azhar 2011 bim_benifit-risks-challenges.pdf

Building InformationModeling (BIM): Trends,Benefits, Risks, andChallenges for theAEC IndustrySALMAN AZHAR, PH.D., A.M.ASCE

ABSTRACT: Building information modeling (BIM) is one of the most promising recentdevelopments in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. WithBIM technology, an accurate virtual model of a building is digitally constructed. Thismodel, known as a building information model, can be used for planning, design, con-struction, and operation of the facility. It helps architects, engineers, and constructorsvisualize 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, onethat 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 industryare discussed. The findings of this study provide useful information for AEC industrypractitioners considering implementing BIM technology in their projects.

The architecture, engineering, and con-struction (AEC) industry has longsought techniques to decrease projectcost, increase productivity and quality,and reduce project delivery time.Building information modeling (BIM)

offers the potential to achieve these objectives (Azhar,Nadeem et al. 2008). BIM simulates the constructionproject in a virtual environment. With BIM technol-ogy, an accurate virtual model of a building, known asa building information model, is digitally constructed.When completed, the building information modelcontains precise geometry and relevant data neededto support the design, procurement, fabrication,

and construction activities required to realize thebuilding (Eastman et al. 2008). After completion, thismodel can be used for operations and maintenancepurposes. Fig. 1 depicts the typical applications ofBIM at different stages of the project life cycle.

A building information model characterizes thegeometry, spatial relationships, geographic informa-tion, quantities and properties of building elements,cost estimates, material inventories, and project sched-ule. The model can be used to demonstrate the entirebuilding life cycle (Bazjanac 2006). As a result, quan-tities and shared properties of materials can be readilyextracted. Scopes of work can be easily isolated anddefined. Systems, assemblies, and sequences can be

Leader sh ip and Management in Eng inee r ing JULY 2011241

Downloaded 12 Jul 2011 to 147.8.134.156. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org

shown in a relative scale within the entire facility orgroup of facilities. Construction documents such asdrawings, procurement details, submittal processes,and other specifications can be easily interrelated(Khemlani et al. 2006).

BIM can be viewed as a virtual process that encom-passes all aspects, disciplines, and systems of a facilitywithin a single, virtual model, allowing all designteam members (owners, architects, engineers, contrac-tors, subcontractors, and suppliers) to collaborate moreaccurately and efficiently than using traditional proc-esses. As the model is being created, team membersare constantly refining and adjusting their portionsaccording to project specifications and design changesto ensure the model is as accurate as possible beforethe project physically breaks ground (Carmona andIrwin 2007).

It is important to note that BIM is not just software;it is a process and software. BIM means not only usingthree-dimensional intelligent models but also makingsignificant changes in the workflow and projectdelivery processes (Hardin 2009). BIM represents anew paradigm within AEC, one that encouragesintegration of the roles of all stakeholders on a project.It has the potential to promote greater efficiencyand harmony among players who, in the past, saw

themselves as adversaries (Azhar, Hein et al. 2008).BIM also supports the concept of integrated project de-livery, which is a novel project delivery approach tointegrate people, systems, and business structuresand practices into a collaborative process to reducewaste and optimize efficiency through all phases ofthe project life cycle (Glick and Guggemos 2009).

APPLICATIONS OF BUILDING INFORMATIONMODELING

A building information model can be used for thefollowing purposes:

• Visualization: 3D renderings can be easily generatedin house with little additional effort.

• Fabrication/shop drawings: It is easy to generateshop drawings for various building systems. For ex-ample, the sheet metal ductwork shop drawings canbe quickly produced once the model is complete.

• Code reviews: Fire departments and other officialsmay use these models for their review of buildingprojects.

• Cost estimating: BIM software has built-in costestimating features. Material quantities are automa-tically extracted and updated when any changes aremade in the model.

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

JULY 2011 Leadersh ip and Management in Eng ineer ing242


• Construction sequencing: A building informationmodel can be effectively used to coordinate materialordering, fabrication, and delivery schedules for allbuilding components.

• Conflict, interference, and collision detection:Because building information models are createdto scale in 3D space, all major systems can be in-stantly and automatically checked for interferences.For example, this process can verify that piping doesnot intersect with steel beams, ducts, or walls.

• Forensic analysis: A building information model canbe easily adapted to graphically illustrate potentialfailures, leaks, evacuation plans, and so forth.

• Facilities management: Facilities management de-partments can use it for renovations, space planning,and maintenance operations.

The key benefit of a building information model isits accurate geometrical representation of the parts ofa building in an integrated data environment (CRCConstruction Innovation 2007). Other related benefitsare as follows:

• Faster and more effective processes: Information ismore easily shared and can be value-added andreused.

• Better design: Building proposals can be rigorouslyanalyzed, simulations performed quickly, and per-formance benchmarked, enabling improved andinnovative solutions.

• Controlled whole-life costs and environmental data:Environmental performance is more predictable,and lifecycle costs are better understood.

• Better production quality: Documentation output isflexible and exploits automation.

• Automated assembly: Digital product data can beexploited in downstream processes and used formanufacturing and assembly of structural systems.

• Better customer service: Proposals are better under-stood through accurate visualization.

• Lifecycle data: Requirements, design, construction,and operational information can be used in facilitiesmanagement.

After gathering data on 32 major projects, StanfordUniversity’s Center for Integrated Facilities Engineer-ing reported the following benefits of BIM (cited inCRC Construction Innovation 2007):

• Up to 40% elimination of unbudgeted change,• Cost estimation accuracy within 3% as compared totraditional estimates,

• Up to 80% reduction in time taken to generate acost estimate,

• A savings of up to 10% of the contract valuethrough clash detections, and

• Up to 7% reduction in project time.

ROLE OF BIM IN THE AEC INDUSTRY:CURRENT AND FUTURE TRENDS

In this section, the role of BIM in the AEC industryand its current and future trends are discussed basedon the results of two questionnaire surveys. McGraw-Hill Construction (2008) published a comprehensivemarket report of BIM’s use in the AEC industry in2008 and projections for 2009 based on the findingsof a questionnaire survey completed by 82 architects,101 engineers, 80 contractors, and 39 owners (totalsample size of 302) in the United States. Some ofthe key findings are as follows:

• Architects were the heaviest users of BIM—43%used it on more than 60% of their projects—whilecontractors were the lightest users, with nearly half(45%) using it on less than 15% of projects and onlya quarter (23%) using it on more than 60% ofprojects.

• Eighty-two percent of BIM users believed thatBIM had a very positive impact on their company’sproductivity.

• Seventy-nine percent of BIM users indicated thatthe use of BIM improved project outcomes, suchas fewer requests for information (RFIs) and de-creased field coordination problems.

• Sixty-six percent of those surveyed believeduse of BIM increased their chances of winningprojects.

• Two-third of users mentioned that BIM had atleast a moderate impact on their external projectpractices.

• Sixty-two percent of BIM users planned to use it onmore than 30% of their projects in 2009.

The report predicted that prefabrication capabilities ofBIM would be widely used to reduce costs and im-prove the quality of work put in place. As a whole,BIM adoption was expected to expand within firmsand across the AEC industry.

Kunz and Gilligan (2007) conducted a question-naire survey to determine the value from BIM useand factors that contribute to success. The main find-ings of their study are as follows:

• The use of BIM had significantly increased across allphases of design and construction during thepast year.



• BIM users represented all segments of the designand construction industry, and they operatedthroughout the United States.

• The major application areas of BIM were construc-tion document development, conceptual designsupport, and preproject planning services.

• The use of BIM lowered overall risk distributedwith a similar contract structure.

• At the time of the survey, most companies usedBIM for 3D and 4D clash detections and for plan-ning and visualization services.

• The use of BIM led to increased productivity,better engagement of project staff, and reducedcontingencies.

• A shortage was noted of competent building infor-mation modelers in the construction industry, anddemand was expected to grow exponentially withtime.

The results of these surveys indicate that the AECindustry still relies very much on traditional drawingsand practices for conducting its business. At the sametime, AEC professionals are realizing the power ofBIM for more efficient and intelligent modeling. Mostof the companies using BIM reported in strong favor ofthis technology. The survey findings indicate thatusers want a BIM application that not only leveragesthe powerful documentation and visualization capabil-ities of a CAD platform but also supports multipledesign and management operations. BIM as a technol-ogy is still in its formative stage, and solutions in themarket are continuing to evolve as they respond tousers’ specific needs.

BIM BENEFITS: CASE STUDIES

In the above-mentioned surveys, the AEC industryparticipants indicated that BIM use resulted in timeand cost savings. However, no data were providedto quantify and support these facts. The followingfour case studies illustrate the cost and time savings

realized in developing and using a building informa-tion model for the project planning, design, precon-struction, and construction phases. All the datareported in this section were collected from theHolder Construction Company (HCC), a midsize gen-eral contracting company based in Atlanta, Georgia(hereinafter referred to as the general contractor,or GC).

Case Study 1: Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn,Atlanta, GeorgiaThe Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn project comprised amixed-use hotel, retail shops, and a parking deck.Brief project details are as follows:

• Project scope: $46 million, 484,000-square-foothotel and parking structure

• Delivery method: Construction manager at-risk(CM at-risk)

• Contract type: Guaranteed maximum price• BIM scope: Design coordination, clash detection,and work sequencing

• BIM cost to project: $90,000, or 0.2% of projectbudget ($40,000 paid by owner)

• Cost benefit: Over $200,000 attributed to elimina-tion of clashes

• Schedule benefit: 1,143 hours saved

Although the project had not been initially de-signed using BIM technology, beginning in thedesign development phase, the GC led the projectteam to develop architectural; structural; andmechanical, electrical, and plumbing models of theproposed facility, as shown in Fig. 2. These modelswere created using detail-level information from sub-contractors based on drawings from the designers.

After the initial visualization uses, the GC began touse these models for clash detection analysis. This BIMapplication enabled the GC to identify potential col-lisions or clashes between various structural andmechanical systems. During the design developmentphase, 55 clashes were identified, which resulted in a

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



cost avoidance of $124,500. Just this stage aloneyielded a net savings of $34,500 based on the originalbuilding information model development cost of$90,000. At the construction documents phase, themodel was updated and resolved collisions weretracked. Each critical clash was shared with the designteam via the model viewer and a numbered collisionlog with a record of individual images of each collisionper the architectural or structural discipline. The col-lision cost savings values were based on estimates formaking design changes or field modifications had thecollision not been detected earlier. More than 590clashes were detected before actual construction be-gan. The overall cost savings based on the 590 colli-sions detected throughout the project was estimated at$801,565, as shown in Table 1. For calculating netcost savings, a conservative approach was adoptedby assuming that 75% of the identified collisionscan be detected through conventional practices (e.g.,sequential composite overlay process using light

tables) before actual construction begins. Thus, thenet adjusted cost savings was roughly considered tobe $200,392.

During the construction phase, subcontractors alsomade use of these models for various installations.Finally, the GC’s commitment to updating the modelto reflect as-built conditions provided the owner a dig-ital 3D model of the building and its various systemsto help aid operation and maintenance proceduresdown the road.

In a nutshell, the Aquarium Hilton Garden Innproject realized some excellent benefits through theuse of BIM technology and certainly exceeded theexpectations of the owner and other project teammembers. The cost benefits to the owner were signifi-cant, and the unknown costs that were avoidedthrough collaboration, visualization, understanding,and identification of conflicts early were in additionto the reported savings. After this project, the archi-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.



projects, and the owner used the developed buildinginformation model for sales and marketing presenta-tions (Azhar and Richter 2009).

Case Study 2: Savannah State University,Savannah, GeorgiaThis case study illustrates the use of BIM at the projectplanning phase to perform options analysis (valueanalysis) for selecting the most economical and work-able building layout. The project details are as follows:

• Project: Higher education facility, Savannah StateUniversity, Savannah, Georgia

• Cost: $12 million• Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maxi-mum price

• BIM scope: Planning, value analysis• BIM cost to project: $5,000• Cost benefit: $1,995,000

For this project, the GC coordinated with thearchitect and the owner at the predesign phase to pre-pare building information models of three differentdesign options. For each option, the BIM-based costestimates were also prepared using three different costscenarios (budgeted, midrange, and high range), asshown in Fig. 3. The owner was able to walk throughall the virtual models to decide the best option that fithis requirements. Several collaborative 3D viewingsessions were arranged for this purpose. These collabo-rative viewing sessions also improved communicationsand trust between stakeholders and enabled rapiddecision making early in the process. The entire pro-cess took 2 weeks, and the owner achieved roughly$1,995,000 cost savings at the predesign stage by se-lecting the most economical design option. Althoughit could be argued that the owner may have reachedthe 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).



use of BIM technology helped him make a quick,definitive, and well-informed decision.

Case Study 3: The Mansion on Peachtree,Atlanta, GeorgiaThe Mansion on Peachtree is a five-star mixed-usehotel in Atlanta, Georgia. The project details are asfollows:

• Cost: $111 million• Schedule: 29 months (construction)• Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maxi-mum price

• BIM scope: Planning, construction documentation• BIM cost to project: $1,440• Cost benefit: $15,000

It was a fast-track project, and the GC identifiedthe following issues at the project planning phase:

• Incomplete design and documents,• Multiple uncoordinated consultants,• Field construction ahead of design,• Constant design development, and• Owner’s frequent scope changes.

The biggest challenge was how to maintain sched-ule and ensure quality with incomplete and uncoordi-nated design and how to minimize risk and rework.The project team decided to use BIM for project plan-ning and coordination. First, contract documents wereanalyzed to flush out discrepancies and identify miss-ing items. Then coordinated shop drawings were pre-pared via model extractions. These shop drawingswere reviewed with the design team to resolve anyconflicts and issue a field use set to subcontractorsfor coordination and construction.

Initially, the project designers presented two finish-ing options (brick vs. precast) to the owner, as shownin Fig. 4(a). Via BIM viewer software, the ownervisually compared both options and selected the pre-cast one based on appearance and cost. Then, based onthe project drawings, the GC prepared the 3D interiorelevations to clarify interior details, as illustrated inFig. 4(b). If any component was found missing or con-flicting with the other component, an RFI was issuedto the designer to resolve this conflict before construc-tion. Finally, a 4D scheduling model was prepared(Fig. 4(c)) to decide the construction sequence andalign all resources. Through these measures, the pro-ject team was able to complete the project on time andwithin budget.

Case Study 4: Emory Psychology Building,Atlanta, GAThe Emory Psychology Building is a LEED-certified,110,000-square-foot facility on the campus of EmoryUniversity in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a multipurposestructure designed to provide instructional and re-search space. The project details are as follows:

• Cost: $35 million• Schedule: 16 months• Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maxi-mum price

• BIM scope: Sustainability analyses• BIM cost to project and cost benefit: n/a

The project architect developed the building infor-mation model of the facility at the early design phaseto determine the best building orientation and evalu-ate various skin options such as masonry, curtain wall,and window styles, as shown in Fig. 5. The buildinginformation model was also used to perform daylightstudies, which, in effect, helped to decide the finalpositioning of the building on the site. To achievethis, views of the facility were established withinBIM software using the software’s sun positioning fea-ture. Subsequently, shading and lighting studies andright-to-light studies were conducted to determinethe effects of the sun throughout the year and the ef-fects of the facility on surrounding buildings. Right-to-light studies were also conducted to evaluate light-ing conditions at the proposed facility’s courtyardspace and those spaces adjacent to the courtyard.

As a direct result of these studies, the building’sdesign was adjusted as follows:

• Window openings on the west façade were reduced.• The penthouse, which is located on the roof of thebuilding, was reduced in overall square footage.

• The overall height of the building was reduced.

As all of these design adjustments were able to be in-corporated during the design phase, the analyses pre-vented costly and time-consuming redesign at laterstages in the project life cycle.

BIM RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSIS

The return on investment (ROI) analysis is one ofthe many ways to evaluate a proposed investment. Itcompares the gain anticipated (or achieved) from aninvestment against the cost of the investment (i.e.,ROI = earning/cost). ROI is typically used to evaluatemany types of corporate investments, from researchand development projects to training programs tofixed asset purchases (Autodesk 2007).



The McGraw-Hill Construction (2008) survey ofAEC industry participants indicated that 48% ofrespondents were tracking BIM ROI at a moderate

level or above. It also found that the initial system costdid not seem to be a problem. Doubling the systemcost could reduce ROI only by up to 20% (Autodesk

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



2007). For this study, detailed cost data from 10 proj-ects were acquired fromHCC to perform the BIM ROIanalysis. The results are shown in Table 2.

As evident from Table 2, the BIM ROI for differentprojects varied from 140% to 39,900%. On average, itwas 1,633% for all projects and 634% for projectswithout a planning or value analysis phase. Becauseof the large data spread, it is hard to conclude a specificrange for BIM ROI. The probable reason for thisspread is the varying scope of BIM in different

projects. In some projects, BIM savings were measuredusing “real” construction phase “direct” collision de-tection cost avoidance, and in other projects, savingswere computed using “planning” or “value analysis”phase cost avoidance. Also, none of these cost figuresaccount for indirect, design, construction, or owneradministrative or other “second wave” cost savingsthat were realized as a result of BIM implementation.Hence, the actual BIM ROI can be far greater thanreported here.

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

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.



BIM RISKS

BIM risks can be divided into two broad categories: le-gal (or contractual) and technical. In the following para-graphs, key risks in each category are briefly discussed.

The first risk is the lack of determination of owner-ship of the BIM data and the need to protect it throughcopyright laws and other legal channels. For example,if the owner is paying for the design, then the ownermay feel entitled to own it, but if team membersare providing proprietary information for use on theproject, their proprietary information needs to be pro-tected as well. Thus, there is no simple answer to thequestion of data ownership; it requires a unique re-sponse for every project depending on the participants’needs. The goal is to avoid inhibitions or disincentivesthat discourage participants from fully realizing themodel’s potential (Thompson 2001). To prevent dis-agreement over copyright issues, the best solution isto set forth in the contract documents ownership rightsand responsibilities (Rosenberg 2007).

When project team members other than the ownerand architect/engineer contribute data that are inte-grated into the building information model, licensingissues can arise. For example, equipment and materialvendors offer designs associated with their products forthe convenience of the lead designer in hopes of induc-ing the designer to specify the vendor’s equipment.While this practice might be good for business, licens-ing issues can arise if the designs were not produced bya designer licensed in the location of the project(Thompson and Miner 2007).

Another contractual issue to address is who will con-trol the entry of data into the model and be responsiblefor any inaccuracies. Taking responsibility for updat-ing building information model data and ensuring itsaccuracy entails a great deal of risk. Requests for com-plicated indemnities by BIM users and the offer of lim-ited warranties and disclaimers of liability by designersare essential negotiation points that need to be resolvedbefore BIM technology is used. It also requires moretime spent inputting and reviewing BIM data, whichis a new cost in the design and project administrationprocess. Although these new costs may be dramaticallyoffset by efficiency and schedule gains, they are still acost that someone on the project team will incur. Thus,before BIM technology can be fully used, not onlymustthe risks of its use be identified and allocated, but thecost of its implementation must be paid for as well(Thompson and Miner 2007).

The integrated concept of BIM blurs the level ofresponsibility so much that risk and liability are likelyto be enhanced. Consider the scenario in which the

owner of the building files suit over a perceived designerror. The architect, engineers, and other contributorsto the BIM process look to each other in an effort to tryto determine who had responsibility for the matterraised. If disagreement ensues, the lead professionalnot only will be responsible as a matter of law tothe claimant but may have difficulty proving faultwith others such as the engineers (Rosenberg 2007).

As the dimensions of cost and schedule are layeredonto the building information model, responsibilityfor the proper technological interface among variousprograms becomes an issue. Many sophisticatedcontracting teams require subcontractors to submitdetailed critical path method schedules and costbreakdowns itemized by line items of work prior tothe start of the project. The general contractor thencompiles the data, creating a master schedule and costbreakdown for the entire project. When the subcon-tractors and prime contractor use the same software,the integration can be fluid. In cases where the dataare incomplete or are submitted in a variety of sched-uling and costing programs, a team member—usuallya general contractor or construction manager—mustre-enter and update a master scheduling and costingprogram. That program may be a BIM module or an-other program that is integrated with the building in-formation model. At present, most of these projectmanagement tools have been developed in isolation.Responsibility for the accuracy and coordination ofcost and scheduling data must be contractuallyaddressed (Thompson and Miner 2007).

One of the most effective ways to deal with theserisks is to have collaborative, integrated project deliv-ery contracts in which the risks of using BIM are sharedamong the project participants along with the rewards.Recently, the American Institute of Architects releasedan exhibit on BIM to help project participants definetheir BIM development plan for integrated project de-livery (Building Design and Construction 2008). Thisexhibit may assist project participants in definingmodel management arrangements, as well as author-ship, ownership, and level-of-development require-ments, at various project phases.

BIM FUTURE CHALLENGES

The productivity and economic benefits of BIM tothe AEC industry are widely acknowledged andincreasingly well understood. Further, the technologyto implement BIM is readily available and rapidly ma-turing. Yet BIM adoption has been much slower thananticipated (Azhar, Hein et al. 2008). There are twomain reasons, technical and managerial.



The technical reasons can be broadly classified intothree categories (Bernstein and Pittman 2005):

1. The need for well-defined transactional construc-tion process models to eliminate data interoper-ability issues,

2. The requirement that digital design data becomputable, and

3. The need for well-developed practical strategiesfor the purposeful exchange and integration ofmeaningful information among the buildinginformation model components.

The management issues cluster around the imple-mentation and use of BIM. Right now, there is noclear consensus on how to implement or use BIM.Unlike many other construction practices, there is nosingle BIM document providing instruction on itsapplication and use (Associated General Contractorsof America 2005). Furthermore, little progress hasbeen made in establishing model BIM contract docu-ments (Post 2009). Several software firms are cashingin on the “buzz” of BIM and have programs to addresscertain quantitative aspects of it, but they do not treatthe process as a whole. There is a need to standardizethe BIM process and to define guidelines for its im-plementation. Another contentious issue among theAEC industry stakeholders (i.e., owners, designers,and constructors) is who should develop and operatethe building information models and how the devel-opmental and operational costs should be distributed.

To optimize BIM performance, either companies orvendors, or both, will have to find a way to lessen thelearning curve of BIM trainees. Software vendors havea larger hurdle of producing a quality product thatcustomers will find reliable and manageable and thatwill meet the expectations set by the advertisements.Additionally, the industry will have to developacceptable processes and policies that promote BIMuse and govern today’s issues of ownership and riskmanagement (Post 2009).

Researchers and practitioners have to develop suit-able solutions to overcome these challenges and otherassociated risks. As a number of researchers, practi-tioners, software vendors, and professional organiza-tions are working hard to resolve these challenges,it is expected that the use of BIM will continue toincrease in the AEC industry.

In the past, facilities managers have been includedin the building planning process in a very limitedway, implementing maintenance strategies based onthe as-built condition at the time the owner takespossession. In the future, BIM modeling may allow

facilities managers to enter the picture at a much ear-lier stage, in which they can influence the design andconstruction. The visual nature of BIM allows allstakeholders to get important information, includingtenants, service agents, and maintenance personnel,before the building is completed. Finding the righttime to include these people will undoubtedly be achallenge for owners.

CONCLUSIONS

Building information modeling is emerging as an in-novative way to virtually design and manage projects.Predictability of building performance and operationis greatly improved by adopting BIM. As the use ofBIM accelerates, collaboration within project teamsshould increase, which will lead to improved profit-ability, reduced costs, better time management, andimproved customer–client relationships. As shownin this paper, average BIM ROI for projects understudy was 634%, which clearly depicts its potentialeconomic benefits. At the same time, teams imple-menting BIM should be very careful about the legalpitfalls, which include data ownership and associatedproprietary issues and risk sharing. Such issues mustbe addressed up front in the contract documents.

BIM represents a new paradigm within AEC, onethat encourages integration of the roles of all stake-holders on a project. This integration has the potentialto bring about greater efficiency and harmony amongplayers who all too often in the past saw themselves asadversaries. As in most paradigm shifts, there willundoubtedly be risks. Perhaps one of the greatest risksis the potential elimination of an important check andbalance mechanism inherent in the current paradigm.An adversarial stance often brings a more criticalreview of the project in a kind of mutual guarding ofeach participant’s own interests. In the early stages ofBIM, constructors worked from architectural planssince digital models were not shared by architects withcontractors. The construction modelers inevitablydiscovered errors and inconsistencies in the plans asthey created the building information models.This brought about a natural redundancy as the con-struction model put the design to this virtual buildingtest. With a more trustful sharing of architecturaldrawings, which can easily be imported and serveas the basis for the building information model, theremay be a loss of this critical checking phase. In otherwords, when all players see themselves as being on thesame team, they may cease to look for and find mis-takes in each other’s work. In the past, a lack of critical



review has been at least one of the component ingre-dients of building failure.

The future of BIM is both exciting and challeng-ing. It is hoped that the increasing use of BIM willenhance collaboration and reduce fragmentation inthe AEC industry and eventually lead to improvedperformance and reduced project costs.

REFERENCESAssociated General Contractors of America. (2005).

The contractor’s guide to BIM, 1st Ed., AGCResearch Foundation, Las Vegas, NV.

Autodesk. (2007). “BIM’s return on investment.”⟨http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/bim_roi_jan07_1_.pdf⟩ (August 30, 2009).

Azhar, S., Hein, M., and Sketo, B. (2008). “Buildinginformation modeling: Benefits, risks and chal-lenges.” Proc., 44th Associated Schools of ConstructionNational Conference, Auburn, AL.

Azhar, S., Nadeem, A., Mok, J. Y. N., and Leung, B.H. Y. (2008). “Building information modeling(BIM): A new paradigm for visual interactivemodeling and simulation for construction proj-ects.” Proc., First International Conference on Construc-tion in Developing Countries, Karachi, Pakistan,435–446.

Azhar, S., and Richter, S. (2009). “Building informa-tion modeling (BIM): Case studies and return-on-investment analysis.” Proc., Fifth InternationalConference on Construction in the 21st Century,Istanbul, Turkey, 1378–1386.

Bazjanac, V. (2006). “Virtual building environments(VBE)—Applying information modeling tobuildings.” ⟨http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/LBNL-56072⟩ (August 29, 2009).

Bernstein, P. G., and Pittman, J. H. (2005). “Barriersto the adoption of building information modelingin the building industry.” Autodesk Building Solu-tions Whitepaper, Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA.

Building Design and Construction. (2008). “NewAIAdocuments include BIM agreement and two newIPD contracts.” ⟨http://www.bdcnetwork.com/article/CA6600255.html⟩ (August 29, 2009).

Carmona, J., and Irwin, K. (2007). “BIM: Who, what,how and why.” Building Operating Management.⟨http://www.facilitiesnet.com/software/article/BIM-Who-What-How-and-Why–7546⟩ (Au-gust 21, 2009).

CRC Construction Innovation. (2007). Adopting BIMfor facilities management: Solutions for managing theSydney Opera House, Cooperative Research Centerfor Construction Innovation, Brisbane, Australia.

Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., and Liston, K.(2008). BIM handbook: A guide to building informa-tion modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineersand contractors, Wiley, New York.

Glick, S., and Guggemos, A. (2009). “IPD and BIM:Benefits and opportunities for regulatory agen-cies.” Proc., 45th Associated Schools of ConstructionNational Conference, Gainesville, FL.

Hardin, B. (2009). BIM and construction management,Wiley, Indianapolis, IN.

Khemlani, L., Papamichael, K., and Harfmann, A.(2006). “The potential of digital buildingmodeling.” ⟨http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/potentialofdigital.pdf⟩ (August 11, 2009).

Kunz, J., and Gilligan, B. (2007). “Values from VDC/BIM use.” ⟨http://cife.stanford.edu/VDCsurvey.pdf⟩ (August 22, 2009).

McGraw-Hill Construction. (2008). Building informa-tion modeling: Transforming design and construction toachieve greater industry productivity, New York.

Post, N. (2009). “Building team members see progressand problems.” Eng. News-Rec., 262(12), 28.

Rosenberg, T. L. (2007). “Building informationmodeling.” ⟨http://www.ralaw.com/resources/documents/Building%20Information%20Modeling%20-%20Rosenberg.pdf⟩ (August 22,2009).

Thompson, D. B. (2001). “e-Construction: Don’t getsoaked by the next wave.” Construction Law Brief-ing Paper. ⟨http://www.minnlaw.com/Articles/68553.pdf⟩ (August 29, 2009).

Thompson, D. B., and Miner, R. G. (2007). “Buildinginformation modeling—BIM: Contractual risksare changing with technology.” ⟨http://www.aepronet.org/ge/no35.html⟩ (August 22, 2009).

Salman Azhar is assistant professor,McWhorter School of Building Science, College ofArchitecture, Design and Construction, AuburnUniversity, Auburn, AL. The author expresseshis gratitude to Mr. Michael Lefevre, Vice Presi-dent, Holder Construction Company, Atlanta,GA, for providing necessary data and feedback.Appreciation is also due to undergraduate stu-dents Mr. Blake Sketo, Ms. Sara Richter, andMr. Russell Glass for collecting the necessary lit-erature and compiling the presented information.This study was supported by Seed Grant 2008provided by the College of Architecture, Designand Construction, Auburn University. Dr. Azharcan be contacted at [email protected]. LME



http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/bim_roi_jan07_1_.pdf





http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/LBNL-56072




http://www.bdcnetwork.com/article/CA6600255.html





http://www.facilitiesnet.com/software/article/BIM-Who-What-How-and-Why--7546




http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/potentialofdigital.pdf





http://cife.stanford.edu/VDCsurvey.pdf




http://www.ralaw.com/resources/documents/Building%20Information%20Modeling%20-%20Rosenberg.pdf






http://www.minnlaw.com/Articles/68553.pdf





http://www.aepronet.org/ge/no35.html




Documents

azhar 2011 bim_benifit-risks-challenges.pdf