<i>VDC Scorecard</i>
            : Formulation, Application, and Validation

Kam, Calvin; Song, Mi Hyun; Senaratna, Devini Manouri

doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001233

Cited by 28 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Items on project performance entailed directly asking attitudes of participants on statements about their organization's project performance. The statements were derived from success criteria of the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMI, 2008) that were used in studies to analyze project performance (Barlish & Sullivan, 2012;Bryde et al, 2013;Kam, Senaratna, McKinney, Xiao, & Song, 2013;Suermann & Issa, 2008). To assess project (1) time, (2) cost and (3) quality performance, the researchers asked for attitudes on the following statements: (1) 'My organization delivers projects according to contracted schedule', (2) 'My organization delivers projects according to contracted budget', and (3) 'My organization delivers projects according to contracted quality'.…”

Section: Materials and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Yield-to-BIM: impacts of BIM maturity on project performance

Smits

Buiten

Hartmann

2016

Building Research & Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does organizational experience (maturity) with building information modelling (BIM) impact on the broad implementation of BIM and on company performance? A survey of Dutch architectural, engineering, construction, and operation (AECO) professionals (n = 890) is used to examine their perceptions of the impact of BIM maturity on firm performance. Survey items included measures of BIM element maturity (i.e., strategy, BIM uses, process, information, infrastructure and personnel), and key performance indicators (time, cost and quality performance). Surprisingly, the maturity of the BIM implementation strategy was the only reliable predictor of time, cost and quality performance. The result suggests that the impact of BIM maturity on project performance may be limited and it cautions against overoptimistic appraisals of BIM. In addition to the contribution to the literature on BIM performance, the paper should be of interest to the practitioner contemplating BIM investments.

show abstract

Section: Materials and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Yield-to-BIM: impacts of BIM maturity on project performance

Smits

Buiten

Hartmann

2016

Building Research & Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The major limitation of these frameworks is the fact that they have all been designed to measure internal organisational maturity for the purposes of BIM implementation rather than qualification for projects. Other frameworks such as the BIM scorecard by Kam et al (2014) was defined to measure project BIM implementation and performance rather than the assessment of an organisations qualification.…”

Section: Bim Capability Assessment Tools and Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The soft human behavioural or organisational factors that influence the competence to deliver BIM have not been adequately considered by most frameworks despite evidence of the role of these factors in BIM delivery success (Sebastian & van Berlo, 2010;Haron, 2013). There are, however, a few frameworks that have considered all these dimensions of capability (see Succar, 2010;van Berlo et al, 2012;CIC, 2013;Giel & Issa, 2014;Kam et al, 2014). None of these were, however, developed specifically for the purposes of selection or for the UK CSC context.…”

Section: Bim Capability Assessment Tools and Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Critical BIM qualification criteria for construction pre-qualification and selection

Mahamadu

Mahdjoubi

Booth

2017

Architectural Engineering and Design Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite emerging research on Building Information Modelling (BIM) capability, there remains no studies specifically looking at criteria for the pre-qualification and selection of construction supply chain (CSC) firms for BIM projects. As a consequence, there is insufficient theoretical insight and empirical justification for critical BIM qualification criteria for the CSC context. In order to bridge this knowledge gap, a study was conducted to ascertain the most critical BIM capability attributes, as well as relevance to the pre-qualification and selection of suitable CSC firms for BIM enabled projects. The relative importance of these criteria were determined based on their perceived influence on overall BIM delivery success on recent BIM-enabled projects. A sequential exploratory mixed methodological research design was adopted involving semi-structured interviews (n=8) and a Delphi Survey (n=25) of experts, as well as a survey of CSC firms (n=64) on BIM-enabled projects. The findings reinforce the criticality of past BIM experience in delivery success. Furthermore, it revealed that while technological infrastructure related capacities (such as software and hardware availability) are perceived as very important qualification criteria, their actual contribution to delivery success is not as high in comparison to criteria related to previous BIM experience. This study provides insights on prioritising BIM capability criteria based on evidence on their contribution to delivery success in practice rather than their perceived importance as capability metrics.

show abstract

“…Existing frameworks have been developed mainly to assess firm capability and maturity, arguable making the more suitable for internal implementation evaluations [3,4,6,7]. Others were developed for project level performance measurement thus making them suitable for internal performance measurement purposes [8]. The tools with some relevance for the selection activities were, however, not developed for the SC context neither do their methodologies of evaluation allow for direct cross comparison of alternative firms [4,6].…”

Section: Bim Competence and Readiness Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%