Suggestions abound for successful adoption of building information modeling (BIM); however, a company with limited resources cannot adopt them all. The factors that have top management priority for successful accomplishment of a task are termed critical success factors (CSFs). This paper aims to derive the CSFs for four questions commonly asked by companies in the first wave of BIM adoption: (1) What are the CSFs for adopting BIM in a company? (2) What are the CSFs for selecting projects to deploy BIM? (3) What are the CSFs for selecting BIM services? (4) What are the CSFs for selecting company-appropriate BIM software applications? A list of consideration factors was collected for each question, based on a literature review, and then refined through face-to-face interviews based on experiences of BIM experts. An international survey was conducted with leading BIM experts. From the 206 distributed surveys, 52 responses from four continents were collected. This study used quantitative data analysis to derive a manageable number (4-10) of CSFs for each category from dozens of anecdotal consideration factors. The derived CSFs are expected to be used as efficient metrics for evaluating and managing the level of BIM adoption and as a basis for developing BIM evaluation models in the future.

Proponents claim that the adoption of building information modeling ͑BIM͒ will lead to greater efficiencies through increased collaboration. In this paper, we present research that examines the use of BIM technologies for mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire life safety systems ͑often referred to as MEP͒ coordination and how the introduction of BIM influences collaboration and communication. Using data from over 12 months of ethnographic observations of the MEP coordination process for two commercial construction projects and interviews with 65 industry leaders across the United States, we find that BIM-enabled projects are often tightly coupled technologically, but divided organizationally. This means that while BIM makes visible the connections among project members, it is not fostering closer collaboration across different companies. We outline the competing obligations to scope, project, and company as one cause for this division. Obligations to an individual scope of work or to a particular company can conflict with project goals. Individual leadership, especially that of the MEP coordinator in the teams we studied, often substitutes for stronger project cohesion and organization. Organizational forces and structures must be accounted for in order for BIM to be implemented successfully.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract