Are Australian industries ready for the national adoption of BIM?

Review of Literature

JENNIFER LYNN SALCEDO Bachelor of Architectural Computing (Hons.) 2012

Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney

Tables of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

1 What is BIM? ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3

2 Analysing the progression of BIM ................................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Recounting the development of BIM .................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Comparing the acceptance of CAD to BIM........................................................................................................ 6

3 Identifying barriers for change .................................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Recognizing issues of BIM adoption ................................................................................................................ 10

3.2 Exploring the psychological aspects of change .......................................................................................... 11

3.3 Understanding how to deal with change ....................................................................................................... 13

4 Overcoming industry adversities ............................................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Investigating International approaches ......................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Reflecting on the current Australian approach .......................................................................................... 18

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................................................. 22

Introduction

For years, the attitudes towards change have greatly impacted the processes of advancement

and use of emerging technologies within society. An example of this is the implementation of

Building Information Modelling (BIM) for the future progression of design documentation in the

architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) industries. It is a technology that has been

exposed to changing perceptions of its place in industry practices for many years, with

particular positive growth in support over the past decade. This review of literature aims to

assess these differing attitudes towards adopting BIM processes, and how it as a consequence,

affects the progression of a national BIM initiative within Australia.

By investigating the benefits and issues of the technology, the paper attempts to identify the

core factors preventing its acceptance in industry and practice. Through the study of current

initiatives and approaches undertaken internationally by the United States of America and the

United Kingdom, guidelines for positive action are also established.

This research, as a whole, aims to analyse key barriers for change with the intention of

suggesting methods to resolve them, and subsequently answer the question: Are Australian

industries ready for the national adoption of BIM?

1 What is BIM?

Building Information Modelling is a term used regularly in the AEC industries. It is interpreted

differently by all people in industry, making it almost impossible to document one single

definition. By description, it is a method of 3D representation using symbolic or “meaningful”

geometric entities. This means that each entity within the model is embedded with various

pieces of information, for example what it is, dimensions, parametric values, materiality and can

sometimes include cost etc.1

Besides this key characteristic, it also enables a number of innovative design processes. One of

which is the encouragement of integrated practice or integrated project delivery (IPD).This

involves using the processes of BIM to aid collaboration between team members of a project.

These members could include design consultants, contractors, specialist trade contractors and

in some cases, the client. In this case, the model can be circulated between project members, to

analyse, edit, communicate ideas or run tests against it. Approaching projects in this way creates

a strong bond of team work and project manageability, whilst still maintaining a sense of

competitiveness.

To apply integrated practice, models need to be transferable for information to be shared. In

recent years, there has been an increase in the number of applications that enable these model

types, such as Autodesk Revit, Archicad and EliteCAD. To allow information sharing between

different software packages, BIM models are exported as a common standard – Industry

Foundation Class (IFC).2 Alternatively, all members can use the same software although this

may make collaboration frustrating and difficult.

1 2009b. National Guidelines for Digital modelling. Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation. 1. 2 Ibid, 2.

2 Analysing the progression of BIM

The process of design has changed dramatically within the past century, and as lifestyle changes

take place, so too does the way business and industry operate. However, some changes are more

difficult to adapt to than others. The transition towards the development of BIM is one that has

been anticipated for a long time and appears to be at its peak in revolutionising the way

Australian AEC practices operate. How it came to be, may help in unravelling clues about its

future.

2.1 Recounting the development of BIM

For the AEC industry the methods of representing and communicating designs has undergone a

number of changes since the use of primitive tools of pen, paper and ruler; adapting to the

rapidly changing digital age.

Since ancient times, people have been looking at ways to systematically and effectively

communicate. Gordon Higgott, in his review of Maya Hambly’s Drawing Instruments, 3 states that

Stylii, metal chisels, scale rulers and triangle rulers were among the many tools identified as

being used by the Ancient Greeks. Similarly, the Romans also used triangle rulers, compasses,

rulers and pens, whilst the Ancient Egyptians were known to use wooden corner rules. Though

brief, the review goes on to document Hambly’s key findings on drawing instruments,

introducing wing compasses and dividers used for creating circles in the 16th century, volutors

and ellipsographs for curves, as well as tee-squares and set squares for squaring and ruling in

the 19th and 20th centuries, relatively. The findings reiterated by Higgott are important and

informative when recognising the early history of drawing documentation. The review

interestingly suggests a natural reliance on tools to achieve accuracy (resulting in easier design

processes) meanwhile fulfilling human desires to technologically advance.

This sense of technological aid has also been an important case for design industries, and in

particular, architecture. For years, traditional draftsmen were skilled in the art of putting pen to

paper and preparing accurate technical drawings for architects and engineers. Like their

forefathers, they used a number of tools to achieve this accuracy including rulers, set squares,

3 HIGGOTT, G. 1990. Review of Drawing Instruments. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 49, 111-112.

drawing boards, protractors, compasses, and other drafting devices.4 Taking on theories of

drawing and perception, draftsmen are also skilled to manually document in both 2D and 3D.

In 1963, Ivan Sutherland from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology5 researched and

developed Sketchpad, the first CAD dedicated software that also utilised a complete graphical

interface. In his technical report, he explains how the program requires the user to generate 2D

drawings digitally using a light pen to both position parts of the drawings as well as edit them. A

set of push buttons allowed the user to control their changes such as to erase and move.

Sutherland reveals that it can be used in the fields of electrical, mechanical, scientific,

mathematical and animated drawings. Though this described software is not one that has been

further developed, this document has been particularly significant in pioneering the

development of CAD software for design practices. This is evident throughout the rest of the

1960s where companies such as General Motors, Ford and McDonnell-Douglas followed suit in

developing their own CAD software for design documentation. 6

It was in the 1970s that an evident shift from 2D to 3D began. Part of this transformation was

influenced by Kenneth Vesprille of Syracuse University in 1975. Vesprille had written a

dissertation exploring “Computer-Aided Design Applications of the B-Spline Approximation

Form".7 This research became one of the foundations for investigating CAD for the use of

complex 3D curves and surface modelling.8 His contribution to this technology made him a

catalyst of change, which introduced an industry keen to see the adoption of CAD begin.

However, even with an influx of books promoting the use of CAD during this time and strong

industry pressure and exposure, the rate of adoption by architects was still low.

By the 1980s, CATIA, Pro/Engineer, Unigraphis and I-DEA had become the leading CAD

software packages in 3D modelling, with Autodesk’s AutoCAD gaining strong popularity for 2D

drafting.9

4 BROQUETAS, M. 2010. From CAD to BIM: Part I - History of CAD [Online]. CAD Addict. Available: http://www.cad-addict.com/2010/02/from-cad-to-bim-part-i-history-of-cad.html [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 5 SUTHERLAND, I. E. 2003. Sketchpad: A man-machine graphical communication system. In: KUHN, M. (ed.). United Kingdom: University of Cambridge. 6 BROQUETAS, M. 2010. From CAD to BIM: Part I - History of CAD [Online]. CAD Addict. Available: http://www.cad-addict.com/2010/02/from-cad-to-bim-part-i-history-of-cad.html [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 7 CADAZZ. 2004. CAD software history, 1970s: Internal to international standard [Online]. Available: http://www.cadazz.com/index.htm [Accessed 14 May 2012 2012]. 8 BROQUETAS, M. 2010. From CAD to BIM: Part I - History of CAD [Online]. CAD Addict. Available: http://www.cad-addict.com/2010/02/from-cad-to-bim-part-i-history-of-cad.html [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 9 Ibid.

Although, after decades of technological development, it was not up until the 1990s that CAD

really took off.10 As the rate of PC distribution increased, so too were the ranges of availability

and complexity in CAD software. In 1993 AutoCAD, for the first time embedded 3D solid

modelling capabilities.11 Though AutoCAD began to dominate the market during that time,

companies such as Bentley Microstation soon became strong competitors. However, whilst the

development of technology had come a long way within the past century, unfortunately the

widespread adoption of CAD by architectural practices had been a slow one. This led to a

divided industry, whereby arguments posed it a threat to creative design.

Whilst years of encouragement saw numbers of support and industry adoption grow

throughout the 2000s, the challenging arguments resisting it carried on. But that didn’t stop the

development of the technology. From there began the transition from simple 2D and 3D CAD

drawings to object-oriented CAD systems (OOCAD). As Howell and Batcheler12 describes, it is a

modelling process which uses intelligent objects. This meant the creation of enabled parametric

capabilities, including variable dimensions and assigned rules. Every object within a model was

defined and contained information. For example, lines could be interpreted as being walls with

height, length and depth as well as materiality and its relationships with any other walls,

windows or doors defined. Abstract objects such as rooms and space, could also be identified,

described and referenced. These features were not possible with traditional 2D and 3D CAD

systems. BIM is the latest generation of an OOCAD system.

2.2 Comparing the acceptance of CAD to BIM

It is evident that the transition from traditional tools of pen and paper to CAD has been a slow

one. But does BIM share that same fate? How different or similar is BIM to CAD?

In Rita Gaidyte’s 2D and 3D Modeling Comparison, 13 she explores the main differences between

CAD and BIM. In this report, she identifies a number of differences between the two

technologies, including: 1) that BIM adopts a task-oriented methodology more quickly than an

object-oriented methodology, 2) BIM can be applied to many tasks other than just a

representation tool e.g. analysis, 3) CAD tends to have more documentation inconsistencies, 4)

BIM is a data-driven design tool, 5) CAD lacks the ability to consider parametric solutions, and

6) Unlike BIM, CAD does not store all its project related data in one file.

10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 HOWELL, I. B., B. 2005. Building Information Modeling Two Years Later – Huge Potential, Some Success and Several Limitations. New Year, New Company, Newforma, New View of BIM [Online]. Available: http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue24/index.php [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 13 GAIDYTE, R. 2010. 2D and 3D Modeling Comparison. Norway: Gjovik University College.

Her study which aims to compare the two, also reveals that BIM is more so an advancement on

the CAD technology rather than a competitor. In conducting a modelling test of the Vilnius

Gediminas Technical University in Lithuania, using both 2D CAD software and 3D BIM software,

she concluded that whilst BIM costs more than CAD modelling and information input took

longer; it still excelled in suppling more detail in less time, providing more design options and

expressing different views with accuracy.14 From these results, the study provided direct insight

into the technical differences of the technologies and their limitations. Gaidyte’s research

demonstrates positive support for the implementation of BIM for architectural projects and

suggests that the AEC is ready for it.

But whilst research supports industry acceptance, history leading towards its development

suggests a different story.

It appears that even to this decade, pioneers are fighting for the adoption of CAD. An article that

clearly executes this is PTC’s, A Rational Approach to CAD Standardization. 15 Only recently

released in 2011, author Tom Quaglia argues the need for standardising CAD stating:

Today’s global economy means that many companies have no choice but to employ

CAD systems, and, thankfully, there are solutions available that support

interoperability between different CAD systems. These solutions include robust

data exchange capabilities, data repair, feature recognition, direct modeling, [sic]

and heterogeneous design-in-context (HDIC), which lets users create, view and

modify assemblies built with components created in different CAD systems.

However, for a growing number of manufacturers, the solution is to standardize on

a single CAD authoring platform.16

He goes ahead to address issues causes by a lack of standardisation, whilst exploring tools such

as visualisation technology, heterogeneous design, feature recognition (FR) technology and

direct modelling. The steps he outlines to effectively transition to standardisation include:

determining the standard, communicating the platform change and executing the migration.

Though disregarding the existing advantages of BIM claiming to supersede CAD, he explains that

in this process, benefits in reduced cost of training, documentation, and system administration;

faster product development cycles; and improved product quality become evident.

14 Ibid. 15 QUAGLIA, T. 2011. A Rational Approach to CAD Standardization. USA: Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC). 16 Ibid, 1.

Quaglia also provides two cases where standardisation would have been advantageous to their

projects; explaining that by standardising CAD users can easily share software licenses, training,

data and best practices. In this regard, his argument also proves relative to the BIM

implementation case and should be considered if made national.

Although taking into account the timely transition for industry acceptance for CAD and the

subsequent issues still faced, it can be assumed that BIM would receive a similar welcome. This

idea of resistance and slow rate of uptake is difficult to invert when articles so commonly

expose the issues attached to its implementation. Concerns over the disintegration of traditional

architectural design commonly surface articles and will be discussed further in chapter 3.

Nonetheless, it is also worth considering that in sidelining the shared issues of traditional

drawing practices, most of the AEC industry have adapted to using CAD, thus making it easier

for them to transition from one technology to another. And as Gaidyte suggests, the

transformation appears to be an improvement from using CAD as a mere representational tool,

to adapting to BIM as a simulation tool.

To BIM or not to BIM, This is NOT the Question: How to Implement BIM Solutions in Large Design

Firm Environments 17 is a journal article which explores the procedures best used for making the

transition from CAD to BIM. Through a series of comparative studies, Magdy Ibrahim of Ain

Shams University identifies the key categories preventing transitions from CAD to BIM. In her

introduction she notes in the 1980s, the technological development focus transformed from

how to digitally represent and present geometry (CAD), to questioning how to represent and

present the components of the buildings instead of just using lines to display them (BIM). She

then goes on to express that the two major categories she classifies as obstacles are: project

management and training organisation.

Under the project management umbrella, she exposes the different objects raised including: BIM

is yet another 3D modeller, bad experience memories, not understanding the full potentials,

efficiency and work flow questions, where/how to start and risk management. Ibrahim

identifies one of the key arguments made by CAD managers were:

“I can see it is a very promising technology, but not my project, not in this phase, not

on this time schedule, not on this budget, etc”18

17 IBRAHIM, M. To BIM or not to BIM, This is NOT the Question: How to Implement BIM Solutions in Large Design Firm Environments. Communicating Space(s), 24th eCAADe Conference, 2006 Volos, Greece. 262-267. 18 Ibid, 264.

This demonstrates a sense of scepticism towards moving forward with technological

advancement. In addressing work flow questions, Ibrahim also compares that:

The BIM project would need allocating more personnel in the early phases of the

project, which contrasts with the conventional way of allocating personnel when

large numbers are usually needed in the construction documents phase later in the

project.19

Her solution to this issue suggested adequate training to architects as well as project managers.

However, raising the solution of training also introduced a number of issues. The key concern

related to training is the process. Conventional CAD appeared to replace the drafting table and

pen, whereas BIM introduces new processes, interfaces and functionalities. Other concerns

related to the training of BIM as opposed to current processes of CAD included ubiquity of

conventional CAD users, vertical training of all levels, retraining newly graduated CAD students

and a lacking training plan.20

Ibrahim’s ability to critically analyse key issues affecting industry transition from CAD to BIM,

meanwhile exploring solutions to them, demonstrates a sense of optimism drawn from

scepticism. Although exposing issues of both CAD and BIM, she was able to support her

arguments with clear solutions, and as a result instil a positive mindset towards BIM adoption.

Though it is evident that history expects that BIM will share the same slow fate of adoption as

CAD, it has not stopped industry from pushing for a speedier result. With more and more

articles like Ibrahim’s being released, BIM appears to be integrating well within industry; and by

addressing key concerns will result in a dramatic change in the AEC industry.

19 Ibid. 20 IBRAHIM, M. To BIM or not to BIM, This is NOT the Question: How to Implement BIM Solutions in Large Design Firm Environments. Communicating Space(s), 24th eCAADe Conference, 2006 Volos, Greece. 265-266

3 Identifying barriers for change

3.1 Recognizing issues of BIM adoption

Ever since the introduction of BIM technology, there have been both believers and sceptics to its

benefits. However, this increasing trend in industry support over the past decade has not

shaken off all sceptics, with journals being released exposing more in-depth analysis’ of the

uptake of BIM in industry and the reality of its use.

Dominik Holzer’s paper, BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins21 reflects this scepticism through a composition

of research projects, fora, surveys and industry practice. Articles such as Holzer’s, though

critical have been crucial to the detail and development needed in building the national

framework for BIM implementation.

Holzer, one of the participants for the BIM in Australia22 fora in 2010, later wrote a paper

illustrating the cultural roadblocks of BIM implementation in Architectural practice. Its purpose

was to provide insight into impacts BIM poses on the current design industry. It reveals the

changing focus to software opposed to design, increased ambiguity of services, the effort and

effect over time debate, the underdeveloped case of integrated project delivery and the risks

and disadvantages of doing more than is required caused by its uptake.

However, while the article is supported greatly by secondary sources and qualitative methods of

industry surveys, public BIM fora and government funded projects, Holzer insists on his support

for the uptake in industry and pins down the issues to technological complications. The critical

reflections provide an exploratory look into the concerns many industry professionals have and

the basis for much scepticism and hesitation. The key issues mentioned in this article are

significant and should be strongly considered when implementing BIM within practice. Overall,

the journal article acts as a reflection on current concerns by Holzer based on his experiences

with the use of BIM in an architectural context. More research and case studies into these

concerns may provide better insight and possible solutions to them. It is an in-depth analysis of

the impact of BIM on cultural design processes, as highlighted by current industry users.

This comparison between potential and reality is an argument also posed by Howell and

Batcheler.23 In their article, Building Information Modeling Two Years Later – Huge Potential,

21 HOLZER, D. BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 9, 463-480. 22 STAR, G. BIM in Australia. BIM in Australia, 2010 Australia. Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia & Autodesk, 13. 23 HOWELL, I. B., B. 2005. Building Information Modeling Two Years Later – Huge Potential, Some Success and Several Limitations. New Year, New Company, Newforma, New View of BIM [Online]. Available: http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue24/index.php [Accessed 14 May 2012].

Some Success and Several Limitations, they conduct a study analysing the effectiveness of

claimed benefits of BIM when put into practice. Aimed at unfolding the truth behind promise

and reality, the factors they investigated included: the influence and use of BIM on significant

live projects, the lessons learned from earlier adopters, BIM being used as a multipurpose

model, and the innovative implementation of interoperability. Although they state that the

advantages do hold true for executing a single source for building information; for the factors

stated above, it is far from meeting expectations.

Previously undiscussed limitations are put to light, such as the size and complexity of files that

BIM systems create, the inefficient use of BIM solely for drawing files, the expectation that

everyone collaborates effectively when using a BIM system, and that no truly sound method of

file sharing exists. The research of this article clearly identifies issues faced within industry

practice and as a result supports the resistance of BIM adoption. The greatest fall-back realised

in this article is this inability to share the intelligent building model. In summary, the study

demonstrates inherent limitations of using BIM by a number of companies. Though few similar

articles are available which explore this, it is valuable insight into the concerns and

complications for industry practices.

The arguments and issues posed by both Holzer, and Howell and Batcheler, are significant to the

research against industry adoption in Australia. They highlight the barriers for successful

execution and provide reasoning for scepticism. In order for changes in industry to be made,

these issues will need to be addressed. Although, technical and organisational issues were

highlighted above, there are also other external factors which influence hesitation of adoption

and would need to be considered to effectively implement BIM within Australia.

3.2 Exploring the psychological aspects of change

Change is a hard experience for all involved. It requires time, commitment and encouragement.

The main reason for why undergoing changes fails is because individual resistance to change.

This anxiety towards change can be a result of many different factors, and based on the history

of the transition to CAD; implementing BIM is also affected by this.

Resistance to change can be seen in different ways. One is as a natural and normal process

where individuals tend to focus their attention to assessing extreme cases. There are three main

factors involved with organisational change including: cynicism, fears about change and

acceptance of change. These can appear in the possible forms of holding false hope that change

will actually happen, fear of loss of position and embracing benefits of change, relatively.24

On a broad social and emotional context, Dr. A.J. Schuler25 describes a number of reasons for

why people resist change including: 1) The risk of change is seen as greater than the risk of

standing still, 2) People feel more connected to other people who are identified with the old

way, 3) People have no role models for the new activity, 4) People fear they lack to competence

to change, 5) People may feel overloaded and overwhelmed, 6) People experience healthy

scepticism and want to be sure new ideas are sound, 7) People fear the hidden agendas among

would-be reformers, 8) People feel the proposed change threatens their notions of themselves,

9) People anticipate a loss of status or quality of life, and 10) People genuinely believe that the

proposed change is a bad idea.

He also injects that in order to gain commitment towards change, rational and emotional factors

need to be considered. His analytical adaptation on attitudes to change exposes some untouched

and mostly unspoken individual issues that appear to be applicable to the resistance against

BIM adoption. It is this resistance that prevents further progression in the application and

technological development of the multidisciplinary process. Although Dr. Schuler provides basis

for a broader societal context, it is not reasonable to have to consider all these factors when

implementing BIM. To narrow down the most applicable, a more business related approach

needs to be deliberated.

The 2005 Best Practices in Change Management by the Change Management Learning Center,26

which makes similar connections to Schuler, identifies reasons behind why employees and

managers resist change. Based on a business context, the study challenges the different methods

of business change and compares them against participants from around the world. It reveals

that the top five factors for employees to resist change include: 1) employees are unaware of a

need for change, 2) lay-offs are feared, 3) employees are unsure they have the skills needed for

successful changes to be made, 4) individuals feel comfortable with the current practices and

want to maintain the sense of accomplishment provided by the status quo, and 5) employees

feel that they are required to do more with less, or do more for the same pay.27 Whilst the top

24 NEIVA, E. R., ROS, M & DAS GRACAS TORRES DA PAZ, M. 2005. Attitudes towards organizational change: Validation of a Scale. Psychology in Spain, 9, 84-85. 25 SCHULER, A. J. 2003. Overcoming Resistance to Change: Top Ten Reasons for Change Resistance [Online]. Viginia: Schuler Solutions Inc. Available: http://www.schulersolutions.com/resistance_to_change.html [Accessed 13 May 2012]. 26 2005. Best Practices in Change Management Colorado: Change Management Learning Center. 272012. Top five benchmarking insights [Online]. Colorado: Change Management Learning Center. Available: http://www.change-management.com/06-bphighlights.htm [Accessed 14 May 2012 2012].

five factors for managers to resist change included: 1) loss of power and control, 2) overload

with current responsibilities, 3) lacked awareness of the need for change or the risks of not

changing, 4) lack of skills required to manage the change, and 5) fear, uncertainty and doubt

about the change.28

The factors stated for both parties, though different and based on a general business scope,

appear valid and applicable to reasons for why some individuals feel uneasy about adopting

BIM in current practices. From this report, it can be summarised that understanding the whys of

resistance can help with how to overcome it, and should be the approach undertaken by the

Australian AEC in relation to BIM adoption.

After analysing literature relating to resisting change, it can be interpreted that although there

are organisational and technical issues related to the uptake of BIM, for individuals, there are

also emotional issues involved. In order for significant change to occur within industry,

procedures for dealing with these issues need to be identified.

3.3 Understanding how to deal with change

As expressed previously, besides scepticism towards the technological benefits of BIM, there are

also concerns with the attitudes towards changing practices. Commonly, the technical issues are

used to mask the psychological issues at hand. In order to address these issues, a number of

solutions may need to be considered.

The Social Psychology of Organizations29 provides a theoretical approach to managing the

limitations of organisational change. Some approaches of managing organisational change

recommended by Katz & Kahn in their study include: providing information to all involved with

the change, suggesting individual counsel and therapy to bring out individual change, influence

by a peer group, providing training, supplying feedback and if all else fails, implementing

systemic change. These suggestions take into account the social and psychological issues that

cause difficulty in organisational change in an indirect manner, but because the research is

based on social psychology theories, direct applications to the adoption of BIM still need to be

made.

Supporting the claim that attitudes need to be addressed when making organisational changes

related to BIM is Michael LeFevre, who states that changing the mindset of decision makers is

28 Ibid. 29 KATZ, D. K., R. L. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York, Wiley.

important in order to progress. No BIM for you: The Case for not doing BIM30 is an article that

aims to reason out the logic behind the uptake of BIM within industry practice in America. He

reveals that changing mindsets is the biggest challenge and to combat this, he suggests:

identifying political forces and creating a key ally, associate with like-minded, change ready

peers, hire or talk to a BIM guru, speak their language – attempt to remove fear, uncertainty and

discomfort, test out BIM and learn more, and celebrate experiences benefitting from BIM.

Despite not suggesting solutions for technical issues, addressing the attitude-related issues is

the first step in moving forward in national BIM adoption. To an extent, it is proposed that by

overcoming this negative attitude to change, a domino effect of support and further research

relating to technical concerns can also be resolved over time.

However, considering the logical methods of action posed by LeFevre, if these attempts don’t

influence change, Katz & Kahn’s introduction of implementing systemic change would become

appropriate and reasonable. Systemic change is particularly relevant for large scale cases such

as nation-wide change, as opposed to LeFevre whose concepts would appear ideal for changes

within a company or on a smaller industry scale. Systemic change essentially refers to clarifying

of the need for a change that affects all levels within a system or group.

As a reference, The Stages of Systemic Change31 was reviewed. Though there is no evident

supporting research, the article’s aim was to explore how systemic change is implemented

within the American education system.

The six stages of systemic change, expressed by Beverly Anderson in her article, are:

maintenance of the old system, increase in awareness, exploration, transition, emergence of

infrastructure, and predominance of the new system. She then goes on to identify elements

which aid the process of systemic change including: instilling a vision, gaining public and

political support, networking, identifying teaching and learning changes, establishing

administrative roles and responsibilities, and ensuring policy alignment.

These stages can all be related to the direction adopting BIM within the Australian industry

needs to employ. By using these elements as a guideline, a process of systemic change may

prove essential to promoting industry reform. Systemic change is a realistic solution when

considering the large scale dedication needed to ensure that the Australian industry is ready for

change.

30 LEFEVRE, M. 2011. No BIM for You: The Cade for Not Doing BIM. Journal of Building Information Modeling. 31 ANDERSON, B. L. 1993. The Stages of Systemic Change. Educational Leadership [Online], 51. Available: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept93/vol51/num01/toc.aspx.

As explained previously, there are a number of issues surrounding resistance to BIM adoption.

But as LeFevre, and Katz and Kahn, methods are available for overcoming emotional issues for

both small and large scale situations. For technical and organisational issues however, research

into worldly sources may need to be looked into.

4 Overcoming industry adversities

In reviewing how to combat technical and organisational issues, it has been suggested that a

number of studies need to be performed to encourage adoption and subsequently resolve them.

However, some argue that adoption will only occur if these technical and organisational issues

are first resolved. This causes a cyclic process of issues feeding each other, making it a difficult

task to work out solutions. In the following literature, different approaches are explored in

combatting adoption.

4.1 Investigating International approaches

Countries all over the world have been identified with meeting the demands of changing

industry practice. The United States of America (USA) is a country that has embraced the use of

BIM software within industry more than any other. BIM in Practice32 puts this down as a

consequence of the 2008-2009 economic recession. Companies are constantly trying to find

new ways to generate revenue whilst setting themselves apart from competitors. The study also

reveals that by adhering to Obama’s sustainability goals, it is inferred that both government and

industry support BIM use.

However, it also reveals other factors influencing the American AEC industry to rapidly meet the

changing demands. These included the consideration of outsourcing BIM to remain competitive

within industry, as well as the feeding the desires for companies to be more efficient, more

productive, more profitable and again, more competitive.

Within the study, U.S. CAD Inc. conducted a customer survey which confirmed that of those

surveyed, 63% of companies used BIM in the last 12 months, 76% of companies believed they

must build BIM expertise in order to compete effectively, and that trained staff and

implementation costs are key obstacles to adopting BIM within companies.

Although these results do not explain the spread of participants, the percentages are clear

enough to suggest that BIM exists within the American AEC industry, is being used at an

exponential rate and is “here to stay”33. In implying a stable presence within the American

design practices, meeting this trend becomes central to the change.

An article from the United Kingdom (UK) entitled Benefits and Barriers of Building Information

Modelling34 also statistically supports the claim that American companies currently have the

32 2009a. BIM in Practice. [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 33 Ibid, 3. 34 YAN, H. D., P. 2008. Benefits and Barriers of Building Information Modelling. 12th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering. Beijing 2008.

highest rate of BIM use at 26% compared to 14% in the United Kingdom and 5% of companies

in other countries.

Apart from this data, Han Yan and Peter Damian critically compare the benefits and barriers of

BIM use in the USA and the UK using data analysed from a questionnaire they conducted. As

previously stated above the USA is leading in industry implementation, whereas the UK has

spent years researching the technology. And from this questionnaire, the greatest benefit of BIM

to the USA was that it saved time, followed by reduced human resources, sustainability and

reduced costs, improved quality and creativity. In comparison to the UK who equally valued

reducing human resource, cost and time, followed by benefitting in improved quality and

creativity – interestingly disregarding sustainability.35

When considering the barriers of BIM, the UK identified cost, copyright and training to be the

issues with implementation. Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that the USA strongly believed

waste time and human resources was problematic.

From these trends, a relationship between the successes of BIM use within industry appears to

be highly relative to its country’s government goals. And although of the 70 participants, a

majority believed there was a future for BIM within industry, less than 20 were undecided and

less than 5 showed no support.

Yan and Damian conclude that in the UK, the BIM case is lacking in evidence for strong financial

benefit, causing weak support by industry.

However, in combatting that lacking support, the UK companies turned to the support of

government. Three years after the release of the Yan and Damian report, seminars, workshops

and great case studies on BIM implementation in the UK triggered an increase in support by

industry, but most importantly by government.

In an article by David Philp, BIM and the UK Construction Strategy (2012)36, closing the gap on

scepticism through the use of strong case studies also projected more value on BIM adoption

than ever before. Philp describes that the rapidly growing support shown by industry caused

the UK Government to respond by unveiling the Government’s Construction Strategy (GCS)

which pushes to mandate fully collaborative 3D BIM as a minimum within industry by 2016.

35 Ibid. 36 PHILP, D. 2012. BIM and the UK Construction Strategy. Available: http://www.thenbs.com/topics/bim/articles/bimAndTheUKConstructionStrategy.asp [Accessed 15 May 2012].

Philp argues that in order to aid this industry shift, great focus should be put on education and

training. He states that the UK industry is now preparing for the 2016 BIM switchover. Another

key issue raised by Philp is the concerning loss of data between handover and operation, which

he reassures is a key part of the GCS program. Luckily for the UK, the government’s decision to

prepare for mandatory BIM use has aided a rapid rate for its adoption within industry. The

balance in push from industry and pull by government provides an ideal support base for the

implementation of BIM within the UK.37

In summary, there are a number of key ideas drawn from methods of achieving adoption used

by other countries which would be worthwhile implementing within the Australian AEC

industry. Doing the research and exposing evidence to support claims is vital to convincing

decision makers as displayed with a UK context. Connecting government issues to relative BIM

solutions can also be beneficial to changing mindsets on a large scale. For the case of the USA,

addressing national concerns such as sustainability caused an instinctive reaction by industry to

adopt BIM processes, as well as the desire to keep up with rapidly advancing united industry

practices.

If there is anything to learn from these articles, it’s that identifying and addressing the needs of

key decision makers and catalysts, evidently increases the chances of implementing a national

BIM initiative in Australia.

4.2 Reflecting on the current Australian approach

In tackling industry adoption issues, Australia is still in the preliminary stages of action, with

many individuals still undecided on their support.38 However, this has not stopped industry

enthusiasts from trying to gain support through research, conferences, workshops and the

development of initiatives.

Many official organisations have developed studies and released documents to support the

benefits of BIM implementation. The Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia and

Autodesk released the BIM in Australia39 report in the December of 2010 highlighting how the

issues of BIM within Australia could be addressed, including leadership, management, software

support, legal, contractual, insurance and property issues. This report became influential to the

documents that followed it, and initiatives formed from it.

37 Ibid. 38 Based on observations and notes from the 2012 buildingSMART NBR Workshops in Canberra. 39 STAR, G. BIM in Australia. BIM in Australia, 2010 Australia. Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia & Autodesk, 1-14.

Prepared by Geraldine Star who attended a series of fora throughout Australia, the report

attempted to communicate the challenges and success of using BIM within industry. These

discussions, stimulated by case studies, summarised the valuable opinions of current industry

professionals who implement BIM into practice. The report documents these perspectives and

highlights the areas they are most concerned with. Subsequently, BIM in Australia has been an

influential source for guidelines and frameworks of numerous initiatives such as

buildingSMART.

The qualitative approach of reviewing current practice combined with case studies, secondary

sources and focus group fora were used to gather the information for this report. As the fora

were attended only by successful companies in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth, there is a

degree of bias in the results. Although taking this into account, it does successfully give voice to

the opinions of different specialties within the AEC. The results gathered are still valid and

provides a good mix of positive and negative opinions by the participants. Whilst there is no

way to really deduce the levels of support given to each issue, the report suggests consensus

amongst participants.

The report consistently argues the key issues including: lack of support from training bodies,

lack of leadership by industry, the need to develop national standards, more client awareness

and education and software compatibility development – to support transfer synergies. From

this, justified conclusions can be made that there are numerous areas that need to be worked on

to achieve effective use of BIM in Australia, and that there is a lot of positive support for the

movement towards it by industry companies. Written for professionals and academics alike, the

report is organised well for its intended audience and is evident in its significance to the current

industry movements.

Many major reports, like Star’s, enabled strong opinions to be formed by individuals throughout

the Australian AEC industry. And although the BIM in Australia conferences had varied effects,

the necessary information need to progress was exposed. One such example of consequential

action was Holzer, whose paper was reviewed previously, had attended these fora and later

raised concerns regarding BIM’s effect on traditional design methods.

Meanwhile organisations such as buildingSMART used other influential documents as a basis

for their research towards national change. Based on a report by the Built Environment

Industry and Innovation Council (BEIIC) and commissioned by the Federal Government, the

macroeconomic significance of BIM created foundations for accelerating national adoption

initiative. In order to aid this process, a several factors of constraint were highlighted, thus

motivating action to find viable solutions.

In 2011 buildingSMART, formally the International Alliance for Interoperability, held a number

of conferences collating key targets of action aimed at developing “A National Strategy for the

Adoption and Implementation of BIM”.40 Extracting the constraints developed by the BEIIC

report, buildingSMART presented them during the conferences to transform them into key

priorities of action. These then became the seven initiatives including: 1) the adoption of

common BIM guidelines, 2) supply and support of production information and BIM libraries, 3)

industry agreements on compliance and certification, 4) improvement of information exchange,

5) management of procurement, legal and insurance issues, 6) support and improvement for

process change, and 7) introducing multi-disciplinary BIM education. The report reveals the

priorities agreed by both industry and government in relation to a national initiative and

demonstrates that the issue has been exposed within the Australian Government. Though the

report does not expose too much on future plans of action, it is a clear indication that there is

industry movement towards national adoption in Australia.

Consequently, this conference report was then followed by the official Focus for the BIM

National Initiative41 document in early 2012. The document highlighted the topic areas that

were to be discussed in a series of workshops held in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart,

Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. For each initiative, the focus initiative was defined, current

activities highlighted and key strategies to ensure success. In investigating how national BIM

initiatives would unfold, it documents realistic objectives crucial to effective national adoption.

Based on this report and the methods proposed for change, it is evident that the prospects of

national adoption are practical and achievable – supporting the argument that Australia is ready

to implement BIM.

It appears that through the succession of documents expressed in this section, a systemic

change is assumed as the ideal avenue for projecting change. And based on the precedents of

countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America, a systemic approach

may be just what Australia needs to employ to fast track standardisation and adoption of BIM,

whilst maintaining a reputation for being a technologically-advanced country.

Taking all these factors into consideration, the Australian AEC industries are evidently on their

way towards national BIM adoption, and with government support, a digital future.

40 BUILDINGSMART 2011. A National Strategy for the Adoption and Implementation of BIM. MESH Conference Series. Brisbane, Sydney & Melbourne: buildingSMART. 41 BUILDINGSMART 2012. Focus Initiatives for the National BIM Roadmap. buildingSMART Australasia Chapter. Australia: buildingSMART.

Conclusion

In summation, it is evident that based on early drawing documentation history, mankind has

always strived for technological advancement and aid. However, adapting to changes can take a

long time, as it has been during the transition from pen, paper and ruler to 2D CAD.

Though it is hard to compare the progression of BIM acceptance to CAD adoption, Gaidyte

argues, BIM (which also supports CAD files) is a technological advancement of its predecessor

not a fundamentally new technology all together. Although the process in transition may be

more difficult than when adapting to CAD, if most of the AEC industry commits to it, then

increased adoption should result.

And as Ibrahim explains the existing resistance to change towards BIM technology, it still

appears to be integrating well within industry – providing optimism for change in the

architectural, engineering and construction industries. Regardless of the cultural and social

impacts of BIM, addressing the technical issues through systemic change allows for an

accelerated rate of adoption.

Using the United States of America and the United Kingdom as precedents for action, in order to

gain control over the direction of industry change in Australia, government support needs to be

achieved. The buildingSMART national BIM roadmap initiative is a developing foundation

enabling this to happen and brings Australian AEC closer to preparing for industry-wide

adoption. Through organisations such as this it is hoped that BIM adoption and integration

within the Australian AEC industry will continue to grow with the hopes of establishing a

government policy and industry standard to regulate its use.

Bibliography

2005. Best Practices in Change Management Colorado: Change Management Learning Center. 2009a. BIM in Practice. [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 2009b. National Guidelines for Digital modelling. Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for

Construction Innovation. 2012. Top five benchmarking insights [Online]. Colorado: Change Management Learning Center.

Available: http://www.change-management.com/06-bphighlights.htm [Accessed 14 May 2012 2012].

ANDERSON, B. L. 1993. The Stages of Systemic Change. Educational Leadership [Online], 51. Available: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept93/vol51/num01/toc.aspx.

BROQUETAS, M. 2010. From CAD to BIM: Part I - History of CAD [Online]. CAD Addict. Available: http://www.cad-addict.com/2010/02/from-cad-to-bim-part-i-history-of-cad.html [Accessed 14 May 2012].

BUILDINGSMART 2011. A National Strategy for the Adoption and Implementation of BIM. MESH Conference Series. Brisbane, Sydney & Melbourne: buildingSMART.

BUILDINGSMART 2012. Focus Initiatives for the National BIM Roadmap. buildingSMART Australasia Chapter. Australia: buildingSMART.

CADAZZ. 2004. CAD software history, 1970s: Internal to international standard [Online]. Available: http://www.cadazz.com/index.htm [Accessed 14 May 2012 2012].

GAIDYTE, R. 2010. 2D and 3D Modeling Comparison. Norway: Gjovik University College. HIGGOTT, G. 1990. Review of Drawing Instruments. Journal of the Society of Architectural

Historians, 49, 111-112. HOLZER, D. BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 9, 463-

480. HOWELL, I. B., B. 2005. Building Information Modeling Two Years Later – Huge Potential, Some

Success and Several Limitations. New Year, New Company, Newforma, New View of BIM [Online]. Available: http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue24/index.php [Accessed 14 May 2012].

IBRAHIM, M. To BIM or not to BIM, This is NOT the Question: How to Implement BIM Solutions in Large Design Firm Environments. Communicating Space(s), 24th eCAADe Conference, 2006 Volos, Greece. 262-267.

KATZ, D. K., R. L. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York, Wiley. LEFEVRE, M. 2011. No BIM for You: The Cade for Not Doing BIM. Journal of Building Information

Modeling. PHILP, D. 2012. BIM and the UK Construction Strategy. Available:

http://www.thenbs.com/topics/bim/articles/bimAndTheUKConstructionStrategy.asp [Accessed 15 May 2012].

QUAGLIA, T. 2011. A Rational Approach to CAD Standardization. USA: Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC).

SCHULER, A. J. 2003. Overcoming Resistance to Change: Top Ten Reasons for Change Resistance [Online]. Viginia: Schuler Solutions Inc. Available: http://www.schulersolutions.com/resistance_to_change.html [Accessed 13 May 2012].

STAR, G. BIM in Australia. BIM in Australia, 2010 Australia. Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia & Autodesk, 1-14.

SUTHERLAND, I. E. 2003. Sketchpad: A man-machine graphical communication system. In: KUHN, M. (ed.). United Kingdom: University of Cambridge.

YAN, H. D., P. 2008. Benefits and Barriers of Building Information Modelling. 12th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering. Beijing 2008.