Site Loader

e Architect Engineering and Construction industry (AEC) has been under immense government pressure to improve efficiencies and align itself with other industries. The governments preferred solution is BIM Business Information Modelling. Through mandates and performance targets, the government has been aggressively promoting its adoption and implementation. However, although the benefits of BIM have been well documented, the AEC industry still appears reluctant in its adoption of BIM, (Chen et al 2015). This study was conducted as a literature review for the purpose of identifying and analyzing the contributing factors and their associated barriers causing the slow uptake of BIM. The barriers researched have been divided in to four categories: Fragmentation and Calcified Processes, Organizational Culture, and Resistance to Change, Legal and Contractual Issues, Education & Awareness. Followed by an additional section, How Lean Principles support BIM’s ideals and facilitate the transition to full implementation of BIM. The purpose of his paper is to provide a detailed understanding of the contributing factors that have resulted in the AEC’s slow uptake of BIM. The result of this study increases the awareness of the contributing factors to the barriers of BIM implementation and offers an insight as to the cause of its slow uptake by the AEC industry and it concludes with its findings and offers suggestion for areas of further research.
Introduction
The Architect Engineering and Construction industry (AEC) is in crisis, productivity is lagging far behind that of similar sized industries, (Koskela, Lauri, 1992, Farmer, 2016). Following a succession of damning reports, dating back as far as the 1960’s, through to the most notable reports of Latham (1994) and Egan (1998), followed by the more recent report of farmer (2016), with each report the industry has come under closer and closer scrutiny and is now, more than ever, under increasingly intense pressure, from both clients and the government alike, to perform more efficiently and deliver better value to its customers. Modern approaches and advances in technology make this task possible, however, in order to do achieve these targets, yet remain competitive, companies will be required to completely overhaul their current business models, introduce, and utilise innovative techniques, technologies and methods of procurement, before they can achieve full implementation of BIM. In short, the industry must be willing to except change and embrace innovation, (Nour, M. 2007). However, the AEC industry remains inherently averse to change, (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000). With an extensive volume of research highlighting the benefits and abilities of BIM, the government has chosen this as its preferred solution and over the past decade, through mandates and performance targets, the government has set about, aggressively, enforcing its adoption, however, AEC’s adoption rate has still been alarmingly lower than anticipated (Fischer, Kunz 2004), with some in the industries professionals believing the government’s efforts would be better spent educating and promoting, rather than applying ‘Aggressive’ bullying tactics. Although the benefits associated with BIM are well documented, BIM is not without its limitations and barriers, the available literature suggests that BIM’s slow rate of adoption, isn’t simply down to the AEC industries ‘Inherent’ aversion to change, (Yan, Damian 2008; Zhang, Gao 2013), but to the countless, intertwining, factors that make up the various barriers to BIM implementation. For the purpose of clarity, it was necessary for this paper to firstly define, ‘What is meant by BIM’ along with providing a general explanation as to the benefits associated with BIM implementation, before collecting, examining and reviewing, the ensuing, literature in order to identify the contributing factors to the barriers to BIM implementation; the barriers have been categorised in to four main groups, they are as follows; Fragmentation and Calcified Processes, Organisational Culture and Resistance to Change, Legal and Contractual Issues, Education ; Awareness, next this paper proposes to perform a further literature review to determine: What is Lean and How Do Lean and BIM Complement One another., then finally this paper will present its findings and recommendation for further research by way of a conclusion.

Research Methodology
Literature Review: To collect and review the existing research literature relating to the barriers to the implementation of BIM, the contributing factors and possible causes for the AEC industry’s slow adoption rate and how LEAN principles can ease the t transition to full BIM adoption BIM. The research material will be gathered from the following sources; The University of Salford’s databases, ResearchGate, ScienceDirect, Academia.edu, EmeraldInsight, Elsevier, along with Government papers. Due to the limitations of this paper and the sheer volume of research literature concerning the ‘Barriers to BIM’ the author has decided to focus upon 4 of the main barriers to BIM; as outlined above.

Literature Review
Summary of Literature Reviewed
6477022733000
What is “Building Information Modelling” (BIM)
Building Information Modelling, or as its more commonly referred to BIM is set to revolutionise the modern-day construction industry, its original conception can be traced back as far as the 70’s, one of the earliest examples was that of Chuck Eastman’s 1975 ‘Building Description System (Eastman et al. 2008), since then, all areas relating to BIM and it associated technologies, have been the subject of extensive research, by both Academia and the construction Industry itself, this has led to several models and terms being used for what we in the UK now refer to as BIM, although there is still some confusion as to what is meant by the term BIM. Singh et al, (2011), argue, that the main reason for such varying terms and definitions of BIM, is more likely related to the differing ways in which the various construction disciplines view or approach the usage of BIM. Some of the more commonly used terms are identified below in; Table 1, with Table 2, demonstrates the wide variety of BIM definitions held by the various organisations and researchers.

040513000Table (1)
(Succar, 2009)
Table (2)

With all these varying term and definitions, it’s easy to understand why there is such confusion. Based on the above definitions, we can determine that BIM is essentially a set of technologically enabled, collaborative processes for generating, managing, sharing and comparing, construction project information, throughout its entire life cycle, from inception to demolition. To ease the confusion, for the remainder of this paper the term most commonly used by UK AEC industry (BIM), and the definition outlined by the CIOB (2017) above, will be used. Alongside the ease in which documents and other information can be accessed and shared, there are a number of additional benefits to implementing BIM. Azhar et al. (2011) summarizes that the benefits of BIM are; increased accuracy of graphical representation, increased accuracy of cost estimates, clash detection and avoidance, enabling better planning of the construction phases and greater sustainable design, greater whole Lifecycle data, automated assembly and prefabrication, increased quality and better customer service. The later studies of (Berg, 2012, Barlish and Sullivan, 2012, and German 2012) indicate, that the development of a 3D model affords the stakeholders the opportunity to better visualize their project, coupled with its ability to reduce design clashes, can result in up to a 40% reduction of unbudgeted design changes and construction time can be reduced by approximately 7%, with overall project cost down by up to 10%. The diagram below indicates that cost benefits of BIM.

0952500
(www.buildinginformationmanagement. 2012)
Barriers to BIM implementation
With the benefits of BIM well documented, coupled with the added pressure of the UK governments BIM mandate (Gov.UK Industry strategy 2011), raises the understandable questions; why has the uptake of BIM been so slow? This next section will review the available literature concerning the barriers and their contributing factors effecting the implementation BIM.
Fragmentation and calcified processes
9525384810000Reports by Latham (1994), Egan (1998), and more recently, Farmer (2016) have all identified fragmentation as one of the main reasons for the industries failings. So, what is meant by fragmentation? The general consensus within literature, is that fragmentation can be split in to two categories; overall, it’s the separation of design and construction but more specifically, it’s the separation of the construction disciplines and processes, sub-contractors and the industries suppliers, consequently the whole process, results in all parties operating independently, it is this segregation that creates a somewhat stifling environment for innovation and collaboration, (Shamil Naoum et al, 2010). This is confirmed by, Rahman, M. Motiar, (2014), stating that, fragmentation restricts communication and coordination. The issue of structural fragmentation was not the only finding of Farmer (2016), when comparing the manufacturing industry against the construction and farming industries, his research identified a second critical feature of the construction industry, low or poor levels of productivity, (Farmer, 2016). Below is a graphical representation of Farmers findings.

Farmer (2016)
As we can see from the graph above, over the last few decades, farming has consistently outperformed the construction industry, with manufacturing outperforming both, however as Farmer (2016) so rightly points out, manufacturing, is based around producing the same product(s) within the same controlled environment, with a well-established and fully integrated supply chain, often utilising a directly employed workforce, this clearly proves that the environment in which the manufacturing industry operates is far removed from that of farming and construction, indicating that the parameters of farmers study favour manufacturing above the other two industries and therefore the results can be perceived as having a bias in favour of manufacturing. In the interests of fairness, let’s compare the farming against the construction industry; the majority of farming activities are dependent upon weather conditions, its heavily reliant upon plant and requires a high level of migrant manual labour, this closely resembles that of the construction industry. This is not to dismiss the advantages technology has to offer, as manufacturing has clearly proven its benefits, nevertheless, this does indicate that the lack new technology is not the reason for constructions poor production rates, however, Autodesk (2004), does highlight that, “Investment in technology in the worldwide building economy lags that of a similarly sized industry.” This would imply that the lack of investment in technology could be to blame, or is it simply the ‘Lack of Investment’ that is a fault? More specifically, is it the lack of government backed investment? The farming industry has long been in receivership of subsidies and tax breaks, “Environment Secretary opens a £40 million grants scheme today for investment in farm technology and equipment.” (Gov.UK, 2017). The scheme, also opens up the availability of grants for investment in “robotic milking machines to green technology”, all with the aim of improving productivity, quality and reducing cost, (Gov.uk, 2017), the exact requirements the government performance targets demand of the AEC industry. This indicates that the government is fully aware of the need to and value of, government backed, investment in technology and strongly indicates that the problem does not lie with an ‘unwillingness to embrace technology’ but that of lack, Government backed investment. Another possible reason, highlighted by this research, as to why the construction industries production rates fall short of that of other sectors, is that unlike the workforce of other industries, the entire team of a construction project, very rarely work together on more than one project, (Autodesk, 2004), this inhibits the knowledge transfer from project to project. Mossman, (2009) Agrees, suggesting, fragmentation and sub-contracting have a negative influence on the cooperative learning process. When comparing construction to other industries. The combined literature, presents a strong case for the AEC industry to find ways to, or as closely as possible, mimic and adopt manufacturing principles and processes, and highlights the need for an industry wide drive to encourage the sharing of knowledge and lessons learned from current and past projects, but fundamentally, it highlights the lack of support afforded the exact same industries the government is expecting the AEC industry to emulate.

Organisational Culture and Resistance to Change
The construction industry has long been known for its adversarial culture to change, (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000), and has resisted adopting manufacturing ideas and processes, claiming manufacturing production is more about producing a repetitive product and that construction projects are very rarely the same, more complex and inevitably have more variables to account for, (Salem et al., 2006). Kajewski (2001), suggests, “Change has always been and will remain difficult, as organisations will change only as far and as fast as its collective individuals are willing to change, because people are and always will be ‘instinctively programmed’ to resist change”. According to Gann et al, (1998). E. Cameron and M. Green (2009) identified links between the implementation of new IT innovations and employee resistance to change. Popkova, et al, (2013), imply, there is a concern amongst construction professionals, surrounding the risk of failure and the financial loss that comes with it. with many experienced construction professionals preferring to rely on more traditional methods and practices and with increasingly tighter margins there is an added pressure of trying to get it right first time, which restricts an organisations opportunity to experiment with new innovations, (Kumaraswamy and Dulaimi, 2001). The issue of the financial risk of failure is very much a valid one, considering the initial start-up costs of implementing IT innovations can soon mount up; hardware, software, up-skilling of existing staff and the possible hiring of new staff, these costs could prove daunting to smaller organisations, and would certainly present a barrier of implementing BIM, (Liu, 2015), the problem being is that within the construction industry, other than Architects, engineers and design teams, the majority of the industry rarely operate computers and software packages and even when they do, it’s only at a very basic level, accounting, emails invoicing etc, so do not recognise the need for further investment, this implies, that unless current practices change, then the architect is likely to shoulder the entire cost, (Ashcraft, 2009), another reason for the reluctance of BIM’s adoption, is how its perceived, Lymath, (2014) with many smaller contractors believing BIM is only for use on large scale contracts and therefore has no place in their business. It’s clear from the literature, that any form of change is viewed negatively. Smith, et al (2011) indicate, that many employees viewed BIM as “a disruptive technology in design”. Construction Products Association (2016), suggest, that another factor causing the slow uptake of BIM, is the lack of investors in the private sector, after several recessions, and the recent uncertainty brought about by BREXIT, uncertain of a return on their investment, the industry’s investors are more reluctant to part with their money and with no new investment companies are less likely to risk the implementation of technologies and ideas. ICE (2015) concur, stating that many organisations have an inherent fear of change, no clear benefit with no guaranteed return on investment when adopting new working practices so it is difficult to overcome the ‘reluctance to change’
Legal and Contractual Issues
In order to achieve BIM’s full potential, Multidiscipline collaboration, integration and the open sharing of knowledge are essential, furthermore, this needs to be achieved on an industry wide scale, however, in order to facilitate such an adoption, there is a necessity to address the legal issues and possible ramifications surrounding the usage of BIM (Barak, 2009). Research shows that stakeholders are concerned about security surrounding the ownership of intellectual rights and protection of data (McAdam 2010, Chynoweth et al., 2007, Udom, K. 2012). Thomson ; Miner, (2006), raise the issue of who will eventually have the responsibility of controlling the data, before, during and after project completion. This has highlighted the possibility of Licensing problems, as the construction team gets bigger, so does the number of stakeholders contributing data, (Azhar, 2011), highlighting further problems regarding insurance of design liability, (Sieminski, 2007). In standard construction practice, once the project is complete, the ‘Design’ becomes the architect’s property, in contrast, BIM’s ethos is much different, one of the major asset that BIM enabled projects offer, is their ability to provide information throughout a project lifecycle, with the finished data provides a wealth of knowledge for future projects, whilst playing a pivotal role in of the ‘Soft Landings,’ package, this then enables the client, or facilities manager to add, modify or reuse the original data, Hurtado, O’Connor (2008). Sieminski, (2007) and Gu et al. (2009), raise the question, “what happens if the data falls in to a competitor’s hands?”, from contractor’s point of view, this could result in them losing their competitive edge, Sebastian et al (2015) support this, arguing, “sharing knowledge openly and neutrally within the context of a one-off project may become disadvantageous for a stakeholder which would not involve in the next projects.” Furthermore, what happens if this data, later becomes corrupt or the BIM model used comes with preloaded data from previous projects and that data turns out to be incorrect, who is liable? Ashcraft (2009) highlights a similar issue, when offering a, real life, example of a BIM based project suffering a ‘Cost overrun’ due to software flaws, in this case,” the software supplier’s liability was limited to the software acquisition cost owing to a limitation of liability clause in the supply agreement”, clients, architects and contractors alike would all want to know, who would then be expected to cover the cost of repairs? In the case of D & F Estates v Church Commissioners for England 1989 AC 177 the judge ruled that contractor did not owe a ‘duty of care’ for the cost of repairing a defective building, however, Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) AC 465, highlighted the fact that, in contrast, architects and designers are viewed to having “sufficiently proximate” and therefore have a duty of care. It’s clear from the available research, the ‘Responsibility of Risk,’ is a key issue and this can only be addressed by the development of a new suite of contracts designed specifically for BIM implementation. (Lazar, 2000), suggests, standard forms of contracts do not offer the flexibility to encompass the collaborative nature and risk sharing required to implement BIM. Mathews, et al (2005) summarise, current contractual arrangements restrict the ability to extract the full benefits BIM has to offer. This is confirmed by later works of Ashcraft (2008), stating, Current contractual arrangements, do not cover the ‘Shared information’ aspects of BIM and lack of standard forms of contract, designed specifically for BIM are causing a direct barrier to BIM implementation. McAdam, (2010), reiterates this, stating, that traditional contracts bipartite agreements, this automatically creates a conflict within the ideals of BIM, this is further confirmed by the UK BIM Alliance (2017) claiming, “Contracts form the backbone of a construction project and so a BIM enabled project requires contracts that provide the correct framework for BIM. There is an ongoing debate within the industry as to the correct procurement route, contract terms and the legal risks associated with BIM.” (BIM Alliance 2017). It will be essential to define the legal status of the model and shared information, along with the distribution of risks arising from collaboration and BIM implementation, there may also be a need to address changes to the payment structure, due to the fact that, as opposed to more traditional ‘Design and Build’ methods, there is a shift in activities, with the majority of design, quality control and engineering taking place in the early stages of design and pre-construction and as such there needs to be a change in the payment arrangements associated, (Chao – Duivis, 2009, as cited by Sebastian, 2009), such as, performance-based commissioning and payment schemes Sebastian (2010). A more collaborative approach to procurement and contractual arrangements was also highlighted in earlier report by Eagan (1998) were he found that contractual relations were preventing efficient working, suggesting that competitive tendering should be replaced with “long term relationships based on clear measurement of performance”, as noted by Sebastian et al (2015), existing procurement methods do not go far enough to sufficiently address the concerns of the stakeholders, as outlined above. The cumulation of literature clearly indicates the need for a fresh set of BIM orientated contract documents that address the legal and contractual issues identified by the reviewed literature.

Education ; Awareness
9525111569500Over the last decade, the technologies associated with BIM have evolved at an exponential rate, however, throughout the industry there are still varying degrees of understanding regarding to the benefits, applications and maturity levels of BIM, (Farzad et al, 2012).
BIM maturity Levels (Technics Group, 2017).
A common opinion held within the literature reviewed, suggests that if BIM implementation is to be realised, there is an undeniable need to increase awareness of BIM’s varying levels of maturity, possible applications, and overall benefits. Sharag-Eldin & Nawari, (2010) believe the solution lies within additional education and training, suggesting, education and training will be fundamental to BIM’s success. In a study by Sebastian (2009) “several real cases of complex building projects, found that most clients struggled to translate their ambition and objective of BIM into effective project implementation strategies” this would suggest that if clients are not made aware of the benefits and added value BIM is capable of delivering and furthermore how to utilise it, then how or why would they stipulate it as a requirement, ‘where the client leads, the industry will surely follow’. Market, (2014), agrees with this hypothesises, by indicating, that BIM implementation, needs to be client led; failure to achieve this, an industry wide adoption of BIM will be an almost impossibility. Ivory (2005) suggests that lack of abilities/resources of the client is detrimental to collaboration, furthermore Lymath, (2014) states; “No client demand. This was cited by 73% of practices employing five staff or fewer”. Although these figures might be high when compared with some of the industries larger practices, they are still alarmingly high.
Along with the need to educate and raise awareness of the client, there is also an industry shortage of BIM educated and trained personnel, Smith ; Tardif, (2009), suggest that the current lack of trained personnel was only likely to deepen over the next 20 years, furthermore Becerik-Gerber et al, (2011) identified, the lack of trained personal was directly linked to the slow adoption and usage of BIM. With a shortage of trained staff that are aware of what is required and how to set about implementing BIM the adoption rate will only get slower. Aibinu ; Venkatesh, (2014), had similar finding and identified, a lack of knowledge from management, as to what is required in order to change form a ‘Traditional’ to a more ‘Collaborative’ approach such as BIM, furthermore they continued, that many management teams were concerned about the impact such a learning curve may have on their current business model. In an effort to force the adoption and implementation of BIM, the Governments BIM mandate (2011) stipulates that, before a company can be awarded a government contract, they must have a minimum of BIM level2 capabilities and as such, larger companies, that predominantly operate within the public sector, have already adopted BIM, however this still leaves the smaller private investor based companies, that are being forgotten and still seem to believe that BIM has no place or value to their projects, Lymath, (2014), a worrying, 71% small practices (five or fewer staff) felt that BIM simply isn’t applicable, or appropriate”. This issue is amplified by the fact that the its the smaller private sector based companies that are responsible for the majority of the AEC industries annual turnover, this is attested in a briefing paper published by the House of Commons (2015), “Overall, orders from the private sector accounted for three quarters of all orders” in total the private sector orders were worth £16.8 billion, compared to public sector’s £5.8 billion. Yet the government has taken a very different approach towards the implementation of BIM within the public sector adopting a much more positive approach, implementing a fiscal stimulus policy to promote growth and investment whiles simultaneously offering incentives lucrative contracts for companies that adopt BIM, resulting in an increase in public sector orders, however, the fact remains, the majority of private sector clients and companies do not have the available resources to consider competing for projects of that magnitude, the contrasting differences in the size and value of public and private sector projects coupled with the governments, distinctively, opposing approaches, does present a possible explanation to the findings of Lymath, (2014) and a contributing factor in the dropping off of BIM’s uptake, as illustrated by the graphical representation below.

-1009652438400BIM Awareness and Usage 2010 – 2014Bimplus.co.uk (2014)
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that a common theme running through the research reviewed by this paper, strongly suggests that the private sector, as a whole, are being overlooked and that the government could do more to educate, stimulate and support the implementation of BIM, throughout this sector. This is confirmed by the study carried out by Farzad Khosrowshahi et al (2012), where they recorded; 51.6% of respondents believed that governments should play a leading role with a further 39.1% believing the government should at least play a guiding role, this suggests that if the government wants companies to adopt new forms of ‘Best Practice’ and adopt new approaches to projects such as BIM, they need to take a more prominent role, in promoting, educating and inspiring, not just the AEC professionals, but the clients and the entire supply chain, an astonishing total of 92.63% of respondents had aspirations of government support, some of these aspirations are likely to have been that of increased financial support, this is due to the fact that the construction industry has , historically been plagued with difficulties in, gaining access to financial support, as the banks perceive the construction sector as a ‘High Risk’ investment. The lack of access to additional finances has unquestionably stalled the industry’s ability to invest in new technologies, Wilen, (2010), confirms this assumption, stating that there is a direct link between the reduction in government funding and the reduction in the level of new construction projects. Yet, in a government paper published by the Department for Business Innovation Skills (2013), openly acknowledge, “construction contracting SMEs are often unaware of finance initiatives and existing government support programmes available to them” as the initial start-up cost has already been highlighted by this paper as factor in the development of a barrier to BIM adoption, the government clearly isn’t doing enough to educate, promote and ease the burden throughout the industry, especially for smaller businesses, reiterating the governments lack of financial investment, incentives and support, that it has afforded, other industries and construction sectors.

How Lean Principles Support BIM’s Ideals and Facilitate the Transition to Full Implementation of BIM
-9525257340400To implement BIM there in a need for businesses to undergo an organisational restructure, rethink their work ethic, streamline their processes, re-evaluate how they perceive value and completely change how they approach the planning of a construction project. This is where adopting LEAN philosophies and principles can help. So, what is LEAN? Lean according to O’Connor, R, Swain, B (2013), is a high-performance method for managing organisations and delivering their core purpose in the most efficient and effective manner while continuing to develop for a sustainable future. Alongside these standard principles Lean has an abundance of tools to improve the various stages of production as illustrated in the ‘Lean ; Six Sigma Tools’ diagram below.

(salutopartners. 2018)
The main aim of Lean has two main functions, to minimise waste and maximise value to the customer. Lean’s views production in the following 5 ways: Customer value – Understanding exactly what it is the client requires and values, Value stream – Understanding processes involved in the production, Flow – Eliminating non-value adding activities, allowing the processes to run smoothly, Pull – Pulling value through the entire supply chain in order to better suit the demand of the customer Continuous improvement – Constant pursuit of perfection
The construction is inherently wasteful, (Formoso, et.al, 1999). One on the main principles of lean is to reduce waste, lean views waste in 7 different ways, known as “The 7 wastes of Muda” (Lean Manufacturing, 2017). Transport, Inventory, Motion, Waiting, Over-Processing and Defects. Alacorn, (1993) defines waste as “Anything that is different from the minimum quantity of equipment, materials, parts and labour time that is absolutely essential for production.” In general terms, lean classes waste as any activity that adds cost but not value to the end product, Sowards, (2005) notes, on a construction site you can often see machines and men waiting, often for further instructions or materials, these are all considered waste under Lean principles and it is these types of waste both Lean and BIM hope to eliminate. however, waste is genuinely measured in terms of cost and proves much more difficult when it comes to measuring efficiency of certain activities. Alarcon, (1995) suggest the reason for this is that the optimum benchmark is often unknown, the BIM model can be built upon, project after project and by utilising the tools of Lean a comprehensive database of ‘Benchmarks’ can be built up from project to project enabling for benchmarks to not only be established but continually updated and improved.
Lean’s emphasis on predictability, discipline and continuous improvement, this creates the necessity of collaboration and experimentation, these principles align themselves perfectly to the implementation of BIM, Bhargav et at (2013) suggest, that within a Lean construction environment, Lean principles “will ease the introduction and implementation of BIM based technologies and enhance their effectiveness.” Especially in the initial adoption of new technologies. collaborative planning is one of the major contributions functions of Lean (Bhargav et al, 2013). Let’s examine a ‘Project Schedule’, and apply Lean principles of collaboration of the entire construction team, analysing to remove design errors, reducing the possibilities of defects and waste and find collaborative solutions to problems, using value stream mapping to smooth and improve work flows, (Thomas, et al, 2003), the result of which would be a smoother, faster and more cost-effective schedule, suggesting, that by adopting the principles of Lean and applying them to the planning phase, it’s possible to visualize each construction process and identify possible ways of improvement, (Alarcon L, 1997), this is essentially the main aim of BIMs, ‘Clash Detection’ one of the most commonly known benefits of BIM, and is perfect example of how Leans principle, 147155380400underline BIMs ideals. The figure below illustrates the interactive relationship between BIM and Lean.

Bhargav et at (2013).
The literature clearly shows how both BIM and Lean complement each other, through workflows that span the entire life cycle of the 83820286893000-14097081915000project, an example diagram of a BIM and Lean work flow is exhibited in the figure below:
(Bhargav, et al, 2013).

As Lean is effectively a set of principles that can be used to create a new work ethos, it lacks the initial high start-up costs for its adoption and takes a more a holistic approach, this makes it much easier for organisations to except and implement. Lean takes collaboration and commitment from the entire workforce, these are the cornerstone of BIM, Constructing Excellence (2004). Elrod II and Tippett, (2002), suggest, that once this new ethos has taken hold, organisations will become more responsive to change and therefore, it will be much easier for organisations to see the similarities between BIM and Lean and therefore better understand the potential benefits BIM has to offer. However, Todnem (2005) warns, that the process of organisational change can be unpredictable, therefore should not be approached from the top down and should instead be seen as a process of learning, CIRIA, (2011) concur and emphasise, the importance of adopting Lean management techniques such as Bottom-Up management, as this involves the ‘Downstream’ stakeholders in the ‘Front End’ planning and design phases, which reinforces the culture of collaboration and change through continuous improvement, a fundamental value of both BIM and Lean.

Conclusion
This research Has exploredAlthough BIM is no longer considered to be in its infancy, there is still a coherent lack of globally excepted definition or even an agreed term for what this paper acknowledges as BIM. From the outside, this appears to be a minor issue, howevwer, if the industries professionals van not agree on the terms or definition of BIM then the confusion surround BIM purpose and ultimately its relevance, will continue to cuase , As with any innovation there is inevitably going to be a period of perpetual uncertainty and concern over the risk involved in implementing it and this was certainly true of this paper finding, with the reviewed literature presenting a constant thread concerning the industries apparent fear of technology and basic lack of understanding of, not just the technologies associated with BIM
an inherent fear of the unknown, this was certainly a constant thread throughout the literature, fear and lack of understanding of BIM, undoubtedly play a major role in the creation of Barriers contributing to the slow uptake of BIM, Succar, (2010).

If the AEC industry is to ever achieve a successful fully integration of BIM, then the Government must do more to educate, promote and provide incentives and financial support for the private sector as well as the it has in the public sector,
it will require the challenging and eliminating of the intertwining factors that make up the barriers, from the case law, procurement and contract strategies, emerging standards, guidance and specification, and digital technologies.
These documents continue to proliferate without a universally agreed upon standardised format, content or defined concepts for their development between countries or within the different regions of the same country. The combined literature,
What is echoed throughout the literature is that
Theories should be used for explaining why problems exist and how they could be avoided (Koskela & Ballard 2003).

Post Author: admin