BIM Adoption Issues in Infrastructure Construction Projects: Analysis and Solutions

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to assess and outline both the value and inefficiencies of Building Information Modelling (BIM) within Construction Infrastructure projects, and to provide a comparative and conclusive analysis via the underpinning academic literature and industrial reporting respectively. Further, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a range of industry experts to add greater evidence at the application and execution stage, leading onto the proposal of a framework solution to gain advantage due to the implementation of BIM and counter some of the outlined inefficiencies and issues raised. The aims and objectives of the research study were to develop a methodology that brings to the forefront issues with the adoption of BIM, and to propose a framework in order to provide clarity on resolving these issues to gain an advantage. The methodology consists of four parts which are: 1) Undertaking a systematic literature review of academic and a critical review of industrial literature 2) Analysing, contesting and supporting literature by undertaking a data collection exercise with a range of industry experts who are delivering construction projects and in particular infrastructure via BIM 3) Providing a comparative analysis between data collection, academic and industrial literature in a holistic format 4) Proposing a framework focused on countering the disadvantages and inefficiencies in the adoption of BIM. There is also evidence of a disconnect due to both the overwhelming nature of BIM (acronyms, competing standards and technology) in that people are unsure what to implement and when, with a lack of objective focus on what the goals and advantages at a project level. The research concludes with a comparative synthesis of results and by outlining a framework solution focused on applying objective focus as part of the application process and requirements, supporting goal attainment and appropriate/agreed measurements of BIM.

Bridging the gap between theory and practice for adopting meaningful collaborative BIM processes in infrastructure projects, utilising multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)

“…This mandate along with its subsequent measurement methodology assigns 'confidence levels' which are collated and distributed annually within the Major Projects Report (IPA, 2016). However, as shown from previous research undertaken by Pidgeon and Dawood (2021), since the UK BIM Mandate (HM Gov, 2011) was implemented across 'all publicly awarded' projects from 2016 onwards, there has been a reduction in the confidence levels of projects being delivered in time, on budget and with reduced impact on other stakeholders, as summarised below in Figure 2.…”

“…Moreover, the key search term titles which were inputted into the electronic libraries to discover pre-existing available research (in no particular order or importance) as developed through separate lead up research before this study undertaken by Pidgeon and Dawood (2021) were as follows:…”

“…The aim and benefit of a clear, reliable and usable measurement systems is to provide 'feedback for improvement' and 'guidance for next steps' (Nightingale & Mize, 2002, p. 19) as suggested in the former statements. However, Ustinovičius et al (2018) reaffirms this as merely by stating BIM as a delivery mechanism it doesn't result in 'secured consistency' and therefore applying theoretical BIM without defining approaches attracts inefficiencies (Pidgeon and Dawood, 2021). Also, it is evidenced that when a large number of solutions (or options) are defined, the required evaluation and selection process may become extremely complex and difficult to handle (Cecconi et al, 2017).…”

“…This is to ensure that there is no foreseen bias towards a single entity, and thus a singularity in terms of feedback generated, analysed and asserted, with Gudlaugsson et al (2020) stating that initial analysis of stakeholder selection is required, to 'recognise conflicts' as well as harmonise relationships. However, a point to note is that previous interviewed stakeholders utilised as part of a preceding study by Pidgeon and Dawood (2021) from design and construction sectors are continued within this research methodology. This is to draw a clear and consistent baseline from previous research findings and to generate further diversification by including academic experts in the field of BIM.…”

“…Furthermore, and most recently, a paper produced by Tan et al (2021) on the subject of current uses of MCDM alongside BIM states that an 'integrated decision-making approach' is the optimum way to target and increase the likelihood of achieving BIM objectives being realised, which involves rationalising data, ousting the 'potential ability' of targeted information management among key stakeholders (client, project managers, BIM managers, task team members etc.) and thusly reducing typical BIM 'adoption issues' (Pidgeon and Dawood, 2021). Bond et al (2008) supports this further by affirming that without an agreed and unified approach it is 'difficult for individuals to effectively articulate all of the objectives that underlay the problems with which they are faced', with Ellis (1970) calling this the 'test of importance' as a decision maker (or makers) must determine the direction a team should aim for, in order to increase the likelihood of achieving the objective.…”