4.4 Accessibility of Information

Interviewees observed that the greatest benefits of PPManager pertained to issues of accessibility.

Analysis of planning data for Projects 1 and 2 showed that a total of 28 hours and 15 minutes had been

spent editing the two programme spreadsheets, with between 22 and 33 minutes spent on each revision.

During this time, other project participants could not view the latest project information; considering that the

documents were viewed a combined total of 453 times, by up to 16 different project participants, there is a

reasonable chance that a project participant made use of incorrect or out-dated information. The key

problem with this practice however, is the difficulties involved in accessing and interpreting a package

containing up to 5,000 information attributes. By contrast, all interviewees praised the interface employed

by PPManager as a significant improvement compared to document-based information management.

PPManager utilises the building and unit models to convey all information. A further benefit noted by

interviewees was the depth of available information. Whilst the document-based system only allows access

to those information attributes stored within each document, the model-based system utilised by

PPManager means that all design and planning information attributes related to a particular unit are

accessible within a single view.

14
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
4.5 Information Redundancy

Table 2 shows the metrics relevant to information redundancy calculated for the four projects. The projects

showed comparable action rates, with the relative differences in action rate corresponding roughly to the

differences in scale between the four projects (i.e. the number of precast units to be delivered for each

project). With regards to project revision rates data, whilst all projects showed a similar information iteration

metric, Projects 1 and 2 showed a higher revision rate during the production phase. This observation could

be caused by the change in process associated with PPManager; interviewees noted a contrast between

the ‘hand to mouth’ approach used before PPManager and the more timely access to data possible when

using PPManager. Interviewees discussed the increased emphasis on earlier and accurate project data

brought about by PPManager. This observation is manifested in the reduced in revision rates during the

later stages of Projects 3 and 4.

[INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]

Calculation of the information inventory metrics using Asite data allows inferences to be drawn regarding the

speed and demand for information flow within a project. The data suggests that information did not flow fast

enough for downstream receivers, particularly within the production project phase; this observation was

corroborated through interviews. Since Projects 3 and 4 did not make use of Asite in such a way, it was not

possible to draw conclusions regarding the benefits PPManager confers within this area.

A final interpretation of information redundancy concerns ‘positive redundancy’, or backup systems. It was

noted by an interviewee that the extent and availability of the data stored on PPManager would cause

significant problems if the system became unavailable, and the quality and availability of backup systems is

in no way clear.

4.6 Comparability of Project Case Studies

The level of comparison between the four case study projects is constrained by the relative scope and size

of each; whilst the total quantity of information packages increases with the number of units to be fabricated,

the core process requirements applied to each project also lead to the generation of a significant quantity of

information packages unrelated to the project’s size. Therefore the number of information attributes only

15
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
loosely correlates to the project size, with additional influences such as the wider project nature and

complexity also contributing to the information flow characteristics.

5 Conclusions

The problems found in typical information management systems applied to building construction projects

have been pinpointed through measurement and visualisation of information flow, and correlated with

interview data. Whilst the benefits and challenges of implementing a BIM-based solution in such projects

have been identified qualitatively, it was only possible to measure some (but not all) of these benefits and

challenges. The following conclusions can be drawn:

• For the time being, email is irreplaceable (from the data presented in Figures 2, 3 and 4). Given the

documented shortcomings of email, more research is needed to identify the flaws in alternative

information systems which prevent them from replacing email.

• A document (as an information package) is too coarse a grain of information to be exchanged,

actioned and revised. This is evident from Figure 3 and the observed practice of updating the

project programme by revising and circulating the project programme document.

• The construction extranet stands to benefit the most from aligning information management to the

building model. From Figure 4, the introduction of PPManager reduced the use of Asite.

Many of the benefits identified here aligned with those reported in literature, notably including accessibility

and interpretation of large volumes of construction information. Taken in unison, the measurement of

information flows highlighted a number of key underlying trends. The BIM-based solution helped to foster

more accurate, on-time and appropriate exchange of information between project participants, as well as

promoting earlier creation of critical information relating to design detailing, programming, logistics and co-

ordination that help to generate significant value during the later production phases. These underlying

trends were noted by the interviewees, and highlight the core potential of BIM as a mechanism by which to

foster significantly greater collaboration between project participants, thus placing considerable emphasis on

its role in ‘a human activity that ultimately involves broad process changes in construction’ (Eastman, et al.

2008).

16
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
Of course caution must be exercised when interpreting and generalising the results reported here. The four

construction projects studied represent a particular type and scale of project: medium scale, public sector

projects. The volume of information traffic would be greater in larger scale projects, as would the

importance of systems to manage this information. The results presented here imply that BIM (in the form of

PPManager) is appropriate for projects of a relatively small scale, and this agrees with some other research

(Sebastian 2010); however, it is to be expected that the information management advantages might be

more significant for larger scale projects (Aranda-Mena et al., 2008). PPManager is only applicable to

precast concrete construction. The developers of that system do not prominently label it as a “BIM”

platform, even though it clearly appears to strive for integrated information management.

The use of PPManager was championed by the fabrication facility; the use of Asite and SAP was supported

by the general contractor. The use of email was of course universal. The combined use of the different

media, and the changes in information flow reported here, were only possible because of the close

relationship between the general contractor and its subsidiary, the fabrication facility. Considered

collectively, the four systems monitored for information flow offer a reasonable representation of the full

range of information management systems. However those four systems played limited and distinct roles in

the projects studied, and it must be acknowledged that information will have been communicated through

other media as well, particularly informal media.

The research reported here paves the way for future research on measuring information flows and the value

of linking information do the graphical building model. Humans possess special cognitive strengths in

processing visual information: a fuller exploitation of those strengths can have fundamental implications for

the design of future BIM systems.

17
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
References

Abukhder, J. and Munns, A.K. (2005) 'Attributing Management Problems on Construction Projects to Project

Information', 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction

Management, pp. 543-552.

Anumba, C.J., Pan, J., Issa, R.R.A. and Mutis, I. (2008) 'Collaborative project information management in a

semantic web environment', Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 15(1) 1-17.

Aranda-Mean, G., Crawford, J., Chevez, A. and Froese, T (2008) ‘Building Information Modelling

Demystified: Does it Make Business Sense to Adopt BIM?’, paper presented at CIB W78 conference,

IT in Construction in Santiago, Chile.

Björk, B. and Laakso, M. (2010) 'CAD standardisation in the construction industry--A process view',

Automation in Construction 19(4) 398-406.

Dawood, N., Akinsola, A. and Hobbs, B. (2002) 'Development of automated communication of system for

managing site information using internet technology', Automation in Construction 11(5) 557-572.

stman, C. and Sacks, R. (2008). ”Relative Productivity in the AEC Industries in the United States for On-Site

and Off-Site Activities.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 134(7), 517–526.

Eastman, C.M., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K. (2008) BIM Handbook: A guide to building information

modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers, and contractors. New Jersey, USA: Wiley

Publishing.

Fellows, R., Liu, A, (2003). Research Methods for Construction. 2nd ed.. 2003.

Fisher, N. and Li Yin, S. (1992) Inforamation Management in a Contractor: A Model of The Flow of Project

Data, London: Thomas Telford.

Fitzgerald B and D Howcroft (1998). “Competing dichotomies in IS research and possible strategies for

resolution.” ICIS '98: Proceedings of the international conference on Information systems, pp 155-

164, Association for Information Systems Atlanta, GA.

Fox, S. and Hietanen, J. (2007) ‘Interorganizational use of building information models: potential for

automational, informational and transformational effects’, Construction Management and Economics

25(3) 289-296.

Gallaher, M.P., O'Conor, A.C., Dettbarn, J.L. and Gilday, L.T. (2004) 'Cost Analysis of Inadequate

Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry', National Institute of Standards & Technology,

Aug, 1-210.

18
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
Giel, B., Issa, R.R.A. and Olbina, S. (2010) ‘Quantitative Benefits of Building Information Modeling

Measured in Construction’, Proceedings Innovation in AEC, Penn State, University Station, June 9-11

2010

Goedert, J. and Meadati, P. (2008) 'Integrating construction process documentation into building information

modeling', Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 134(7) 509-516.

Grilo, A. and Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2010) 'Value proposition on interoperability of BIM and collaborative

working environments', Automation in Construction 19(5) 522-530.

Hendrickson, C. and Au, T.(2003) Project Management for Construction: Fundamental Concepts for
nd
Owners, Engineers, Architects and Builders, 22 edition, Pittsburgh: Prentice Hall.

Hicks, B. (2007) 'Lean information management: Understanding and eliminating waste', international Journal

of information Management 27(4) 233-249.

Howell, G.A. (1999) 'What is Lean Construction - 1999', Seventh Annual Conference of the International

Group for Lean Construction, Berkeley, CA.

Huang, T., Li, H., Guo, H., Chan, N., Kong, S., Chan, G. and Skitmore, M. (2009) 'Construction virtual

prototyping a survey of use', Construction Innovation 9(4) 420-433.

Jacobsson M, HCJ Linderoth (2010). “The influence of contextual elements, actors’ frames of reference,

and technology on the adoption and use of ICT in construction projects: a Swedish case study.”

Construction Management and Economics 28(1) 13-23.

Jacobsson M, HCJ Linderoth (2012). “User perceptions of ICT impacts in Swedish construction companies:

‘it’s fine, just as it is’”. Construction Management and Economics 30(5), 339–357.

Krygiel, E., Nies, B. and McDowell, S. (2008) Green BIM: successful sustainable design with building

information modeling, Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing.

Lee, G., H. K. Park, J. Won. “D3 City project — Economic impact of BIM-assisted design validation.”

Automation in Construction, 22 (March 2012), Pages 577–586

Li, H., Guo, H.L., Skitmore, M., Huang, T., Chan, K.Y.N. and Chan, G. (2011) ‘Rethinking prefabricated

construction management using the VP-based IKEA model in Hong Kong, Construction Management

and Economics 29(3), 233-245.

Leicht, R. and Messner, J. (2008) ‘Moving toward an ‘intelligent’ shop modeling process’, IT in Construction

13, 286-302, Available: http://www.itcon.org/2008/20

Mahalingam, A., Kashyap, R. and Mahajan, C. (2010) 'An evaluation of the applicability of 4D CAD on

construction projects', Automation in Construction 19(2) 148-159.

19
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
Marshall-Ponting, A. and Aouad, G. (2005) 'An nD modelling approach to improve communication

processes for construction', Automation in Construction 14(3) 311-321.

Nemetschek (2010) Nemetschek PPManager, [Online], Available: http://www.scia-online.com/en/PP-

manager.html [28 November 2010].

Pena-Mora, F., Vadhavkar, S., Perkins, E. and Weber, T. (1999) 'Information Technology Planning

framework for large-scale projects', Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 13(4) 226-237.

Pries, F. and Janszen, F. (1995) 'Innovation in the Construction Industry: the dominant role of the

environment', Construction Management and Economics 13, 43-51.

Reichstein, T., Salter, A. and Gann, D. (2005) 'Last among equals: a comparison of innovation in

construction, services and manufacturing in the UK', Construction Management and Economics

23(6)631-644.

Rischmoller, L., Fischer, M., Fox, R. and Alarcon, L. (2001) '4D planning and scheduling (4D-PS): grounding

construction IT research in industry practice', paper presented at CIB W78 Conference, IT in

Construction in Mpumalanga, Africa.

Sacks, R., Koskela, L., Dave, B., and Owen, R. (2010). ”Interaction of Lean and Building Information

Modeling in Construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(9), 968–980.

Sebastian R (2010). “Integrated Design and Engineering using Building Information Modelling: A Pilot

Project of Small-Scale Housing Development in The Netherlands,” Architectural Engineering and

Design Management, 6:2, 103-110.

Sexton, M. and Barrett, P. (2003) 'A literature synthesis of innovation in small construction firms: insights,

ambiguities and questions', Construction Management and Economics 21(6) 613-622.

Shim, C.S., Lee, K.M., Son, W.S. and Moon, J.W. (2008) ‘Collaborative Design of High-speed Railway Lines

using 3D information models’, paper presented at IABSE Conference, IABSE in Helsinki, Finland.

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

Management 124(3) 226-231.

Teicholz P (2001) “U.S. Construction Labor Productivity Trends, 1970-1998.” Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management, September/October 2001, pp.427-429.

Tribelsky, E. and Sacks, R. (2010) 'Measuring information flow in the detailed design of construction

projects', Research In Engineering Design 29(3) 189-206.

20
Peter Demian & David Walters (2013): “The advantages of information management through building
information modelling”, Construction Management and Economics, DOI:10.1080/01446193.2013.777754
Tribelsky E. and Sacks R (2011): “An Empirical Study of Information Flows in Multidisciplinary Civil

Engineering Design Teams using Lean Measures.” Architectural Engineering and Design

Management, 7(2) 85-101.

Winch, G. (2003) 'Models of manufacturing and the construction process: the genesis of re-engineering

construction', Building Research & Information 31(2) 107-118.

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990) The machine that changed the world, Toronto: Collier

Macmillan.

21
 Construction Management and Economics Page 48 of 53

1
2
3 Metric Description Units
4
Action Rate Rate of information transfer Actions/Time
5
6 Revision Rate Rate of revision transfer Revisions/Time
7
8 Information Iteration Proportion of revised information Percentage
9
10 Proportion of packages transferred through
Systems Utilisation Percentage
each information system
11
12 The number of available but unused
Information Inventory Information packages
13 information packages
14 Average number of packages transferred
Fo
15 Batching Information packages
simultaneously
16
17 Table 1: Information flow measurement metrics
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcme
Page 49 of 53 Construction Management and Economics

1
2
3
4
5 Metric Description Units Project Project Project Project
6 1 2 3 4
7 Action Rate Rate of information Actions/Time 62,3 75.1 25.0 16.5
transfer
8
Revision Rate of revision transfer Revisions/Time 6.9 13.5 0.8 2.4
9
Rate
10
Information Proportion of revised Percentage 11% 18% 3% 14%
11 Iteration information
12 Information The average number of Information 5.2 21.0 N/A N/A
13 Inventory available but unused Packages
14 information packages
Fo
15 The average number of Days 3.1 2.3 N/A N/A
16 days taken to complete
17 an action
18
rP
19
20 Table 2: Metrics related to information redundancy
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcme
 Construction Management and Economics Page 50 of 53

1
2
3 Information Attributes
Information Object
4 Cost, price, value
E.g. wall, door, Material, finish\components
5 column, floor, Order date, production date, delivery date
6 window Dimensions, area, volume, weight
Status, contact clauses, customer
7
8
9 TILE
………

10 ………
……… Information Package
………
2D Drawing
11 ………
……… 3D Model
………
12 ………
………
Email discussion
Spread sheet
13 ………
LOGO
Text document
14 Quotation
Fo
15
16
17 TILE
………TILE Information Batch
18 ………
………
………
………
TILE
rP
………
………
19 ………
………
………
………
………
………
……… Information System
………
20 ………
………
………
………
………
……… Information Action Asite, Email, PPManager, SAP
………………
21 ………………
LOGO
………
………
……… Team member communicates
………
or requests information
22 LOGO
………
LOGO
ee
23
24
25
26 Figure 1 - Illustration of the defined terms
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcme
Page 51 of 53 Construction Management and Economics

1 Email Commercial Design Planning

2 50 180
3
45 160
4

No. of emails sent

40

No. of Project Actions

5 140
6 35 120
7 30
100
8 25
9 80
20
10 60
15
11 40
12 10
13 5 20
14 0 0
Fo
15 0 10 20 30 40 50
16 Project Week Number
17
18
rP
19
20 Email Commercial Design Planning
21
80000 180
22
No. of Project Information Attributes

ee
23 70000 160

No. of emails sent

24 140
60000
25
120
26 50000
rR

27 100
40000
28 80
29 30000
60
30 20000 40
ev

31
32 10000 20
33 0 0
34 0 10 20 30 40 50
ie

35
Project Week Number
36
37
w

38
39 Email Commercial Design Planning
40
On

41 700 180
42 160
600
No. of emails sent

43
No. of Project Packages

140
44 500
45 120
ly

46 400 100
47 80
300
48
49 60
200
50 40
51 100 20
52
0 0
53
0 10 20 30 40 50
54
55 Project Week Number
56
57
58 Figure 2 - Information flows for Project 2 (without PPManager) measured by Project Actions (top),
59 Project Packages (middle) and Information Attributes (bottom)
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcme
 Construction Management and Economics Page 52 of 53

1
2
3
4 Project 1 (without PPManager)
5 100000 120
6
7 No. of planning information attributes 90000
8 Email 100
9 80000
10 Planning
70000
80

No. of emails sent

11
12 60000
13
50000 60
14
Fo
15 40000
16 40
17 30000
18
20000
rP
19 20
20 10000
21
22 0 0
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
ee
23
24 Projet 1 week number
25
26
rR

27
28 Project 3 (with PPManager)
29 2000 70
30
Email
ev

31 1800
No. of planning information attributes

32 Planning 60
33 1600
34 1400 50
ie

No. of emails sent

35
36 1200
40
37
w

38 1000
39 30
800
40
On

41 600 20
42
400
43
10
44 200
45
ly

46 0 0
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
48 Projet 3 week number
49
50
51 Figure 4 - Planning information attributes transferred during the production phase - Projects 1 and 3
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcme
Page 53 of 53 Construction Management and Economics

1
2
3
4
5 100%
6
7 90%
Percentage of Information Packages processed by each System

8
9 80%
10
70%
11
12 60% Asite
13
14 50% PPManager
Fo
15 SAP
16 40%
17 Email
18 30%
rP
19 20%
20
21 10%
22
ee
23 0%
24 Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4
25
26
rR

Figure 4 –Information Systems Utilisation in Projects 1, 2, 3 and 4

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcme