Academia.eduAcademia.edu
Building Information Modelling: conceptual constructs and performance improvement tools Bilal Succar Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, December 2013 School of Architecture and Built Environment Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 bsuccar@changeagents.com.au Declaration This thesis by published works is submitted for the award of Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Newcastle. Some of the papers included as part of this submission are jointly authored and I hereby certify that I have included a written statement from each co-author or project leader - endorsed by the Faculty Assistant Dean (Research Training) - attesting to my contribution to the joint publications. Where work embodied in this thesis has been conducted in collaboration with other researchers, or in other institutions, I have included a statement clearly outlining the extent of collaboration, with whom and under what auspices. This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to the final version of my thesis being made available worldwide when deposited in the University’s Digital Repository, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Bilal Succar December 16, 2013 i Acknowledgements This study journey spanned eight years along which I enjoyed the support of many colleagues, friends and family. I’m in debt to all for their intellectual input, encouragement or active support. I owe most gratitude to the formative words of my mentor Hadret El-Sheikh Abdul-Rahman El-Helou, the loving support of my wife Siham, the tender patience of my daughters Noor and Mariam, and the sympathetic guidance of my primary supervisor AProf Willy Sher. I also owe much gratitude to my secondary supervisors Prof Tony Williams (Newcastle University and Avondale College) for his sound advice over the years, and AProf Guillermo Aranda-Mena (RMIT University) for his friendship and encouragement to undertake this study in the first place. Thank you to all those how participated in the international focus groups and offered their time and valuable input. My sincere appreciation for the assistance provided by Prof Miroslaw Skibniewski (Maryland University), AProf Bob Owen (Salford then QUT), and Prof Andy Wong (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) in organizing focus group sessions at their respective institutions. I also wish to thank Prof Andrew Baldwin for organizing a session at Loughborough University which was sadly cancelled when Eyjafjallajökull spewed its volcanic ash into the path of my - and so many other – flights. I would like to acknowledge the sound advice provided by Prof Alistair Gibb (Loughborough University) covering the Thesis by Publication route; a route I subsequently followed and now highly recommend to future PhD students. Finally, I extend my appreciation to the thesis’ international reviewers from the universities of São Paulo and Salford. Their generous input - and that of all anonymous paper reviewers - has assisted in improving the deliverables of this study/journey which I hereby present to domain researchers and fellow practitioners. ii Thesis Overview Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a set of technologies, processes and policies enabling multiple stakeholders to collaboratively design, construct and operate a facility. There are numerous challenges attributed to BIM adoption by industry and academia. These represent a number of knowledge gaps each warranting a focused investigation by domain researchers. This study does not isolate a single gap to address but espouses a holistic view of the knowledge problem at hand. It contributes to the discussion a set of conceptual constructs that clarify the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain. It also introduces a number of practicable knowledge tools to facilitate BIM learning, assessment and performance improvement. This study is delivered through complementary papers and appendices to answer two primary research questions. The first explores the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain whilst the second probes how these knowledge structures can be used to facilitate the measurement and improvement of BIM performance across the construction industry. To address the first question, the study identifies conceptual clusters underlying the BIM domain, develops descriptive taxonomies of these clusters, exposes some of their conceptual relationships, and then delivers a representative BIM framework. The BIM framework is composed of three-axes which represent the main knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain and support the development of functional conceptual models. To address the second question, BIM framework structures are extended through additional concepts and tools to facilitate BIM performance assessment and development of individuals, organizations and teams. These additional concepts include competency sets, assessment workflows and measurement tools which can be used to assess and improve the BIM performance of industry stakeholders. iii In addressing these research questions, a pragmatic approach to research design based on available literature and applicable theories has been adopted. By combining several research strategies, paradigms and methods, this study (1) generates several new conceptual structures (e.g. frameworks, models and taxonomies) which collectively clarify the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain; and (2) develops a set of workflows and tools that facilitate BIM assessment, learning and performance improvement. This study delivers an extendable knowledge structure upon which to build a host of BIM performance improvement initiatives and tools. As a set of complementary papers and appendices, the study presents a rich, unified yet multi-layered environment of conceptual constructs and practicable tools; supported by a common framework, a domain ontology and simplified visual representations. Individually, each paper introduces a new framework part or solidifies a previous one. Collectively, the papers form a cohesive knowledge engine that generates assessment systems, learning modules and performance improvement tools. iv Thesis structure The thesis is delivered in three parts - introduction document, published papers and supporting appendices: Part I: introduction document The introduction document identifies the research questions, research design and study deliverables. Part I includes eleven sections: Sections 1-3 introduce the research context, research background and discuss the importance of BIM; Sections 4-6 identify the research questions underpinning this study, discuss the conceptual background and overall research design; Sections 7-8 introduce a hierarchy of conceptual structures and clarify how the BIM framework has been constructed; Section 9 introduces the study’s research deliverables, the common themes underlying the submitted papers, and how different research deliverables aggregate into a conceptual and practical continuum; Section 10 provides a conclusion, identifies a study limitation and introduces its future extensions; and Section 11 includes the introduction document’s bibliographic references. Part II: published papers Part 2 includes nine papers – in three types - submitted as part of this thesis. Paper types are explained in section 9 of Part I: Paper A1: A Proposed Framework to Investigate Building Information Modelling through Knowledge Elicitation and Visual Models Paper A2: The BIM Framework: a Research and Delivery Foundation Paper A3: Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix Paper A4: The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement v Paper A5: Measuring BIM Performance: Five Metrics Paper A6: An integrated approach to BIM competency assessment, acquisition and application Paper B1: Building Information Modeling: analyzing noteworthy publications of eight countries using a knowledge content taxonomy Paper B2: A proposed approach to comparing the BIM maturity of countries Paper C: BIM in Practice - BIM Education, a Position Paper by the Australian Institute of Architects and Consult Australia Part III: appendices Part III includes six appendices to clarify and support submitted papers: Appendix A: the BIM ontology Appendix B: BIM knowledge content taxonomy Appendix C: citations of published papers Appendix D: focus groups info sheet and feedback form Appendix E: statements of contribution Appendix F: aggregation of all bibliographic references cited in this study vi PART I INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT This document introduces the research topics, questions, design and deliverables. It summarizes the contribution each submitted paper made towards this study, explores common research themes across papers, and provides an insight into future study extensions. Table of contents Research context ............................................................................................................ 2 Research background..................................................................................................... 2 Importance of BIM ......................................................................................................... 3 BIM benefits ................................................................................................................... 3 BIM challenges ............................................................................................................... 4 Research questions ........................................................................................................ 6 Research aims and objectives ....................................................................................... 7 Conceptual background ................................................................................................. 8 Previous research ........................................................................................................... 8 Applicable theories ......................................................................................................... 9 Experiential knowledge ................................................................................................ 12 Thought experiments ................................................................................................... 12 Research design ........................................................................................................... 13 Research paradigms ..................................................................................................... 13 Positivist paradigm...................................................................................................14 Interpretive paradigm ..............................................................................................14 Critical paradigm ......................................................................................................14 Discussion: adopting a mixed paradigm...................................................................15 Research strategy ......................................................................................................... 15 Deduction ................................................................................................................16 Induction ..................................................................................................................16 Abduction ................................................................................................................17 Retroduction ............................................................................................................17 Discussion: adopting a mixed strategy .....................................................................18 Research method ......................................................................................................... 19 Data collection.............................................................................................................. 21 Conceptual constructs ................................................................................................. 23 Frameworks .................................................................................................................. 24 Models.......................................................................................................................... 26 Taxonomies .................................................................................................................. 27 Classifications ............................................................................................................... 27 Dictionaries................................................................................................................... 28 Ontologies .................................................................................................................... 29 Framework development ............................................................................................ 29 Research deliverables .................................................................................................. 33 List of included papers ................................................................................................. 33 Content summary of included papers .......................................................................... 34 Research themes across included papers..................................................................... 39 An expansive research continuum ............................................................................... 41 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 45 Current limitations ....................................................................................................... 46 Future extensions ......................................................................................................... 46 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 48 References .................................................................................................................... 49 PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 1 Research context Building Information Modelling (BIM) is the current expression of technical and procedural innovation within the construction industry. It is a methodology that generates, exchanges and manages a constructed facility’s data throughout its life cycle. While BIM is solidly rooted in technological advances, partially transferred from other industries, it extends into the realm of social exchanges between organizational actors. A focused analysis of the BIM domain is thus necessarily an in-depth investigation of multi-layered organizational dynamics, changing knowledge structures across industry sectors and evolving market requirements. To understand BIM, its disparate parts must be identified as well as the sum of these parts; individual deliverables must be defined alongside the requirements for these deliverables; and individual concepts and tools must be recognized in addition to the relationship between them. In essence, to holistically understand BIM, it must be considered as a multi-faceted paradigm, an emergent interdisciplinary field of research and application within the construction industry. Research background BIM concepts, tools and workflows have been extensively discussed in peer-reviewed literature, industry seminars and online public discussions. Within these, BIM is described as a catalyst for change (Bernstein, 2005) poised to reduce industry’s fragmentation (CWIC, 2004), improve its efficiency/effectiveness (Hampson & Brandon, 2004) and lower the high costs of inadequate interoperability (NIST, 2004). These assertions – abridged as they may be - include several mental constructs derived from organizational studies, information systems and regulatory fields. Such divergence and breadth highlight the need for clear conceptual constructs – taxonomies, ontologies, models and frameworks - to organize domain knowledge, facilitate BIM learning within industry and academia, and enable the development of practicable performance improvement tools. Several conceptual constructs are developed as part of this study and will be explored in subsequent sections. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 2 Importance of BIM The importance of BIM stems from its significant benefits and substantial challenges. As summarized in sections 3.1 and 3.2, BIM concepts and workflows promise to deliver substantial benefits to “all participants in the process of designing, constructing, owning and refurbishing buildings” (BIS, 2011, p. 7). These deliverables however are subject to substantial cultural challenges, legal barriers and process complexity. Some of the more impactful benefits and challenges are discussed below: BIM benefits The benefits attributed to BIM represent unique project deliverables and invariably reflect industry’s long-term expectations from this new CAD paradigm (Ibrahim, Krawczyk, & Schipporeit, 2004, p. 1). Below is a non-exhaustive list summarizing BIM benefits: • BIM will reduce industry’s fragmentation (CWIC, 2004); • BIM significantly reduces labour costs, production rework and installation conflicts (Khanzode, Fischer, & Reed, 2008); • BIM creates a transparent project environment (Leicht & Messner, 2008); • BIM enhances collaboration between construction professionals (Alshawi & Faraj, 2002); • BIM is an “integration of product and process modelling” (Kimmance, 2002, p. 6); • BIM allows rapid/accurate updating of changes; reduction of effort required for establishing spatial programmes; improved communication within the project team; and elevated confidence in scope completeness (Manning & Messner, 2008) as reported in (Linderoth, 2010); • BIM results in a “clear improvement in engineering design quality, in terms of error- free drawings, and steadily increasing improvement in labour productivity” (Kaner, Sacks, Kassian, & Quitt, 2008, p. 303); • A combined BIM/Lean approach is more efficient than a Design-Bid-Build or a Design-Build project delivery process (USAF, 2010); PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 3 • BIM can address the emerging challenges of sustainability within the construction industry (Watson, 2010); • The adoption of BIM principles will allow all construction industry players to gain “substantial benefits in financial terms” (BIS, 2011, p. 7); and • BIM has many benefits including: automated assembly, better design, controlled whole-life costs and environmental data, enhanced processes, higher production quality, and improved customer service (ACG, 2010). BIM challenges Industry’s expectations of BIM are neither readily nor necessarily matched by reality. Numerous studies have shown that implementing BIM presents significant challenges in BIM education, multidisciplinary workflows and organizational transformation. A non- exhaustive list summarizing these is provided below: • BIM adoption and collaboration is negatively affected by construction industry’s confrontational culture (Watson, 2011); • BIM is adversely influenced by “organizational and cultural divisions between designers and builders and between contractors and subcontractors” (Dossick & Neff, 2009, p. 466); • BIM implementation across an organization has significantly different, and even competing requirements, to BIM implementation on projects (Kunz, 2012); • There are only a few “procedures or tools to guide practical BIM implementation processes” (Mäkeläinen, Hyvärinen, & Peura, 2012, p. 497); • BIM adoption is affected by the lack of interoperability between different software platforms (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks, & Liston, 2011); • There are many business and legal barriers to collaborative BIM processes (Sebastian, 2010); • BIM causes workflow disruptions and requires a reconsideration of construction business practices (Mihindu & Arayici, 2008); • BIM implementation has resulted in the emergence of new knowledge and skill gaps within industry (Mihindu & Arayici, 2008); and PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 4 • BIM technologies and processes represent a disruptive paradigm shift affecting established processes within the construction industry (Shelden, 2009) (Younas, 2010) (Watson, 2011) and “one of the most disruptive (positive or negative) episodes in the history of architectural education” (Denzer & Hedges, 2008, p. 9). In addition to these domain-specific challenges, BIM reflects the complex and interdependent nature of design and construction projects (Austin, Newton, Steele, & Waskett, 2002) (Froese, 2010) and its adoption by industry is challenged by the same factors affecting technology-adoption in general. In their research covering the construction industry, Peansupap and Walker (2005), identified several factors underlying the slow uptake of information and communication technology (ICT) by organizations. These factors include: the complex nature of the construction industry; ICT immaturity levels; poor availability of tools for evaluating the benefits of using ICT; and lack of understanding of ICT implementation processes. These factors are likely to apply as well to BIM - as a technology-driven process within the construction industry - and need to be addressed if BIM is to be adopted and its benefits realized. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 5 Research questions Industry’s far-ranging expectations from BIM tools and workflows and the challenges of meeting these expectations (section 3.2) uncover numerous knowledge gaps, each of which warrants investigation. Rather than investigating each gap individually, this study espouses a holistic view and adopts two complementary research questions: Research question 1: What are the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain? This is a hypothetical question (Dillon, 1984) intended to generate a theoretical framework through conceptual analysis. This question is addressed through the development of a theoretical framework that organizes BIM concepts and their relationships. Research question 2: How can these knowledge structures be harnessed to assist industry stakeholders to adopt BIM or improve their BIM performance? This question is demonstrative (Dillon, 1984); intended to illustrate the usefulness of the framework through representative models and applicable tools. This question is addressed through generating a set of practicable tools that can be used by industry and academia to measure BIM competency, inform BIM implementation and facilitate BIM education. This study addresses these research questions through the iterative development of conceptual constructs and practicable tools (sections 8 and 8.6) which were consecutively delivered through interdependent publications (Part II). Before summarizing the collective deliverables of this study (section 10), the next sections clarify the research aims and explore the conceptual background informing this investigation and guiding its research approach. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 6 Research aims and objectives The main research aim of this study is to generate conceptual constructs and practicable tools to facilitate structured BIM adoption by industry and academia. This is practically important because BIM implementation - as an advanced technology-driven process – needs to be well-structured and well-managed as a condition of its success (Peansupap & Walker, 2005) (Green & Hevner, 2000). This research aim translates into a number of complementary research objectives and sub-objectives; some were identified at the start of the study, others were progressively added or refined. Research objectives can be summarised as follows: • Reduce domain complexity • Delimit BIM concepts and identify their relationships • Develop a visual language to capture and represent knowledge • Develop numerous interconnected conceptual constructs that can be: o Adopted or extended by fellow researchers and practitioners o Transformed into performance assessment and improvement tools o Applied across disciplines, technologies and markets • Deliver research outcomes that retain relevance and representation irrespective of advances in BIM-related technologies • Lay the foundations for the future development of a technology adoption meta- framework and a knowledge-representation mid-level theory • Exchange domain knowledge with industry stakeholders • Encourage future PhD students to follow the thesis by publication route PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 7 Conceptual background The research questions, aims and objectives discussed in sections 4 and 0 are a reflection of a set of paradigms, theories and concepts collectively forming the study’s conceptual background. This conceptual background - according to Maxwell (2005) - is in turn based on several sources including: previous research; applicable theories; the researcher’s own experiential knowledge; and the researcher’s thought experiments. These are discussed below: Previous research This study includes two main literature reviews and several complementary ones distributed across included papers (section 10.1). The first main literature review was conducted in paper A2 (all papers are included in Part II) to inform the development of a conceptual framework representing the BIM domain. At the time paper A2 was published (late 2008), no substantial BIM frameworks existed 1 and none of the reviewed noteworthy BIM publications (NBPs – e.g. BIM guides, protocols or specifications) were based on an explicit conceptual structure which could be readily adopted or improved. The absence of conceptual structures within NBPs constituted a significant research gap, which was targeted and partially addressed by paper A2. A follow-up, more extensive literature review conducted six years later (paper B1, 2013) identified several new BIM frameworks - including those of Taylor and Bernstein (2009), Jung and Joo (2010), Singh, Gu, and Wang (2011), Feng, Mustaklem, and Chen (2011) and Cerovsek (2012) - thus signalling a narrowing of this once wide knowledge gap. The second main literature review was conducted in paper A3 and was later partially updated in paper A5. The review covered numerous maturity, business performance, excellence and quality management models to identify a suitable assessment structure for measuring and improving BIM performance. However, these models were found to 1 A partial, theoretical BIM framework was available through TNO’s BIM wiki (http://wiki.e- bouw.org/index.php?title=BIM_-_Building_Information_Model(ing), last accessed September 2008. The actual website is no longer available but its textual contents can be gleaned from a web archive snapshot (http://bit.ly/12a93wN) and this file: http://www.tno.nl/downloads/The%20BIM%20Landscape.pdf, last accessed June 28, 2013. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 8 lack the flexibility required for assessing different organizational scales (e.g. individuals, organizations, teams and markets - see Table 3 in A3) and did not differentiate between the notions of capability (an ability to perform a task) and that of maturity (degrees of excellence in performing a task). The lack of a model suitable for assessing BIM performance across different organizational scales presented a second significant knowledge gap which was targeted and addressed in published papers: paper A3 introduced several conceptual constructs and tools that can be applied to assess organizations, teams and larger organizational scales (e.g. country-wide maturity); and paper A6 introduced conceptual concepts and tools that can be applied to assess the BIM competency of individuals and groups. These two main literature reviews were complemented by additional reviews spread across other papers including: benefits of conceptual mapping and knowledge visualization (paper A1), and an analysis of the different connotations of the term ‘competency’ as applied to professional abilities (paper A6). These main and complementary reviews helped identify the two research questions; guided the development of new methods to assess BIM performance; and identified a visual approach to simplify and represent BIM concepts and their relationships. Applicable theories Several existing theories informed the initial analysis of BIM concepts and their relationships. These theories offered clear insights into how to understand complex knowledge structures and their component parts. However, when attempting to apply these established theories to clarify the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain and to develop practicable tools based on these constructs, the limitations of each theory became evident. Table 1 identifies five theories initially considered – and then discounted - as applicable to guide this study and help answer the two research questions: PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 9 Table 1. Existing theories employed to facilitate BIM understanding THEORY HOW THE THEORY INFORMED THIS STUDY Systems Systems Theory provides a framework by which groups of elements and their Theory properties may be studied jointly to understand outcomes (Ackoff, 1971) (Chun, as applied to Sohn, Arling, & Granados, 2008). Organizations and Study considerations and theory limitations: using Systems Theory, BIM can be Management analysed as either an abstract system or as a system of systems; the first deals with concepts without attending to their practical application while the second treats BIM as a collection of interrelated abstract and concrete systems. While BIM can be considered in many respects as a System of Systems (Cerovsek, 2012), such an approach does not allow the analysis of BIM concepts and relationships from a non-systems’ perspective. Also, Systems Theory is applicable in understanding machine-machine and human-machine interactions, but it is not applicable in understanding human-human interactions. Systems Systems Thinking focuses on causes, rather than events, but does not isolate the Thinking smaller parts of the system being studied. Rather, it considers the numerous as applied to interactions of the system in question (Chun et al., 2008). Knowledge Management Study considerations and theory limitations: through Systems Thinking, BIM can be analysed as a knowledge system leveraged to achieve organizational and industrial goals. Systems Thinking can identify drivers of successful BIM implementation; however, actual implementation steps cannot be identified. To facilitate BIM implementation, both activities and causes/effects need to be understood. Also, granular parts of the knowledge system – and their interactions - are as important to analyse as the knowledge system itself. Diffusion of DOI theory attempts to “define the process by which an innovation is Innovation communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a (DoI) social system”(Rogers, 1995, p. 5). That is, DOI theory seeks to explain the dynamics of why/how a new technology spreads. Study considerations and theory limitations: Through DOI, the diffusion of BIM - as an innovative technological solution proliferating across the construction industry - can be analysed (Fox & Hietanen, 2007) (Mutai, 2009). However, DOI does not facilitate the understanding of BIM as an interacting set of technologies, processes and polices; nor does it facilitate the generation of practicable performance improvement tools. Technology TAM theorizes that an individual’s acceptance of a new technological solution is Acceptance influenced by its perceived usefulness and ease of use. TAM incorporates several Model (TAM) theoretical constructs including subjective norm, voluntariness, image, job relevance, output quality and result demonstrability (Davis, 1989) (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Study considerations and theory limitations: as a technology-driven solution, BIM adoption by individuals – and by extension project teams - can be analysed under this model. However, this model cannot be applied to organizational systems, or to identify the relationship between project teams. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 10 Complexity Complex systems are comprised of a large number of components and causal Theory connections amongst them. Each component is self-contained yet shows a high degree of synergy with other components - where the whole is more than the sum of its parts (Homer-Dixon, 2001) (Froese, 2010). Study considerations and theory limitations: understanding BIM as a complex system allows the identification of its components and their interconnectedness. However, like many other established theories, Complexity Theory does not facilitate the development of practicable performance improvement tools. In summary, the theories listed 2 in Table 1 can be applied in analysing BIM concepts and their relationships. However, they are difficult to apply in generating practicable tools from that analysis. Rather than adopting an existing theory to address the research questions, the author opted to develop a new theoretical framework; an inductive approach “[more suitable for researchers who are more concerned about] the correspondence of their findings to the real world than their coherence with existing theories or laws” (Meredith, Raturi, Amoako-Gyampah, & Kaplan, 1989, p. 307). This decision to develop a new theoretical framework - instead of testing concepts and relationships against existing theories - is in line with Glaser and Strauss’ 1967 recommendation where they lamented how social researchers had become overly concerned with testing existing theories while neglecting the process of generating them (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) (Blaikie, 2000). Also, developing a theoretical framework - rather than adopting existing theories – provides this study with the theoretical flexibility it needs to address the two complementary research questions (section 4). 2 Coordination, Organization and Structuration theories were also reviewed as part of this study but found to be less applicable towards addressing the research questions; they were thus excluded from Table 1. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 11 Experiential knowledge This researcher’s industry-based BIM expertise 3 has played a significant role in this study. The development of the framework has been informed by a “combination of grasping and transforming experience” (Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2000, p. 2). While recognizing the possibility of bias (Maxwell, 2005), the researcher acknowledges the impossibility of detachment (Blaikie, 2000) from the research topic. He thus adopted the view promoted by Glesne, Peshkin and Strauss (as discussed in Blaikie, 2000) which argued for researchers to mine their own experience while engaging in critical subjectivity, a “quality of awareness in which we do not suppress our primary experience; nor do we allow ourselves to be swept away and overwhelmed by it; rather we raise it to consciousness and use it as part of the inquiry process” (Reason, 1988, p. 12) (Reason, 1994). Thought experiments Thought experiments or speculative model-building exercises (Lave & March, 1993) are mental representations which allow researchers to suggest plausible explanations that interpret observations, and then, to support or disprove them (Maxwell, 2005). Thought experiments build-upon a researcher’s experiential knowledge (section 6.3) to generate “concepts, relations, features, chunks, plans, heuristics, theories [and] mental models” (Cooke & McDonald, 1986, p. 1424). As it is difficult - and arguably undesirable - to discount the role personal experiences play in informing research (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), this study employs the researcher’s experiential, domain-specific knowledge to generate a set of complementary models which explain BIM concepts and their relationships. Through thought experiments, the researcher “[thoroughly immersed himself] in the topic under consideration in order to pull the commonalities and patterns into a unique, insightful perspective”. Through such immersion, the researcher was able to see “connections and patterns in what was heretofore just a series of inexplicable events or studies”(Meredith, 1993, p. 8). 3 The researcher is an industry BIM advisor and has worked as such since 2004. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 12 Research design This thesis does not seek to prove, disprove or compare phenomena but rather to discover the underlying structures of a nascent domain of knowledge. To satisfy the research questions identified in section 4, this study adopted an interpretive paradigm, a retroductive strategy, and an exploratory mixed-data collection methodology. These are briefly discussed below: Research paradigms Research paradigms are the philosophical perspectives (or world views) about what constitutes valid research (Myers, 1997a). Research paradigms are based on epistemological 4, ontological 5 or metaphysical 6 assumptions covering the nature of knowledge and how it can be obtained (Myers, 1997b) (Meredith et al., 1989). This study has adopted a paradigm closer to interpretive and critical assumptions than to positivist ones. As will be evident in the published papers, the research conducted does not strive to confirm an existing phenomenon or to measure it against another but seeks to bring meaning and structure to a series of phenomena (BIM concepts and their relationships) through a human perspective. The study also includes epistemological elements pertaining to critical thought – not only to study BIM as a set of interrelated phenomena within a historical context but also to inform how BIM is implemented within organizations and the wider industry. Below is a summary of the three research paradigms followed by (section 7.1.4) how this thesis is positioned relative to them: 4 Epistemological assumptions relate to the notions of knowledge and how it can be achieved. 5 Ontological assumptions or beliefs have to do with the “essence of phenomena under investigation; that is, whether the empirical world is assumed to be objective and hence independent of humans, or subjective and hence having existence only through the action of humans in creating and recreating it”(Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991, p. 7). 6 Metaphysical assumptions relate to the notions of truth and its origin. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 13 Positivist paradigm The positivist paradigm has its roots in the natural sciences and is premised on the existence of a priori, real, unidirectional and fixed cause-effect relationship that is “capable of being identified and tested via hypothetic-deductive logic and analysis” (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991, p. 9). Positivists generally assume that reality is objectively given and can be measured independently of the observer and his/her instruments. Positivist generally attempt to test theory and increase the predictability of a measurable phenomenon (Myers, 1997a). Interpretive paradigm The interpretive paradigm assumes that people create and associate their own subjective meanings as they interact with the world around them. Interpretive research “does not predefine dependent and independent variables, but focuses on the full complexity of human sense making as the situation emerges” (Myers, 1997a - Interpretive Research section) as attributed to (Kaplan & Maxwell, 2005). Interpretive thought assumes, according to Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991, p. 15), that researchers “can never assume a value-neutral stance, and [are] always implicated in the phenomena being studied. Researchers' prior assumptions, beliefs, values, and interests always intervene to shape their investigations”. Critical paradigm The critical paradigm assumes that “social reality is historically constituted, and hence that human beings, organizations, and societies are not confined to [current or existing situations]” (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991, p. 19). Critical thought aims to investigate and expose – what is assumed to be – contradictions and restrictions within social systems (including groups, organizations and societies) and thus transform these social systems (Myers, 1997a). A single phenomenon, according to critical thought, cannot be isolated from its social environment but must be studied within its socio-historical context. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 14 Discussion: adopting a mixed paradigm At the heart of this study is the researcher’s contention that knowledge does not reside at opposite extremes of deductivist and inductivist thought. While objective reality – independent from researchers – does exist and has intrinsic value, measuring it without the results being altered by a researcher’s preconceptions, research approach or measurement tools cannot be demonstrated. Irrespective of the above, choosing a single epistemological position is neither helpful nor necessary. As discussed in Walsham (1995, p. 382), Lee (1991) states that research paradigms are complementary, and positivist and interpretive approaches can be combined. This study thus adopts a mixed paradigm and complements it with a mixed research strategy as discussed below: Research strategy A research strategy is the approach adopted to answer research questions. As identified by Blaikie (2000), there are four main research strategies: inductive, deductive, abductive and retroductive. As will be discussed in section 7.2.4, retroduction is the research strategy best suited to underpin this study. However, retroduction on its own is not enough to address both research questions (section 4). According to Atkinson (2011), retroduction - or 'hypothesis formulation' – is but the first stage of an enquiry. The hypothesis must then be tested using both induction and deduction. Through inductive creativity (Reisman, 2004) (Saaty, 1998), new frameworks, new taxonomies or new theoretical predictions can be generated. However, since an inductive strategy can only make a prediction or suggest a solution (by amalgamating previous solutions or by proposing a new one) but cannot test that solution or confirm that prediction, a deductive strategy is then needed to test the theory and confirm its validity. Below is a summary of the four research strategies: PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 15 Deduction Deductive reasoning provides theoretical explanations on the world and then, by a process of trial and error, uses data to reject false ones. Theories “which survive this critical process are provisionally accepted, but never proven to be true” (Blaikie, 2000, p. 105). Deduction attempts to confirm or dispute a theoretical prediction and does not generate a prediction on its own. Deduction can only strengthen, weaken or disprove a priori theoretical propositions or predictions. In essence, conceptual deductions occur when a framework or a theory – regardless how it was formed - is compared with reality. Since this thesis is concerned with uncovering and representing the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain, a deductivist approach is not suitable as a primary research strategy. However, as discussed in section 7.2.4, a deductive approach to test inductively generated models is partially required. Induction Conceptual induction is an approach where researchers analyse recurring phenomena to infer the underlying structure of a system. The system under investigation does not necessarily need to be complex but can be a “human interpretation or conceptualization for which explicit rules have never been explicated” (Meredith, 1993, p. 9). With conceptual induction, the objective is to use a system’s elements to describe a specific phenomenon accurately and explain how it occurs. The accuracy of the description and explanation is “usually based on the consistency between the explanation inferred and the description of the phenomenon, particularly its elements and [their] relationships” (Meredith, 1993, p. 9). According to Popper (2002, p. 27), an explanation or inference is considered ‘inductive’ when “it passes from singular statements (sometimes called ‘particular’ statements), such as accounts of the results of observations or experiments, to universal statements, such as hypothesis or theories”. Since the candidate did not start with a blank slate as required by inductivists (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), a purely inductive strategy will not be suitable. This is especially true as the candidate developed this study in the “context of ontological, conceptual and PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 16 theoretical assumptions” held by the researcher/practitioner (Blaikie, 2000; White, 1997, p. 745). Abduction The abductive research approach was proposed by the philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce (Miller & Brewer, 2003) in the early 1930s and is mostly – if not exclusively - applicable to social sciences (Blaikie, 2000). Abductive research refers to the “process used to generate social scientific accounts from social actors’ accounts; for deriving technical concepts and theories from lay concepts and interpretations of social life” (Blaikie, 2000, p. 114). That is, abduction gives “access to any social world [by] the accounts given by the people who inhabit it. These accounts contain the concepts that people use to structure their world - the meanings and interpretations, the motives and intentions which people use in their everyday lives and which direct their behaviour” (Atkinson, 2011, p. 3). Since this study does not seek to represent reality through the experiences of social actors other than the candidate’s own (refer to section 6.3), the abductive research approach has not be used in this research. Retroduction According to Blaikie (2000, p. 108), the retroductive strategy is the “logic of enquiry associated with the philosophical approach of Scientific Realism”. Similar to deductive research, it “starts with an observed regularity but seeks a different type of explanation”. Using retroduction, events are explained by postulating and identifying structures and causal powers capable of generating them (Sayer, 1992); and by locating the “real underlying structure or mechanism that is responsible for producing the observed regularity” (Blaikie, 2000, p. 25). Retroduction uses “creative imagination and analogy to work back from data to an explanation” and involves the “building of hypothetical models as a way of uncovering the real structures and mechanisms which are assumed to produce empirical phenomena” (Blaikie, 2000, p. 25). In constructing PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 17 these hypothetical models, “ideas may be borrowed from known structures and mechanisms in other fields” (Atkinson, 2011, p. 2). According to (Downward & Mearman, 2007, p. 2), retroduction “can be contrasted to other research strategies, such as deduction or induction, as not simply developing specific claims from general premises nor general claims from specific premises, respectively, but the ‘mode of inference in which events are explained by postulating (and identifying) mechanisms which are capable of producing them’ (Sayer, 1992, p. 107).” This study organizes the domain knowledge by inferring BIM concepts and their relationships, generating theoretical constructs (frameworks and models) to represent these concepts/relations, and then using these constructs to develop tools for practical application. Such an approach is considered an artificial reconstruction of reality (Meredith et al., 1989, p. 307), a hypothesis-building exercise which mostly lends itself to the retroductive research strategy. However, as discussed earlier in this section, a retroductive strategy on its own is not sufficient to address the study’s requirements. Discussion: adopting a mixed strategy In summary, this study adopted a mixture of research strategies to formulate the BIM framework and other knowledge constructs which – hypothetically - underlie the BIM domain. In generating this hypothesis, this study has employed an inductivist strategy to infer general statements from necessarily specific experiential knowledge. Finally, it employed deductivist strategies - through collecting exploratory data (section 7.4) - to test whether these conceptual models can be considered as an accurate representation of objective reality. Such amalgamation of inductive and deductive approaches is not peculiar to this study but - according to Downward and Mearman (2007) - combining them is central to retroductive activity. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 18 Research method A research method represents how a study moves “from the underlying philosophical assumptions to research design and data collection” (Myers, 1997a). According to Mitroff and Mason (1982), as mentioned in Meredith et al. (1989), research methods can be classified according to two ‘dimensions’. The first dimension is referred to as rational/existential and is concerned with the researcher’s underlying philosophical assumptions (ontological, epistemological or metaphysical). Through this dimension, the nature of knowledge/truth can be defined as rational - purely logical and independent from man, or as existential; can only be understood through human experience. The second dimension is referred to as natural/artificial 7 and is concerned with the source and type of data to be used within research. Through this dimension, the nature of data/information to be collected is either described as natural – objective data derived from direct observation, or artificial; derived from interpretation and the artificial reconstruction of reality. Using the aforementioned classification, Meredith et al. (1989) generated a matrix (Figure 1) which positions research methods along the two dimensions underlying research design: 7 Mitroff and Mason (1982) originally referred to this dimension as the empiricism/idealism dimension PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 19 Figure 1. Framework of Research Methods – adopted from Meredith et al. (1989), the dotted polygon highlights the cells which collectively represent the research methods employed by this study According to Downward and Mearman (2007, p. 3), the “specific nature of research questions and programmes will govern the choice of specific methods”. This study employed a mixture of methods to address the research questions: in illustrating the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain and developing the knowledge tools, conceptual modelling and Inductive Inference – methods residing within the interpretive/artificial cell of Figure 1 - were used to describe and explain the framework. However, to test the conceptual constructs – as a hypothetical representation of reality - focus groups and feedback forms were used as methods to capture subject matter expert’s perception of reality (Meredith et al., 1989) (Mitroff & Mason, 1982). PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 20 Data collection While qualitative approaches have been criticized for being overly subjective and lacking in replicability and generalizability, quantitative approaches have also been criticized for lacking representative validity within social – as opposed to natural - environments (Hewson, 2006). To bridge this divide, pragmatists argue that the research method to be used should be selected according to its instrumental value in enabling people to understand the world (Hammersley, 2006). To satisfy the hypothetical and demonstrative nature of the research questions (section 4), this study embraced a pragmatic approach to research design (Hammersley, 2006) (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). As described below, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from BIM subject matter experts (SME)s to calibrate knowledge constructs against SME’s perception of reality (Meredith et al., 1989) (Mitroff & Mason, 1982). Foundational parts of the BIM framework were first submitted for scrutiny through peer-reviewed publications (papers A1-A3, a record of citations received to date is provided in Part III - Appendix C). To reach a wider audience and capture additional feedback, the author also published and maintained a weblog8 covering many of the concepts explored in this study. The contents of posts and peer-reviewed papers also formed a basis for several industry presentations and workshops9 which provided additional feedback avenues. Following this initial exploration and informal data collection, top-level framework components and a set of conceptual models were presented to subject matter experts. To represent a subset of industry stakeholders, 70 SMEs from both industry and academia were invited to participate in focus groups across three countries: the United States, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Each focus group included an average of 12 SMEs to “maximize the depth of expression” from each participant and “allow meaningful interaction with both the moderator and amongst themselves within the 8 Several of the conceptual models developed as part of this study were published through BIM Thinkspace (www.BIMthinkspace.com). Starting in October 2005, the blog published a total of 26 posts in 8 years (14 post topics are directly derived from this study); attracted 1025 subscribers and 107,000 page views (as of June 27, 2013). 9 A list is presentations and workshops is provided at http://changeagents.blogs.com/about.html PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 21 constraints of available time” (Debus, 1989, p. 13). During focus group sessions, participants discussed the framework’s components with the researcher/facilitator and amongst themselves, commented on the framework’s clarity, accuracy and usability, and whether they found value in the framework’s visual representations. A total of 63 participants also provided anonymous feedback in the form of written comments and suggestions. Analysis and discussion of the aforementioned feedback is yet to be published. For reference purposes, the structured questionnaire used during focus group sessions is provided in Part III - Appendix D. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 22 Conceptual constructs BIM is an emergent field of research and application. To facilitate BIM adoption by industry stakeholders, BIM concepts and their relationships need to be simplified, structured and described through theoretical constructs that organize domain knowledge (Reisman, 1988) (Diane, 1998). Once domain knowledge is organized, practicable knowledge tools can be developed to facilitate performance improvement. This study delivers a representative theoretical framework, a construct that simplifies a complex phenomenon by identifying its concepts and their inter-relations (Dubin, 1978). The BIM framework is built upon several interrelated models, taxonomies and classifications as illustrated in Figure 2 below 10: Figure 2. Hierarchy of conceptual constructs within the BIM framework 10 The first iteration of this conceptual hierarchy was based on the ‘grouped archetypes’ graph by CEN (2004, p. 34) which includes ‘vocabulary’, ‘dictionary’, classification’, ‘taxonomy’ and ‘ontology’. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 23 The next sections (8.1 - 8.5) explain the different types of conceptual constructs delivered by this study. These constructs are later identified against published papers in section 10.3 and illustrated as a conceptual and practical continuum in section 10.1: Frameworks According to Meredith, a framework is “essentially a pre-theory and may well substitute in many ways for a theory. That is, like theory it may identify relevant variables, classify them, describe their interactions, and allow a mapping of items (such as the existing literature or research studies) on to the framework” (Dubin, 1978, p. 7). A framework shows “the gestalt, the structure, the anatomy or the morphology of a field of knowledge or the links between seemingly disparate fields or sub-disciplines” (Reisman, 1994, p. 92). A well-structured theoretical framework can thus assist in organizing domain knowledge, eliciting tacit expertise and facilitating the creation of new knowledge. The utility of such frameworks is articulated by Minsky (1975) who states: “Here is the essence of the theory: When one encounters a new situation (or makes a substantial change in one's view of the present problem) one selects from memory a structure called a Frame. This is a remembered framework to be adapted to fit reality by changing details as necessary. A frame is a data-structure for representing a stereotyped situation... Attached to each frame are several kinds of information. Some of this information is about how to use the frame. Some is about what one can expect to happen next. Some is about what to do if these expectations are not confirmed. We can think of a frame as a network of nodes and relations.” (Minsky, 1975, p. 2) As a network of nodes and relations, the BIM framework is continuously expanding by adding new - or refining existing - interrelated nodes: models, taxonomies, classifications and terms. The BIM framework however is primarily a three-axial structure (Figure 3) supporting all other conceptual constructs: • X-axis: BIM fields of activity identifying domain players, their requirements and deliverables; PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 24 • Y-axis: BIM stages delineating the minimum capability benchmarks and revolutionary milestones which can be further subdivided into incremental steps to guide BIM implementation; and • Z-axis: BIM lenses representing distinctive layers of analysis that – when applied to fields and stages - generate knowledge views which abstract the BIM domain and control its complexity by removing unnecessary detail (Kao & Archer, 1997). Through lenses, domain researchers can isolate particular aspects of the construction industry to generate knowledge views that either (a) highlight observables which meet the research criteria or (b) filter out those that do not. Figure 3. A tri-axial model of the BIM framework: fields, stages and lenses The Tri-axial model representing the BIM framework (Figure 3) is a reflection of three implicit principles underlying this study. First, to understand BIM, one needs to understand its parts, their overlaps and interactions. In this respect, it is not sufficient to focus on BIM technologies (e.g. software, hardware, networks and data), but similar attention must be given to processes (e.g. leadership, knowledge and skills) and governing policies (e.g. contracts, standards and codes). Second, for an organization or a team to implement BIM tools and workflows, it is important to recognize both revolutionary stages and incremental steps. While these capability stages and implementation steps may include a large number of activities and respective resources, PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 25 these – with the appropriate knowledge constructs and tools - can be both quantified and qualified. Third, to reduce BIM domain complexity, it must be analysed using multiple lenses; each revealing a manageable part of the overall knowledge landscape. Using lenses allows a focused analysis of a specific discipline (e.g. architecture, engineering or facility management), a certain scale (e.g. market, organization or individual), or a particular conceptual part (e.g. equipment, tasks or benefits), yet without severing ontological connections to larger constructs or to other disciplines, scales and conceptual parts. Models Models are simplified representations and abstractions of the “enormous richness of this world” (Ritter, 2010, p. 360) (Lave & March, 1993). A good model, according to Ritter (2010, p. 349), “provides a more condensed representation of what was originally given”. It contributes to knowledge sharing by reducing complexity and ambiguity, and – as a result - makes “insights more portable between people”. For a model to accurately represent a phenomenon, the model-builder needs to judiciously identify (a) how observations/data are to be condensed into the model without losing any essential attributes of the phenomenon, and (b) how to identify the right level of simplicity/complexity to be built into the model so it facilitates understanding of the phenomenon (Ritter, 2010). As opposed to mathematical or statistical models (Reisman, 1988) which represent data and their relationships, a conceptual model includes a set of concepts, “characteristics associated with certain events, objects, or conditions […to] represent or describe (but not explain) an event, object, or process” (Meredith, 1993, p. 5). Several models were developed as part of this study to represent complex concepts and facilitate their understanding. Some of these models are descriptive (e.g. the Venn diagram representing interlocking BIM fields – papers A1-A3), some are predictive (e.g. the model representing the effects of BIM on project lifecycle phases - paper A2) while others are instructive – explaining the sequence of actions to be followed to achieve a pre-defined outcome (e.g. the workflow model representing competency identification, classification, aggregation and use - paper A6). PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 26 Taxonomies Taxonomies are an efficient and effective way to organize and consolidate knowledge (Reisman, 2005) (Hedden, 2010). A well-structured taxonomy allows “the meaningful clustering of experience” (Kwasnik, 1999, p. 24). In developing specialized taxonomies to organize BIM domain knowledge, this study adopted the guidelines introduced by Vogel and Wetherbe (1984) and Gregor (2006). That is, a taxonomy is expected to be “complete and exhaustive; [includes] classes that encompass all phenomena of interest; [is based on] decision rules, [which are] simple and parsimonious to assign instances to classes; and the classes should be mutually exclusive. In addition, as taxonomies are proposed to aid human understanding, [these classes should be] easily understood and [...] appear natural” (Gregor, 2006, p. 619). This study delivers several BIM-specific taxonomies to clarify the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain and facilitate the development of conceptual models and performance improvement tools. For example, the organizational hierarchy, BIM competency hierarchy and BIM knowledge content taxonomy (papers A3, A6 and B1 respectively) are conceptual constructs to support performance assessment of individuals, organizations and whole markets (paper B1 compares the BIM maturity of 8 countries based on their noteworthy BIM publications). Each of these taxonomies are “a means toward a number of different ends; one of these ends is providing direction and/or guidance to expansion or generalization of knowledge” (Reisman, 1988, p. 216). Classifications Classification is the “meaningful clustering of experience” (Kwasnik, 1999, p. 24) and “lies at the heart of every scientific field” (Lohse, Biolsi, Walker, & Rueter, 1994, p. 36). Classification is also a heuristic tool useful during the formative stages of discovery, analysis and theorizing (Davies, 1989). For example, when reviewing existing literature, classification is a simple method to organize concepts and allow patterns to emerge (Diane, 1998). PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 27 This study delivers several classifications to support the development of conceptual models. Some of these classifications have been adopted from other fields and then customized to suit the specific requirements of this study. For example, the BIM maturity level classification is an amalgamation of several maturity levels from across the construction and software industries (paper A3). Also, new classifications were developed to meet the particular requirements of this study. For example, the BIM granularity levels classification has been developed to separate low-detailed BIM capability self-assessments from highly-detailed, professionally-delivered BIM maturity audits (paper A3). Each of these classifications provides a foundation for multiple taxonomies and conceptual models. For example, model uses - the deliverables expected from using BIM tools - is a classification used to populate several taxonomies and conceptual models including organizational requirements (taxonomy), team deliverables (taxonomy) and project workflows (conceptual model – paper A6, Figure 9). Dictionaries A dictionary is a “reference source in print or electronic form containing words usually alphabetically arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, functions, etymologies, meanings, and syntactical and idiomatic uses” (Merriam- Webster, 2013 - Item 1). Dictionaries are a collation of terms and their definitions and form the foundations of larger knowledge structures – classifications, taxonomies and conceptual models. Throughout this study, a list of commonly used BIM terms were investigated and used. A large number of these were later collated into a cohesive BIM dictionary that eliminates conflicting definitions; identifies synonyms; and allows classifications and taxonomies to be consistently formulated. Delivered through a dedicated online tool under a Creative Commons 3.0 license, the BIM dictionary is a web of meaning (Cristea, 2004) connecting terms to each other and to other knowledge bases. As of June 2013, the BIM dictionary included more than 370 interlinked BIM terms and their research- based definitions (BIMe, 2013). A sample of these terms is provided in paper A6 –Table 5. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 28 Ontologies Ontologies are “content theories about the sorts of objects, properties of objects, and relations between objects that are possible in a specified domain of knowledge. They provide potential terms for describing our knowledge about the domain” (Chandrasekaran, Josephson, & Benjamins, 1999, p. 20). According to Van Heijst, Schreiber, and Wielinga (1997, pp. 192-193), there are several types of ontologies including application, domain, generic and representation ontologies. Domain ontologies play an important role in acquiring, analysing and reusing domain knowledge by making implicit assumptions explicit and facilitating communication between people (Milton, 2007a) (Milton, 2007b) (Cottam, 1999) (Noy & McGuinness, 2001) (Studer, Benjamins, & Fensel, 1998). Through ontologies, domain concepts and their relationships can be interdependently formalised through knowledge acquisition, introspection and representation which, in turn, can form a basis for additional knowledge acquisitions (Holsapple & Joshi, 2006). The BIM ontology is intended as a domain vocabulary (Chandrasekaran et al., 1999) for representing BIM concepts and their relationships; facilitating knowledge acquisition from subject matter experts; and sharing domain knowledge. The BIM ontology is discussed in detail in Part III - Appendix A. Framework development According to Meredith (1993), theory building – from models through frameworks to theories - is an iterative process passing through three repetitive stages: description, explanation and testing (Meredith, 1993) (Meredith et al., 1989). The three stages are briefly explored below: • The description stage develops a description of reality; identifies phenomena; explores events; and documents findings and behaviours. According to Dubin (1978, p. 85): “In every discipline, but particularly in its early stages of development, purely descriptive research is indispensable. Descriptive research is the PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 29 stuff out of which the mind of man, the theorist, develops the units that compose his theories. The very essence of description is to name the properties of things: you may do more, but you cannot do less and still have description. The more adequate the description, the greater is the likelihood that the units derived from the description will be useful in subsequent theory building.” • The explanation stage builds upon descriptions to infer a concept, a conceptual relationship or a construct; and then, develops a framework or a theory to explain and/or predict behaviours or events. Explaining is the process of (a) identifying a phenomenon’s purpose, (b) showing that a new phenomenon is an instance of a familiar phenomenon or (c) positioning a new phenomenon under an existing or new law (Meredith et al., 1989). In essence, the explaining stage develops a testable theoretical proposition which clarifies what has previously been described. • The testing stage inspects explanations and propositions for validity; tests concepts or their relationships for accuracy; and tests predictions against new observables. Figure 4. The Normal Research Cycle (Meredith, 1993 - Page 4) PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 30 The three stages (Figure 4) are cyclical as the process of testing concepts and theoretical propositions necessitates the collection of additional descriptions; which generate new concepts and/or modify existing ones; and which, in turn, require additional testing (Meredith et al., 1989). As discussed below, the three theory-building stages are all required to generate understandable and usable models, frameworks or theories that can describe, explain and predict reality: • If the description stage is omitted, the theoretical proposition developed by researchers is not based on observation or field data. The propositions will then lack external validity yielding a research result which is “disconnected from the real world and irrelevant to the reality of the problems […] These findings we ‘call ivory-tower prescriptions’" (Meredith, 1993, p. 4); • If the explanation stage is omitted, the research iterates between describing and testing thus yielding no new models, frameworks or theories. With the absence of explanation, only explanatory models - which can only simulate reality without explaining it - can be generated. Also, without proper explanation, the theoretical proposition cannot be understood and is thus unlikely to be adopted; and • If the testing stage is omitted, the research alternates between describing observables and explaining them yet without validating these propositions. Without testing, theoretical propositions can be discounted as anecdotal, unreliable, and thus unsuitable to build additional research. This study adopted a similar cyclical path to that described by Meredith (1993) - from describing; to explaining; to testing; and then back to describing. First, a description of the BIM domain was generated through a process of inductive inference (Michalski, 1987), conceptual clustering (Michalski & Stepp, 1987) and reflective learning (Van der Heijden & Eden, 1998) (Walker, Bourne, & Shelley, 2008). Second, a theoretical framework was developed to visually explain the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain. Third, the BIM framework and many of its constituent models were tested through focus groups and peer-reviewed publications. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 31 The adoption of this three-staged approach for developing the BIM framework and its conceptual models is not only consistent with Meredith (1993) but it reflects the retroductive research strategy underlying this study (section 7.27.2.4). In developing a theoretical model, retroduction follows a similar three-step approach: first, “the research starts in the domain of actual, by observing connections between phenomena […]. To do so, as a second step, researchers build a hypothetical model, involving structures and causal powers located in the domain of real, which, if it were to exist and act in the postulated way, would provide a causal explanation of the phenomena in question. The third step is to subject the postulated explanation to empirical scrutiny” (Leca & Naccache, 2006, p. 635). PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 32 Research deliverables This section first lists and then summarizes the contents of three types of papers included as part of this submission: • Type A includes six published peer-reviewed papers (A1-A6) with the candidate being the sole or primary author; • Type B includes two peer-reviewed papers (B1 and B2) with the candidate being the second author. Paper B1 has been accepted for publication (but not yet published) while paper B2 is under review (no acceptance note issued); and • Type C includes a single published peer-reviewed paper composed of three complementary documents. The candidate played a primary role in authoring and paper C which includes several co-authors, and forms part of a collaborative effort between industry and academia. As will be clarified in section 10.2, the contributions made by the candidate within these papers are complementary and collectively form the unified deliverables of this study. List of included papers This section lists the nine papers (in three types) constituting this thesis by publication: Succar, B., Sher, W., & Aranda-Mena, G. (2007). A proposed framework to investigate Building Information Modelling through knowledge elicitation and visual models. Paper presented at the Australasian Universities Building Education (AUBEA2007), Melbourne, Australia. Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: a research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357-375. Succar, B. (2010). Building Information Modelling maturity matrix. In J. Underwood & U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of research on Building Information Modelling and construction informatics: concepts and technologies (pp. 65-103): Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing. Succar, B. (2010). The five components of BIM performance measurement. Paper presented at the CIB World Congress, Salford, United Kingdom. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 33 Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2012). Measuring BIM performance: five metrics. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 8(2), 120- 142. Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2013). An integrated approach to BIM competency acquisition, assessment and application. Automation in Construction, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.016 (Published online, In Press). Kassem, M., Succar, B., & Dawood, N. (2014). Building Information Modeling: analyzing noteworthy publications of eight countries using a knowledge content taxonomy In R. Issa & S. Olbina (Eds.), Building Information Modeling: applications and practices in the AEC industry. University of Miami: ASCE. (Approved for publication). Kassem, M., Succar, B., Dawood, N. (2013). A proposed approach to comparing the BIM maturity of countries. CIB W78 2013, 30th international Conference on applications of IT in the AEC industry, 9-12 October 2013, Beijing, China. Succar, B., Agar, C., Beazley, S., Berkemeier, P., Choy, R., Rosetta Di Giangregorio, Donaghey, S., Linning, C., Macdonald, J., Perey, R., & Plume, J. (2012). BIM in Practice - BIM Education, a position paper by the Australian Institute of Architects and Consult Australia. http://www.bim.architecture.com.au/ Content summary of included papers This section summarizes the research deliverables of papers listed in section 10.1. It discusses how each paper relates to other papers and contributes towards addressing the research questions identified in section 4: A Proposed Framework to investigate Building Information Modelling through knowledge elicitation and visual models (Succar, Sher, & Aranda- Mena, 2007) Paper A1 is the first article developed as part of this study. It briefly introduced the BIM term, proposed a prototypical framework and suggested an investigative methodology to identify, capture and represent BIM interactions. The paper then identified ontology-supported visual models as a means to elicit and organize expert knowledge, compared the terms ‘information visualization’ and ‘knowledge visualization’, and PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 34 identified the latter as an appropriate method to represent BIM interactions. This paper played an important role in establishing the need for an overarching BIM framework, the necessity for an underlying BIM ontology and the importance of knowledge visualization for eliciting and representing domain knowledge. Building information modelling framework: a research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders (Succar, 2009) This scene-setting paper extended the prototypical BIM framework introduced in paper A1. Two new conceptual dimensions where added and the BIM framework now represented three main interconnected components (fields, stages, and lenses). In addition to reviewing a number of noteworthy BIM publications (e.g. BIM guides), this paper established several principles upon which this study revolves including - including: • The BIM domain is complex and requires a structured approach to organize its underlying knowledge, facilitate its implementation, and bridge the chasm separating academic from industrial understandings of BIM; • The BIM domain can be understood by capturing the interactions and overlaps between three main different types of players and their respective deliverables and requirements; • BIM diffusion within organizations and across markets, its effect on project lifecycle phases, and the myriad of steps needed to improve performance can be understood and measured through revolutionary stages and evolutionary steps; • The complexity of the BIM domain can be represented through the careful application of distinctive layers of analysis (referred to as BIM lenses and filters) which remove unnecessary detail and isolate the knowledge areas requiring attention; • To capture and represent complex BIM concepts and their relationships, a specialized domain ontology is needed; and • To share BIM knowledge with a wide audience, a visual language is required. In summary, most concepts, models and taxonomies - developed in subsequent papers, and submitted as part of this study - are based on the principles introduced in this paper. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 35 Building Information Modelling maturity matrix (Succar, 2010a) This paper builds upon the principles and conceptual deliverables of paper A2 to introduce additional models and taxonomies. These were then used to generate practicable tools that can be used by organisations and project teams to assess their own BIM ability. In addition to an extended literature review covering existing maturity models, performance excellence and quality management frameworks, this paper delivered the following: • A conceptual differentiation between BIM capability and BIM maturity to enable two unique yet complementary types of assessment; • BIM competency sets to be used for assessment and implementation; • An organisational scale, a taxonomy for tailoring capability/maturity assessments to suit varied organisational sizes – from markets and industries, through organizations and teams, to individual members; • The BIM Maturity Index (BIMMI) to be used in measuring BIM maturity - the quality and repeatability of BIM abilities; • A granularity index for tailoring BIM tools, guides and reports to suit different levels of assessment detail; • A low-detail, maturity assessment scoring system; and • The BIM Maturity Matrix, a static performance measurement and improvement tool that identifies the correlation between BIM stages, competency sets, maturity levels and organisational scales. In summary, this paper introduced a practicable tool derived from the BIM framework’s components. Its indices and taxonomies – applied in A3 to measure the BIM performance of organizations and teams - were later extended and applied to smaller (individuals - refer to paper A6) and larger organizational units (countries - refer to papers B1 and B2). The Five Components of BIM performance measurement (Succar, 2010b) This paper summarizes the research conducted and the conceptual constructs generated in paper A3. It also introduces a new conceptual model explaining the role BIM fields, stages and lenses play in generating BIM competency sets (Fig 3 in paper A4). Another deliverable of this paper is the simplified correlation of five BIM framework components (capability stages, maturity levels, competency sets, organisational scales, and granularity levels) for the purpose of performance measurement. In summary, this paper positions the framework and its many components as PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 36 a theoretical – as well as practical - structure for assessing and improving BIM performance within and across different organizational scales. Measuring BIM Performance: five metrics (Succar, Sher, & Williams, 2012) This paper further explores the conceptual background underpinning BIM performance assessment and includes an updated review of BIM maturity frameworks which emerged since the BIM Maturity Matrix chapter was published (paper A3). The paper then discusses the five BIM performance assessment metrics; how they complement each other; and how they jointly enable targeted performance analyses through a simple assessment workflow. In summary, this paper further solidifies the arguments surrounding BIM performance assessment of organizations and teams, and identifies future practical applications for these assessments. An integrated approach to BIM competency assessment, acquisition and application (Succar, Sher, & Williams, 2013) This paper expands upon previously published papers covering organizational capability, to focus on individual competencies as the building blocks of organizational ability. Several additional taxonomies and conceptual models were introduced to extend the applicability of the BIM framework, from assessing organizations and teams (papers A3-A5), to their human ingredient. The main deliverables of this paper can be summarized as follows: • The introduction of several taxonomies and conceptual models including: units of analysis, competency manifestations, competency levels, and a tiered taxonomy of individual BIM competencies; • The introduction of a flow-model describing how competency items can be identified, classified, aggregated and used; • The introduction of a knowledge engine to generate integrated assessment components, learning modules and process workflows; and • The introduction of a prototypical online assessment tool linked to a BIM dictionary and e-learning modules (Figure 10). In summary, this paper extends the BIM framework’s coverage to individuals, the smallest organizational units. It thus widens this study’s conceptual platform and facilitates the future development of multi-scale assessment, learning and performance improvement tools. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 37 Building Information Modeling: analyzing noteworthy publications of eight countries using a knowledge content taxonomy (Kassem, M., Succar, B., Dawood, N., 2014) (accepted for publication June 25, 2013) This paper reviews 55 noteworthy BIM publications (NBP)s from across 8 countries and analyses their knowledge content using a BIM knowledge content (BKC) taxonomy. The NBP definition and BKC taxonomy are both derived from the conceptual constructs developed as part of this study: • The delimitation of noteworthy BIM publications is derived from the interaction between BIM fields and BIM lenses (refer to paper A2); and • The BIM knowledge content (BKC) taxonomy is a filtered representation of the BIM policy field – please refer to Part III, Appendix B. In summary, the main deliverables of this paper - a collaborative effort with other researchers – support and extend this study as follows: • Extends the literature review conducted in paper A2 to cover new noteworthy BIM publications; • Tests the applicability of the BIM framework in generating new knowledge structures to suit varied research aims; and • Adapts framework taxonomies to investigate and identify new knowledge gaps within the BIM domain. A proposed approach to comparing the BIM maturity of countries (Kassem, M., Succar, B., Dawood, N., 2013) This paper builds upon the literature reviewed within paper B1 to propose three new, country-scale BIM maturity metrics. These metrics are intended to augment BIM adoption data typically collected through survey tools, by measuring the availability of noteworthy BIM publications (NBP)s, their distribution across different BIM knowledge contents (BKC, refer to Part III - Appendix B) and the perceived relevance of each NBP in addressing a specific BIM topic. This paper makes two main contributions to this study: • Introduces a 5-level metric to assesses the relative relevance of noteworthy BIM publications; and • Applies the study’s conceptual constructs in assessing - in addition to organizations, teams and individuals (papers A3-A6) - the BIM maturity of countries. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 38 BIM in Practice - BIM Education, a position paper by the Australian Institute of Architects and Consult Australia (Succar, Agar, Beazley, Berkemeier, Choy, Giangregorio, Donaghey, Linning, Macdonald, Perey, & Plume, 2012) This position paper stems from the efforts of the BIM Education Working Group (EWG), part of the Australian Institute of Architects and Consult Australia BIM/IPD initiative. The EWG included eleven members from industry (practicing professionals) and academia (university/TAFE lecturers and researchers). The paper delivered as a result of this collaborative effort included three complementary documents that identified BIM learners and their varied requirements; explored BIM learning providers and the current status of BIM education; defined the BIM learning spectrum; and generated a draft collaborative BIM education framework. The dedicated framework, the knowledge structures – namely BIM competencies and sample educational deliverables – are derived from the research conducted for paper A6. Declaration: I hereby certify that this paper has been done in collaboration with other researchers and conducted under the auspices of the BIM/IPD Steering Group of the Australian Institute of Architects and Consult Australia. My contributions to this effort – as a working group Chair and the main author of the BIM Education documents - have been delivered as an unpaid volunteer. Research themes across included papers Table 2 below explores the common research themes across papers submitted as part of this thesis by publication. It lists the literature reviews conducted, the research methodology used and the distribution of conceptual constructs and practicable tools across papers. The table highlights the step-wise progression from foundational, conceptual work to practicable research deliverables: PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 39 Table 2. Study deliverables across the nine papers A A A A A C A B B Introduct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 document Literature reviews Available frameworks    Competency connotations  Knowledge visualization principles   Performance measurement models    Research methodology Conceptual background    Framework development methodology   Research design    Underlying theories  Conceptual constructs BIM Framework + Tri-axial model         BIM fields     Players   Deliverables   Requirements   Overlaps   Interactions    BIM lenses and filters   BIM capability stages       BIM ontology   Collaborative BIM Education Framework  Competency approaches  Competency components + manifestations  Competency sets      Competency units of analysis  Granularity levels     Individual competency classes and sub-classes  Organizational hierarchy and scales       Knowledge content taxonomy   Project lifecycle phases  Seed competency inventory   Triple A competency + competency flow models  BIM acquisition + BIM learning Modules   BIM application + sample BIM workflow  BIM assessment + assessment workflow     Practicable knowledge tools BIM dictionary, online module  BIM maturity index (BIMMI)       BIM maturity matrix (BIm³)  Individual competency assessment, online tool  Individual competency index (ICI)  Noteworthy BIM publications – relevance (R-metric)   Organizational capability/maturity score      Legend:  indicates topic mentioned within publication  indicates topic improved upon previous published version Notes: BIM fields and BIM players where termed BIM nodes and BIM participants respectively in paper A1 BIM capability stages where interchangeably called BIM maturity stages in paper A2 The term viDCO replaced the term IPD – as used in A2 and A3 – starting in paper A4 PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 40 An expansive research continuum The deliverables of this study are a product of multiple interwoven research paths forming an expansive research mesh. This mesh was first initiated through describing, explaining and testing (section 10) a small number of interconnected conceptual constructs; using test results to refine initial constructs and develop new ones; and then repeating the cyclical process to continually solidify and expand the mesh. This study thus delivers – in addition to multiple conceptual constructs and practicable tools - an expansive research continuum. To clarify this deliverable, three visual knowledge models (VKM) 11 have been developed: • A Study Timeline (Figure 5) identifying the study’s basic chronology and published deliverables; • A Research Path (Figure 6) identifying the study’s major milestones along four research sub-paths: literature review, research methodology, conceptual development and data collection. This VKM also identifies a number of future research activities pursuant to each research sub-path; and • A Research Continuum (Figure 7) representing the study’s network of conceptual and practical deliverables across submitted publications. The continuum highlights how each paper delivers a number of conceptual constructs which either extend earlier constructs/tools or support the development of new ones. Constructs are hierarchical (refer back to Figure 2) yet interconnect through explicit ontological relations (refer to Appendix A). For example, this VKM clarifies how noteworthy BIM publications (a dictionary term defined in paper B1, 2013) and the BIM Maturity Matrix (a practical tool introduced in paper A3, 2010) are ontologically-connected to constructs published within papers A1 and A2 (2007 and 2009 respectively). 11 Please note that conceptual models and visual knowledge models are not synonymous. A conceptual model is an abstraction of reality (refer back to Section 8.2) and may not necessarily have a visual representation (e.g. a personal mental model). A visual knowledge model (VKM) however refers to the visual language (e.g. data graphs, workflow charts or Venn diagrams) used in representing mental models and other conceptual constructs – be it a classification, taxonomy, framework or theory. VKMs are extensively used throughout this study and have been discussed within paper A1 – the first publication. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 41 A2 paper A2 paper A4 accounts Dec received most for 30% of total citations to date downloads to date 600 exploratory 13 re EA to online assessments UB es A lin conducted to date on EA 07 f ro m W7 813 UB a ds C10 IB nlo WB A C ow IB rd C e ap s lp ion ful at cit ive A3 A4 lat A1 A5 C re July Dec May A6 B1 B2 Mar Aug Jun Oct Feb Study Timeline v1.0 (Succar, 2013) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 main l main litera i t e ra t u re AU US UK HK t u re re v i e w 2 re v i e w 1 informal interviews OFFICIAL MASTERS TO focus groups conducted THESIS BY PRACTICAL START DATE PhD UPGRADE in different countries PUBLICATION COMPLETION JUN 2005 OCT 2007 JAN 2012 (DECISION) DEC 2013 A1 A Proposed Framework to investigate B1 Building Information Modeling: analyzing Academic conferences attended Building Information Modelling through noteworthy publications of eight countries to deliver papers included within knowledge elicitation and visual models using a knowledge content taxonomy the thesis. (Succar, Sher, & Aranda-Mena, 2007) (Kassem, M., Succar, B., Dawood, N., 2014) A2 Building information modelling framework: B2 A proposed approach to comparing the BIM Relative number of citations a research and delivery foundation for maturity of countries (Kassem, M., Succar, received - 239 citations by Dec industry stakeholders (Succar, 2009) B., Dawood, N., 2013) 2013. Graph is indicative only. A3 Building Information Modelling maturity C BIM in Practice - BIM Education, a position Relative number of full-paper matrix (Succar, 2010a) paper by the Australian Institute of Architects downloads from self-storage sites and Consult Australia (Succar, Agar, Beazley, (academia.net & researchgate.edu) The Five Components of BIM performance Berkemeier, Choy, Giangregorio, Donaghey, - 13,000 downloads by Dec 2013. A4 measurement (Succar, 2010b) Linning, Macdonald, Perey, & Plume, 2012) Graph is indicative only. A5 Measuring BIM Performance: five metrics literature reviews conducted This graph identifies major research activities (Succar, Sher, & Williams, 2012) throughout the study conducted between June 2005 and December An integrated approach to BIM competency data collection including informal 2013. For additional information, please refer A6 assessment, acquisition and application interviews, focus groups and to Research Path and Research Continuum. (Succar, Sher, & Williams, 2013) exploratiry online assessments Study Timeline v1.0 (Succar, 2013) PART I: INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT Figure 5. Study Timeline v1.0 PAGE 42 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 C A6 B1 B2 ) , 20 13 u cca r v1. 2 (S dynamic competency metrics and tools 1 ath hP arc individual se Re competencies market maturity metrics 2 cts BIM fields; market ru maturity st lenses; stages; experiential c on competency sets; ontology knowledge u al organizational capability improvement workflows/tools 3 t scales; granularity c ep r e s e a r c h me levels; assessment n t ho workflows co do organizational market performance benchmarking 4 study started lo capability June 2005 established research g aims, strategy i o n exploratory t shifted to thesis y a and design l ida by publication assessments knwoledge modelling 5 data collection & co n c e p t u a l v international formalised focus groups conceptual hierarchies litera expanding the competency knowledge-base 6 previous tur studies er ev BIM; history of CAD; iew BIM available frameworks; education assessing NBPs of additional countries 7 knowledge visualization BIM guides, protocols and mandates across multiple countries performance measurement models individual competency conceptual validation publication milestone milestone A1 number f u t u re re s earch the path signifies how the actions/ the link signifies how actions/deliverables Research Path v1.2 by Bilal Succar, December 2013 methodology literature review deliverables at one milestone lead to actions/ at one milestone influences the actions/ milestone milestone deliverables at other same-type milestones deliverables at other milestones also refer to Study Timeline and Research Continuum PART I: INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT Figure 6. Research Path v1.2 PAGE 43 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 C A6 B1 B2 Research Continuum v1.1 (Succar, 2013) R1 R2 R3 F F F mework m e work u c ts fra fra n c o n s tr se ol om at u io c ti- c th la b e r k orativ e e d uc pe te n cy m ul tri- axial fra me wo TX2 TX2 TX5 TX5 TR3 TR3 D1 D2 D3 D7 D8 D9 10 11 12 13 D D D D M M M M M M TX2 M M M M CL2 Po Organizational Scales Capability Stages START LEARNER nents index nents 0 1 2 3 4 Competency Maturity Pr Te Granularity Levels Levels ow END DEFINED MANAGED INTEGRATED LE AR R E ID el el NIN G PROV po level b level c level d el po k fl w cy od M od LE AR U NIN TR G SPEC od om fl o fi e ca le m nd im or m en ex BI co as rk m m m m s ns d at y w gl c i lds s lea e pa er ivi ple of e n q uir y bility stage es a n d fi l t M m aturity i n urit y m atrix ses sment w o dual co mpe m e ntation r nin g trian ark e t m a t urit y part of MD13 TX4 D4 D5 D6 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 s ra te M M M T MD1 T T T T POLICY es FI E L D gene 1 [D] [C] EXEC MD3 rat [O] ses a b 2 [D] & topics d DOMAIN ne [C] P R O CE S S T E C H N O LO G Y onomy FI E L D FIELD [O] ge pha c 3 [D] CORE [C] s [O] on ps ti pr le fi e ld interac fi e l d o v e r la oje yc ct lifec ax hy TX1 ts ga om co se tt ts rc no or ra se s, its n c k niz e co pet r mp wle te atio nal hi mpetency e n cy tie etency un dge con R1 R2 L1 L2 L3 L4 R3 L5 C C C C C T T T MD1 MD3 to virtually construct a 0 pre-BIM a Initial 0 None 0 None R0 Redundant Modelling Defined Discovery Basic Relevant to extend the analysis of a to explore the possibilities of 1 b 1 1 R1 tio ns to study what-if scenarios for a Modelling Information to detect possible collisions within a Building 2 Collaboration c Managed 2 Evaluation 2 Intermediate inf R2 Regarded orm shaping an organised a structure, an forming set of data: to calculate construction costs of enclosed space, presenting, meaningful, to analyse constructability of a a constructed s scoping actionable environment 3 Integration d Integrated 3 Certification 3 Advanced R3 Recommended to plan the deconstruction of a to manage and maintain a viDCO Optimised Auditing Expert Requisite ica 4 e 4 4 R4 ob bl ot BI co M co el pu s ls ca ge ls gr e el n M re s ew s not f jec I ma v mp v atio ns o t-based B pab ility sta turity leve anu larity le etency le orthy BIM leva nce le v T L1 T L2 TL 3 TL 4 TL 5 Research Continuum v1.1 by Bilal Succar, December 2013 FR frameworks TL practicable tool This graph represents the study’s conceptual and practical MD models A1 published paper continuum across publications. Each paper includes a number of s essment r y matrix conceptual constructs which support and/or extend earlier r y score matrix TX taxonomy direct connection constructs. Multi-level constructs are either purely conceptual - CL classifications indirect link intended to clarify/represent domain knowledge - or practicable a ry yielding performance assessment and improvement tools. TR terminology part of ontology relation implementation ste p BIM maturity disco v e BIM maturity disco v e online BIM dictio n online competency a s also refer to Study Timeline and Research Path s PART I: INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT Figure 7. Research Continuum v1.1 PAGE 44 Conclusion This study is an expression of two complementary research questions: what are the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain; and, how can these knowledge structures be harnessed to assist industry stakeholders to adopt BIM or improve their BIM performance? The first question explores the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain whilst the second probes how these knowledge structures can be used to improve the BIM performance of industry stakeholders. These two research questions have been addressed through the development of new conceptual constructs (e.g. classifications, taxonomies, models, an ontology and a framework) which collectively illustrate the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain; and through the introduction of a set of tools and workflows that facilitate BIM assessment, learning and performance improvement. The next sections briefly discuss the study’s current limitations, future extensions, and provides a succinct summary of its deliverables. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 45 Current limitations This study has been limited by the number of testing cycles (section 8.6) performed to date. While 63 subject matter experts participated in focus groups in 2010, and more than 300 online users have since participated in exploratory competency assessments, these numbers – while statistically representative - are thinly spread across the framework’s many models and tools. Collection of additional data is required before data saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) (Morse, 1995) can be reached and purposeful data analyses can be conducted. To address this limitation, a new set of focus groups will be conducted to test and validate the study’s models and tools. Also, as indicated by exploratory research, a significant amount of meaningful data can be collected through the online assessment tool (prototype shown in paper A6, Figure 10). This additional primary data can then be amalgamated with the data collected in 2010, comprehensively analysed and duly published. Future extensions Using the BIM framework as a theoretical structure, several constructs delivered by this study will be extended, new constructs generated, and additional tools developed. Below is a succinct list of planned extensions: • Based on assessment metrics developed in papers A3-A6 serving varied organizational scales (refer to paper A3), a multi-assessment framework is currently being developed to amalgamate the results of different assessment types (e.g. individual competency with organizational maturity); • Extending the seed competency inventory introduced in paper A6, additional competency items will be generated to populate a specialized online platform (currently hosts more than a thousand competency items). Using a dedicated online module and - in collaboration with industry associations - assessments will be conducted to generate industry-wide BIM competency benchmarks; • Based on the sample competency-based workflow introduced in paper A6 (Figure 9), a custom version of Business Process Model and Notation (Muehlen & Recker, 2008) (OMG, 2013) will be developed. The customised notation will benefit from PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 46 the terminology defined within the BIM dictionary and the concepts, relationships, and attributes defined by the BIM ontology (refer to Part III - Appendix A) to capture and visually represent complex BIM workflows. Combining a visually-accessible process modelling language with well-defined terms and a specialized ontology will facilitate the development of competency-based workflows. These can be used by industry stakeholders to guide BIM implementation and collaboration; • The BIM competency hierarchy (introduced in paper A6) will be extended into a BIM competence ontology (Draganidis, Chamopoulou, & Mentzas, 2006) (Hirata, Ikeda, & Mizoguchi, 2001) that matches widely adopted definitions and metadata standards (IMS, 2002) (IEEE, 2008). This is intended to facilitate coordinating the BIM competence ontology with other competence ontologies covering varied knowledge domains; • The online BIM Dictionary (introduced in paper A6) will be expanded to include additional terms and descriptions (currently includes 370 terms). An expanded dictionary will contribute to further reducing term ambiguity and enable the development of interconnected competency assessments, learning modules and performance workflows; • The competency identification, classification, aggregation and multiuse model (Figure 5 of paper A6) will be developed into a framework with the addition of new taxonomies and classifications. This is intended to facilitate the identification new sets of BIM competencies across different disciplines, specialities and markets; • The collaborative BIM education framework introduced in paper C will be extended with additional taxonomies and conceptual models. This is intended to support the development of a BIM academy - currently being contemplated in Australia – tasked with developing BIM-focused learning modules for both industry and academia; and • Based on performance assessment tools developed throughout this study – and also in collaboration with industry associations - a seed BIM accreditation and certification programme will be developed. The programme will clarify BIM performance milestones and provide individuals and organizations with incentives to assess and continuously improve their BIM performance. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 47 Summary Building Information Modelling (BIM) is the current expression of technical and procedural innovation within the construction industry. It is a methodology that generates, exchanges and manages a constructed facility’s data throughout its life cycle. There are significant benefits and challenges attributed to BIM tools and workflows. To holistically understand BIM, its conceptual parts must be understood as well as the relationship between them. Benefiting from previous research and applicable theories - and reflecting the candidate’s experiential knowledge and thought experiments - this study adopted a pragmatic research design and a mixed research strategy. Through nine published papers (2007-2013), this study investigated the knowledge structures underlying the BIM domain, developed an expansive theoretical framework to represent these structures, and delivered a number of practicable tools to assist industry stakeholders to assess and improve their BIM performance. In summary, the deliverables of this study included: • A set of metrics and tools to assess BIM capability, maturity and competency; • A seed competency inventory to assist in developing BIM learning modules; • A conceptual engine to integrate BIM assessment, learning and implementation; • An interconnected BIM dictionary to reduce topic ambiguity; • A set of models, taxonomies and classifications to represent domain knowledge; • A BIM ontology to formalise BIM concepts and interlink conceptual constructs; • A visual language to simplify complex BIM topics; and • An expandable theoretical framework to connect all deliverables – conceptual and practical - and support the development of new ones. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 48 References ACG. (2010). Productivity in the Building Network-Assessing the Impacts of Building Information Models, Report to the Built Environment, Innovation and Industry Council (BEIIC) (pp. 98). Sydney: Allen Consulting Group. Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a System of Systems Concepts. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 17(11), 661-671. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.17.11.661 Alshawi, M., & Faraj, I. (2002). Integrated construction environments: technology and implementation. Construction Innovation, 2(1), 33-51. Atkinson, D. (2011). Approaches and Strategies of Social Research, Essay for Reasearch Methods Class, RMIT. http://minyos.its.rmit.edu.au/~dwa/Methods.html Austin, S., Newton, A., Steele, J., & Waskett, P. (2002). Modelling and managing project complexity. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 191-198. Bernstein, P. (2005, December 14, 2013). Integrated Practice: It’s Not Just About the Technology. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://bit.ly/1j5NZVO BIMe. (2013). The BIM Dictionary. Retrieved May 26, 2013, from BIM Excellence (BIMe) http://www.BIMexcellence.net/dictionary BIS. (2011). A Report for the Government Construction Client Group, Building Information Modelling (BIM) Working Party Strategy: Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS). Blaikie, N. W. H. (2000). Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation: Polity Press. CEN. (2004). European eConstruction Framework (EeF) - Context and Scope for “eConstruction” CEN Workshop Agreement: European Committee for Standardization. Cerovsek, T. (2012). BIM cube and systems-of-systems framework eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. 421-428): CRC Press. Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J. R., & Benjamins, V. R. (1999). What are ontologies, and why do we need them? Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, IEEE [see also IEEE Intelligent Systems], 14(1), 20-26. Chun, M., Sohn, K., Arling, P., & Granados, N. F. (2008). Systems Theory and Knowledge Management Systems: The Case of Pratt-Whitney Rocketdyne. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. Cooke, N. M., & McDonald, J. E. (1986). A formal methodology for acquiring and representing expert knowledge. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the IEEE. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Cottam, H. (1999). Ontologies to Assist Process Oriented Knowledge Acquisition (Draft): SPEDE, Rolls-Royce plc 1999 covered by SPEDE IPR agreement. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 49 Cristea, A. I. (2004). What can the Semantic Web do for Adaptive Educational Hypermedia? Educational Technology and Society, 7(4), 40-58. CWIC. (2004). The Building Technology and Construction Industry Technology Roadmap. In A. Dawson (Ed.). Melbourne: Collaborative Working In Consortium. Davies, R. (1989). The Creation of New Knowledge by Information Retrieval and Classification. Journal of Documentation, 45(4), 273-301. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. Debus, M. (1989). Methodological Review: a Handbook for Excellence in Focus Group Research: Academy for Educational Development, Washington D.C. Denzer, A., & Hedges, K. (2008). From CAD to BIM: Educational strategies for the coming paradigm shift. AEI. Diane, H. P. (1998). Across the manufacturing-marketing interface Classification of significant research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18(12), 1205- 1222. Dillon, J. T. (1984). The Classification of Research Questions. Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 327-361. Dossick, C. S., & Neff, G. (2009). Organizational divisions in BIM-enabled commercial construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(4), 459-467. Downward, P., & Mearman, A. (2007). Retroduction as Mixed-Methods Triangulation In Economic Research: Reorienting Economics Into Social Science. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(1), 77-99. doi: 10.1093/cje/bel009 Draganidis, F., Chamopoulou, P., & Mentzas, G. (2006). An Ontology Based Tool for Competency Management and Learning Paths. Paper presented at the I-KNOW 2006, Graz, Austria. Dubin, R. (1978). Theory Building: Free Press New York. Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2011). BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors (2 ed.): Wiley. Feng, C.-W., Mustaklem, O., & Chen, Y.-J. (2011). The BIM-Based Information Integration Sphere for Construction Projects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2011), Seoul, Korea. http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/S04-6.pdf Fox, S., & Hietanen, J. (2007). Interorganizational use of building information models: potential for automational, informational and transformational effects. Construction Management and Economics, 25(3), 289 - 296. Froese, T. M. (2010). The impact of emerging information technology on project management for construction. Automation in Construction, 19(5), 531-538. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2009.11.004 PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 50 Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research Retrieved from http://bit.ly/gfXxgX Green, G., & Hevner, A. (2000). The Successful Diffusion of Innovations: Guidance for Software Development Organizations. IEEE Software, 17(6), 96. Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642. Hammersley, M. (Ed.). (2006). Sensitizing Concepts. London: SAGE. Hampson, K., & Brandon, P. (2004). Construction 2020: A Vision of Australia's Property and Construction Industry. Australia: CRC Construction Innovation. Hewson, C. (Ed.). (2006). Mixed Methods Research. London: SAGE. Hirata, K., Ikeda, M., & Mizoguchi, R. (2001). Total resolution for human resource development based on competency ontology. ICCE2001. Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2006). Knowledge Management Ontology. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (pp. 397-402): Idea Group Reference. Homer-Dixon, T. (2001). The Ingenuity Gap. Canada: Vintage. Ibrahim, M., Krawczyk, R., & Schipporeit, G. (2004). A Web-Based Approach to Transferring Architectural Information to the Construction Site Based on the BIM Object Concept. Paper presented at the CAADRIA 2004 Conference, Seoul, South Korea. IEEE. (2008). IEEE Standard for Learning Technology - Data Model for Reusable Competency Definitions. IEEE Std 1484.20.1-2007, C1-26. doi: 10.1109/ieeestd.2008.4445693 IMS. (2002). IMS Reusable Definition of Competency or Educational Objective – Information Model IMS Global Learning Consortium Version 1.0 - Final Specification. Lake Mary, FL: IMS Global Consortium. Jung, Y., & Joo, M. (2010). Building information modelling (BIM) framework for practical implementation. Automation in Construction, In Press, Corrected Proof. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.010 Kaner, I., Sacks, R., Kassian, W., & Quitt, T. (2008). Case studies of BIM adoption for precast concrete design by mid-sized structural engineering firms. ITCON, 18, 303-323. Kao, D., & Archer, N. P. (1997). Abstraction in conceptual model design. International journal of human-computer studies, 46(1), 125-150. Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods for Evaluating Computer Information Systems. In J. Anderson & C. Aydin (Eds.), Evaluating the Organizational Impact of Healthcare Information Systems (pp. 30-55). New York: Springer. Khanzode, A., Fischer, M., & Reed, D. (2008). Benefits and Lessons Learned of Implementing Building Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) Technologies for Coordination of Mechanical, Eectrical, and Plumbing (MEP) Systems on a Large Healthcare Project. ITCON, 18, 324-342. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 51 Kimmance, A. G. (2002). An integrated Product and Process Information Modelling System for On-Site Construction. (DX240137). Thesis (Ph. D.) - University of Loughborough, UK. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on Cognitive, Learning, and Thinking Styles. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kunz, A. (2012). Challenges to BIM Adoption and why Project-Led Implementations Succeed and Office Implementations Fail. American Building Today. Retrieved from American Building Today website: http://bit.ly/1j5NISB Kwasnik, B. (1999). The Role of Classification in Knowledge Representation and Discovery. Library Trends, 48(1), 22-47. Lave, C. A., & March, J. G. (1993). An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. Leca, B., & Naccache, P. (2006). A Critical Realist Approach To Institutional Entrepreneurship. Organization, 13(5), 627-651. doi: 10.1177/1350508406067007 Lee, A. S. (1991). Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342-365. Leicht, R., & Messner, J. (2008). Moving Toward an ‘Intelligent’ Shop Modelling Process. ITCON, 18, 286-302. Linderoth, H. C. J. (2010). Understanding adoption and use of BIM as the creation of actor networks. Automation in Construction, 19(1), 66-72. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2009.09.003 Lohse, G. L., Biolsi, K., Walker, N., & Rueter, H. H. (1994). A Classification of Visual Representations. Communications of the ACM, 37(12), 36-49. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/198366.198376 Mäkeläinen, T., Hyvärinen, J., & Peura, J. (2012). BIM practices and challenges framed - an approach to systemic change management eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. 497-504): CRC Press. Manning, R., & Messner, J. (2008). Case studies in BIM implementation for programming of healthcare facilities; . ITCON, 13, 246-257. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual methods. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13(5), 3. Meredith, J. R., Raturi, A., Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Kaplan, B. (1989). Alternative research paradigms in operations. Journal of Operations Management, 8(4), 297-326. doi: Doi: 10.1016/0272-6963(89)90033-8 Merriam-Webster. (2013). Dictionary. Retrieved May 36, 2013, from Merriam-Webster, Encyclopedia Britanica http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictionary PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 52 Michalski, R. S. (1987). Concept Learning. In S. S. Shapiro (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 185-194). New York: Wiley. Michalski, R. S., & Stepp, R. E. (1987). Clustering. In S. S. Shapiro (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 103-111). New York: Wiley. Mihindu, S., & Arayici, Y. (2008, 9-11 July 2008). Digital Construction through BIM Systems will Drive the Re-engineering of Construction Business Practices. Paper presented at the Visualisation, 2008 International Conference. Miller, R. L., & Brewer, J. D. (2003). The A-Z of Social REsearch. London: Sage. Milton, N. R. (2007a). Knowledge Acquisition in Practice: A Step-by-step Guide: Springer, London. Milton, N. R. (2007b). Specification for the General Technological Ontology (GTO). http://www.pcpack.co.uk/gto/notes/files/GTO%20Spec%20v4.doc Minsky, M. (Ed.). (1975). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mitroff, I. I., & Mason, R. O. (1982). Business Policy and Metaphysics: Some Philosophical Considerations. The Academy of Management Review, 7(3), 361-371. Morse, J. M. (1995). The Significance of Saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147-149. Muehlen, M., & Recker, J. (2008). How Much Language Is Enough? Theoretical and Practical Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation. In Z. Bellahsène & M. Léonard (Eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Vol. 5074, pp. 465-479): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Mutai, A. (2009). Factors Influencing the Use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) within Leading Construction Firms in the United States of America. (Doctor of Philosophy Doctor of Philosophy), Indiana State University, Terre Haute. Myers, M. D. (1997a). Qualitative Research in Information Systems. http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/ Myers, M. D. (1997b). Qualitative Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 241- 242. NIST. (2004). Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. In M. P. O. C. Gallaher, A. C.; Dettbarn, J. L., Jr.; Gilday, L. T. (Ed.): National Institute of Standards and Technology. Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. http://www.lsi.upc.edu/~bejar/aia/aia-web/ontology101.pdf OMG. (2013, Dec 2, 2013). Object Management Group, Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). Retrieved Dec 2, 2013, 2013, from http://www.bpmn.org/ Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 53 Peansupap, V., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). Factors Enabling Information and Communication Technology Diffusion and Actual Implementation in Construction Organisations. Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 10, 193-218. Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery popper Retrieved from http://bit.ly/oKNRUY Reason, P. (Ed.). (1988). Human Inquiry in Action: Development in New Paradigm Research - Introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Reason, P. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research - Three Approaches to Participative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reisman, A. (1988). On alternative strategies for doing research in the management and social sciences. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 35(4), 215-220. Reisman, A. (1994). Creativity in MS/OR: Expanding Knowledge by Consolidating Knowledge. Interfaces, 24(3), 91-99. Reisman, A. (2004). How can OR/MS Educators Benefit From Creating and Using Taxonomies? INFORM Transactions on Education, 4(3), 55-65. doi: 10.1287/ited.4.3.55 Ritter, H. (2010). Models as Tools to Aid Thinking: Towards a Theory of Thinking. In B. Glatzeder, V. Goel & A. Müller (Eds.), (pp. 347-374): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press. Saaty, T. L. (1998). Reflections and Projections on Creativity in Operations Research and Management Science: a Pressing Need for a Shift in Paradigm. Operations Research, 46(1), 9. Sayer, A. (1992). Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach Retrieved from http://bit.ly/gHz6Md Sebastian, R. (2010). Breaking through Business and Legal Barriers of Open Collaborative Processes based on Building Information Modelling (BIM). Paper presented at the W113- Special Track 18th CIB World Building Congress May 2010 Salford, United Kingdom. Shelden, D. (2009). Information Modelling as a Paradigm Shift. Architectural Design, 79(2), 80- 83. doi: 10.1002/ad.857 Singh, V., Gu, N., & Wang, X. (2011). A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-disciplinary collaboration platform. Automation in Construction, 20(2), 134-144. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.011 Studer, R., Benjamins, V. R., & Fensel, D. (1998). Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 25(1-2), 161-197. Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357-375. Succar, B. (2010a). Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix. In J. Underwood & U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies (pp. 65-103): Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 54 Succar, B. (2010b). The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement. Paper presented at the CIB World Congress, Salford, United Kingdom. Succar, B., Agar, C., Beazley, S., Berkemeier, P., Choy, R., Giangregorio, R. D., Donaghey, S., Linning, C., Macdonald, J., Perey, R., & Plume, J. (2012). BIM in Practice - BIM Education, a Position Paper by the Australian Institute of Architects and Consult Australia. http://www.bim.architecture.com.au/ Succar, B., Sher, W., & Aranda-Mena, G. (2007). A Proposed Framework to Investigate Building Information Modelling Through Knowledge Elicitation and Visual Models. Paper presented at the Australasian Universities Building Education (AUBEA2007), Melbourne, Australia. http://aubea.org.au/ocs/viewpaper.php?id=15&cf=1 Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2012). Measuring BIM performance: Five metrics. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 8(2), 120-142. doi: 10.1080/17452007.2012.659506 Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2013). An integrated approach to BIM competency acquisition, assessment and application (published online). Automation in Construction, 35, 174-189. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.016 Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Taylor, J., & Bernstein, P. (2009). Paradigm Trajectories of Building Information Modeling Practice in Project Networks. Journal of Management in Engineering, 25(2), 69-76. doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2009)25:2(69) USAF. (2010). BIM/LEAN-Enabled Project Delivery Comparison, US Airforce Presentation, PowerPoint Slide no. 17: FedCon 10. Van der Heijden, K., & Eden, C. (1998). The Theory and Praxis of Reflective Learning in Strategy Making. In C. Eden & J.-C. Spender (Eds.), Managerial and organizational cognition: Theory, methods and research (pp. 58-75). London: Sage. Van Heijst, G., Schreiber, A. T., & Wielinga, B. J. (1997). Using explicit ontologies in KBS development. International journal of human-computer studies, 46(2-3), 183-292. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 46(2), 186-204. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 Vogel, D. R., & Wetherbe, H. C. (1984). MIS research: a profile of leading journals and universities. Data Base, 16(1), 3-14. Walker, D. H. T., Bourne, L. M., & Shelley, A. (2008). Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 645 - 658. Walsham, G. (1995). The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 376-394. Watson, A. (2010). BIM - A Driver for Change. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference of Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Nottingham, UK. http://www.engineering.nottingham.ac.uk/icccbe/proceedings/pdf/pf69.pdf PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 55 Watson, A. (2011). Digital buildings – Challenges and opportunities. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(4), 573-581. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2011.07.003 White, S. (1997). Beyond Retroduction? — Hermeneutics, Reflexivity and Social Work Practice. British Journal of Social Work, 27(5), 739-753. Younas, M. Y. (2010). Exploring the challenges for the implementation and adoption of BIM. (International Master of Science in Construction & Real Estate Management Master's), Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences. PART I | INTRODUCTION DOCUMENT PAGE 56 PART II SUBMITTED PAPERS Part II aggregates all papers submitted as part of this thesis. For a discussion of paper types or contributions each paper made toward other papers and the overall study, please refer to Part I, section 9. PAPER A1 A Proposed Framework to Investigate Building Information Modelling through Knowledge Elicitation and Visual Models Succar, B., Sher, W., & Aranda-Mena, G. (2007). A Proposed Framework to Investigate Building Information Modelling Through Knowledge Elicitation and Visual Models. Paper presented at the Australasian Universities Building Education (AUBEA2007), Melbourne, Australia. Download paper: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA1 PAPER A2 Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357-375. Download paper: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA2 PAPER A3 Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix Succar, B. (2010). Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix. In J. Underwood & U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies (pp. 65-103): Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing. Download paper: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA3 PAPER A4 The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement Succar, B. (2010). The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement. Paper presented at the CIB World Congress, Salford, United Kingdom. Download paper: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA4 PAPER A5 Measuring BIM performance: Five metrics Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2012). Measuring BIM performance: Five metrics. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 8(2), 120-142. Download paper: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA5 PAPER A6 An integrated approach to BIM competency acquisition, assessment and application Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2013). An integrated approach to BIM competency acquisition, assessment and application. Automation in Construction, (published online on June 2013) Download paper: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA6 PAPER B1 Building Information Modeling: Analyzing Noteworthy Publications of Eight Countries Using a Knowledge Content Taxonomy Kassem, M., Succar, B., Dawood, N. (2014). Building Information Modeling: Analyzing Noteworthy Publications of Eight Countries Using a Knowledge Content Taxonomy, ASCE technical book chapter (approved for publication on June 25, 2013) Download paper: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperB1 (available in March 2014) PAPER B2 Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders Kassem, M., Succar, B., Dawood, N. (2013). A Proposed Approach to Comparing the BIM Maturity of Countries. CIB W78 2013, 30th international Conference on Applications of IT in the AEC Industry, 9-12 October 2013, Beijing, China. Download paper: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperB2 PAPER C BIM in Practice - BIM Education, a Position Paper by the Australian Institute of Architects and Consult Australia Succar, B., Agar, C., Beazley, S., Berkemeier, P., Choy, R., Rosetta Di Giangregorio, Donaghey, S., Linning, C., Macdonald, J., Perey, R., & Plume, J. (2012). BIM in Practice - BIM Education, a Position Paper by the Australian Institute of Architects and Consult Australia. Download paper: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperC PART III APPENDICES This thesis by publication includes six appendices: Appendices A and B include two foundational knowledge structures developed as part of this study yet partially used within published papers; Appendix C lists citations received to published works to date to indicate potential impact achieved to date; Appendix D includes the focus group’s information sheet and feedback form used during primary data collection; Appendix E includes ‘statements of contribution’ for papers A1, A5, A6, B1, B2 and C; and Appendix F includes a compilation of all bibliographic references cited within the introduction document, submitted papers and appendices. APPENDIX A The BIM ontology Appendix A: the BIM ontology v2.0 Building Information Modelling: conceptual constructs and performance improvement tools Introduction The BIM ontology is an informal, semi-structured, domain ontology intended for knowledge acquisition and communication between people. It is intended to represent knowledge interactions (push/pull) between BIM players, their deliverables and requirements (Figure 1) as described within Papers A1 and A2 (Succar, Sher, & Aranda- Mena, 2007) (Succar, 2009). The BIM ontology includes BIM-specific concepts, their relations and attributes facilitate analysis of domain knowledge (Noy & McGuinness, 2001), enable the construction of a domain framework (Studer, Benjamins, & Fensel, 1998), and support knowledge acquisition and communication (Milton, 2007a; Milton, 2007b) (Cottam, 1999) (Studer et al., 1998). Figure 1 below illustrates how ontological objects underlie the BIM Framework. The concept map (Figure 1 - right) is a visual representation of the ontological relationship between the three concepts (BIM Fields, BIM Stages and BIM Lenses); while the visual knowledge model (Figure 1left) abstracts these relationships into the Tri-axial Model, a simplified graphical representation to facilitate communication. As discussed in Papers A1 and A2, this combination of visual modelling driven by explicit ontological relations renders the BIM Framework and its many conceptual constructs more accessible for analysis, modification and extension. Also, as depicted in Figure 7 (Part I: Introduction Paper), ontological relations enable a ‘conceptual mesh’ linking different types of conceptual constructs: frameworks, models, taxonomies, classifications and specialized dictionary terms. PART III | APPENDIX A PAGE 251 Figure 1. Knowledge model (left) + concept map representing underlying ontological structure (right) Generating the BIM ontology The BIM ontology has been generated by amending and reusing existing ontologies; a process recommended by Noy and McGuiness (2001). The reuse of an existing ontology followed Gruber’s criteria for shared ontologies: clarity, coherence, extensibility, minimal encoding bias and minimum ontological commitment (Gruber, 1995). Based on these criteria, the BIM ontology was first derived from the General Technological Ontology (Milton, 2007a) (Milton, 2007b) and the General Process Ontology (Cottam, 1999). While earlier iterations of the BIM ontology followed source definitions, newer iterations are more closely matched with the conceptual and practical requirements of the BIM domain. PART III | APPENDIX A PAGE 252 Knowledge objects The BIM ontology comprises of four high-level knowledge objects: concepts, attributes, relations and knowledge views (Table 1). Starting with version 1E, the ontology has been expanded to include specific to BIM collaboration and BIM performance assessment. Table 1. BIM Ontology: Knowledge Objects Summary Knowledge Description Example Derived Original Objects From Syntax Concepts includes concepts, tasks People , Products Extended from n/a and task components GTO Attributes attributes and values to Glossary of BIM Extended from n/a be associated with terms GTO Concepts Relations relation between ‘is part of’, Extended from n/a Concepts ‘has expertise’ GTO Knowledge a purposeful compilation a generated view or Derived from GTO Home Page Views of Concepts, Attributes publication -modified syntax, and Relations different meaning Table 2. Concepts Concept Description (if needed) Example Derived Knowledge From Model Activity Includes sub-activities, Merge models, New tasks, sub-tasks and steps meet client, design a stadium Artefact Physical or digital items A Training Log is an New Level of acting as clues to or proof artefact proving the Evidence of the existence of process availability of a taxonomy or a policy training plan or programme Capability The abilities of Model-based New BIM Capability organizations and teams collaboration Stages Certificate A formal testimony of A trainer’s New capability certificate Competency The abilities of individuals The ability to New BIM and groups generate a thermal Competency analysis within an Taxonomy object-based model Component Virtual objects e.g. Revit family, New GDL object Constraints Limitations and barriers Capacity, GPO geography, money, modified time... meaning Data Source Data source The Australian New Bureaux of statistics PART III | APPENDIX A PAGE 253 Concept Description (if needed) Example Derived Knowledge From Model Deliverable Non-physical products and Description, New services analysis, representation, drawing Document A digital or analogue A report New document Equipment Machines, vehicles... A computer, a car New Event Happenings in a domain Training session, a GTO wether controlled or not milestone, an accident, a data entry... Example Illustration of meaning , a Arup is an example GTO representation of a type, of a company (an an instance org unit Field A field of enquiry The BIM New BIM Fields technology, process and policy fields Function Purpose of a product Measures GTO and/or each its sub- distances, scans components (applies to documents... objects) Incentive Drivers for a course of Profit, marketing, New action or inaction publicity, Intellectual property, Efficiency, hr benefits Knowledge Domains, sub-domains, Knowledge GTO Domain disciplines, specialities elicitation (Knowledg e Areas) modified syntax Maturity The quality, repeatability Maturity level New Maturity and excellence within Levels capability Message Message Email message New Metric A system or standard of Degree of Certainty New measurement Milestone A significant and A project milestone New recognizable event; a stage or step along a process Model use A deliverable of using 3D Augmented reality, New BIM Wheel models construction sequencing, model- based estimation Organizational Markets, industries, AEC industry, GPO & Organizational Unit disciplines, organizations companies, GTO (Org Hierarchy and parts of organizations departments, Units) groups, teams modified syntax PART III | APPENDIX A PAGE 254 Concept Description (if needed) Example Derived Knowledge From Model Place A location Melbourne’s GTO central business (locations) district modified syntax Player Those who take action in a Organizations, GPO BIM Fields, specific field (technology, individuals or (People) Field process or policy). stakeholders modified Interactions name/ and Field meaning Overlaps Product Assemblies, parts, A building, a pre- GTO (Phys materials... cast panel Entities) modified syntax Recommendation An advice aiming to Modelling best GTO generate or modify action practices (Advice) modified syntax Requirement Mandatory characteristic A business or a GPO technical demand Result Results, conclusions and Fail, pass, true, GPO interpretations false, continue, return... Roles Responsibilities of people Designer, foreman GTO involved in the domain Knowledge engineer Sample Sample A tile sample New Social Value Mechanism and effects Respectability, trust New occurring in a social worthiness, risk- context tolerance, cultural values, innovation, leadership and championship Space A built and identifiable Room, floor, New enclosed area Software End-user software Word, Revit, GTO programs or a bit if code Illustrator, CMaps... (Software) modified syntax Tool A single function physical A screw driver, a New device (knowledge tools shovel… are covered in Knowledge Views, a higher level ontology component) Trigger Special events whose Receive a sales GTO occurrence initiates tasks order, change in in the domain policy... Workbench A set of complex Knowledge New BIM developmental activities Foundations’ Excellence grouped together as workbench Knowledge workload packages and Infrastructure assigned to specialist Workbenches working groups PART III | APPENDIX A PAGE 255 Table 3. Attributes Attribute Description Example Derived Original Name From syntax Cost A monetary value $100 New N/A expressed in whole numbers, fractions and decimals Count An expression of Number of staff, cars, GTO - modified Numeric elemental numbers using drawings syntax al integers Description An explanation expressed Glossary, GTO - modified Sentence using words, phrases and Descriptions syntax sentences Grade A variables denoting Importance New N/A preference or (High/Low), developmental Priority (1,2, 3), achievement expressed in Order (first, second, integers, percentages or third,…), Degrees of text Relevance, Levels of Maturity Link A hypertext connection A hyperlink, UNC GTO - modified Hypertex path, email address syntax and meaning t or similar Location The coordinates of an Geo Tag, x/y/z New N/A object within a physical space Order An arrangement whether Project Phases, New N/A chronological or spatial – Organizational Scales not preferential or developmental (refer to Grade) Proposition A mutually exclusive Left or Right, True or New N/A distinction between clear False choices (or not known) State A description of condition Final submission New N/A whether temporary or permanent Time An expression of 10 weeks New N/A chronology expressed in minutes, second, days, etc… Type A differentiation of genus Gender GTO - modified Categoric (male/Female), syntax and meaning al PART III | APPENDIX A PAGE 256 Table 4. Relations List (version 1E - extended) Relation Relation aborts interchanges (interoperable exchange) aggregates interviews allows involves analyses joins appends knows approve leads audits links to authorizes locates causes maintains certifies makes checks maintains chooses manages classifies maximises completes measures collaborates with merges collates minimises collects models commissions monitors communicates with occupies compares operates conducts owns confirms participates in constructs performs consults plans contacts populates contains prepares continues prioritises controls procures coordinates produces decreases provides delimits provides for delivers pulls (specific to BIM knowledge exchanges) demolishes pushes (specific to BIM knowledge exchanges) demonstrates qualifies deselects quantifies designs questions detects receives describes recommends develops regulates discovers (as in BIM Assessment GLevel 1) rejects divides replaces discusses with requires documents reviews educates revises empowers runs establishes samples estimates selects exchanges shares explodes (for CAD blocks/cells/families) simulates evaluates starts facilitates stops federates supplies PART III | APPENDIX A PAGE 257 Relation Relation follows surveys functions as tests generates tracks guides trains has part transfer has resource transmits identifies understands ignores updates implements uses increases validates informs warns initiates writes integrates Table 5. Knowledge Views (version 2) Name Description Example Knowledge A delimited self-contained view of multiple A training manual, a journal Document concepts and their relations - irrespective of article, a CAD drawing, a web- knowledge content format (text, images or page graphs) or knowledge content medium (hardcopy or softcopy) Knowledge A structured view of concepts and their A concept map, repertory grid, Model relations. Knowledge Models includes timeline, process map, concept classifications, taxonomies, ontologies, models, map, flowchart, Gantt chart... frameworks and theories. Knowledge Models are not self-contained and are typically represented within Knowledge Documents (as a graph, list or matrix) embedded within Knowledge Tools Knowledge An interactive view of concepts and their A calculator, an online Tool relations intended to assess, assist and educate assessment tool, a cad software… its users. A tool has modifiable variables leading to varied outputs based on inputs Knowledge A repository of raw data, structured A web store, wiki, content Store information and Knowledge Documents management system, database… PART III | APPENDIX A PAGE 258 Revision history The Revision Table below lists previous iterations and their change log: V. Date Applies to Description 1.0 18 Oct ‘07 All Initial version prepared for Updated Research Proposal 1.1 8 Mar ‘08 Concepts Organizational Group becomes Organizational Unit – Description broadened to include Markets, Industries, Disciplines and their sub- parts Modify description of Recommendation (added intent to generate action) Added Deliverables Modified examples under Incentives (broadened) Added Human Resources Modified examples of Information Resources (added graphical and non-graphical databases) Modified Places to Locations (broader meaning – reverted to GTO’s original term) Modified description of Agents (included Organizational Champions and renamed managerial consultant to Industrial Consultant) Modified description of Social Phenomena (added innovation & championship) Modified Software Tools to Software Applications 1.2 26 Jul ‘08 Concepts Modified description of Social Phenomena (modified respectability, trust worthiness, risk-tolerance, cultural values and added leadership) Attributes Modified description of Number (added monetary value) 1.3 10 Jul ‘11 Relations New relations added Some relations modified or removed Relations are presented through a two-column table to represent both active and passive voices Attributes Added Preposition, Relevance, Time, Cost and Location as new or separate Attribute Renamed Text to Description, Category to Type Concepts Renamed Actors to Players Added Agents 1.4 17 Nov ‘11 Views Added Knowledge Tools as a new view Concepts Added Artefacts as a new concept Relations Added and modified many relationships 1.5 24 Mar ’13 Introduction Modified introductory text Versioning Changed version numbering from alphanumeric to numeric. V1A is now V1.0…V1F is now V1.5 1.6 9 Jun ’13 Introduction Updated for submission as an appendix to the PhD thesis Relations Removed passive voice 1.7 17 Jun ‘13 Introduction Minor text refinements 2.0 13 Dec ‘13 All A major ontological realignment with the BIM Framework Concepts An overhaul of concepts to match the BIM Framework Concepts are now referenced in singular tense Links to Knowledge Models are added Attributes Replaced Relevance with Grade Replaced Number with Count Added Grade, Order and State Modified the description of all attributes – unified syntax Views Merged Knowledge Matrix with Knowledge Document Calibrated the description of all Knowledge Views PART III | APPENDIX A PAGE 259 References Cottam, H. (1999). Ontologies to Assist Process Oriented Knowledge Acquisition (Draft): SPEDE, Rolls-Royce plc 1999 covered by SPEDE IPR agreement. Gruber, T. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? International journal of human-computer studies, 43(5-6), 907-928. Milton, N. R. (2007a). Knowledge Acquisition in Practice: A Step-by-step Guide: Springer, London. Milton, N. R. (2007b). Specification for the General Technological Ontology (GTO). http://www.pcpack.co.uk/gto/notes/files/GTO%20Spec%20v4.doc Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. http://www.lsi.upc.edu/~bejar/aia/aia-web/ontology101.pdf Studer, R., Benjamins, V. R., & Fensel, D. (1998). Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 25(1-2), 161-197. Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357-375. Succar, B., Sher, W., & Aranda-Mena, G. (2007). A Proposed Framework to Investigate Building Information Modelling Through Knowledge Elicitation and Visual Models. Paper presented at the Australasian Universities Building Education (AUBEA2007), Melbourne, Australia. http://aubea.org.au/ocs/viewpaper.php?id=15&cf=1 PART III | APPENDIX A PAGE 260 APPENDIX B The BIM knowledge content taxonomy Appendix B: BIM knowledge content taxonomy v2.2 Building Information Modelling: conceptual constructs and performance improvement tools Introduction The BIM knowledge content (BKC) taxonomy includes multiple classifications to organize knowledge content within noteworthy BIM publications 1 (NBP)s and other knowledge deliverables. BIM knowledge content refers to conceptual and procedural knowledge 2 usable by an individual, team or organization to conduct a relevant activity or deliver a measureable outcome. The taxonomy includes the following classifications: • BIM Knowledge Content Clusters (BKCC) – three clusters and 18 labels, refer to section 1.1; • BIM Knowledge Content Relevance (BKCR) – five relevance levels. refer to section 1.2; • BIM Knowledge Content Publication Type (e.g. book, report, journal paper or web page); • BIM Knowledge Content Issuer Type (e.g. government, commercial entity, industry association or community of practice); • BIM Knowledge Content Geographical Coverage (e.g. Australia, US, UK or EU); • BIM Knowledge Content Format (e.g. to-do list, flowchart, matrix or mind map); and • Other classifications based on metrics (e.g. reliability, currency, interactivity and impact) Below is an exploration of the two classifications used in papers B1 and B2: 1 Noteworthy BIM publications (NBP)s refers to research by academia and efforts/initiatives by industry which cover BIM concepts and workflows, and result in one or more publications which are widely discussed, adopted or referenced. 2 BCT applies to documents which include data/information intended for human consumption and application. BCT does not apply to data/information intended for machine use or machine learning. Software ontologies and metadata are two examples of what does not qualify for listing within/through the BCT. PART III | APPENDIX B PAGE 261 BIM Knowledge Content Clusters The BIM knowledge content clusters (BKCC) - the main classification within the BKC - is an extension of the three BIM fields (refer to paper A2), one of the three main components of the BIM framework. The BKCC includes numerous content labels (e.g. report, plan or programme) that can be used to assess the knowledge content of documents and other knowledge deliverables. This classification has been used in paper B1 to assess noteworthy BIM publications (NBP)s and distribute them – not according to their titles but - according to their knowledge content. BKCC encourages an in-depth examination of NPBs’ contents by “[shifting] the focus of perusal and interaction away from potentially uninformative document surrogates (such as titles, sentence fragments and URLs) to actual document content, and uses this content to drive the information seeking process” (White, Jose, & Ruthven, 2005 - page 1). The BIM Content Taxonomy includes eighteen content labels 3 (Table 1) organized under three content clusters (Figure 1) – guides, protocols and mandates: • Guides: documents which are descriptive and optional. Guides clarify goals, report on surveys/accomplishments or simplify complex topics. Guides do not provide detailed steps to follow to attain a goal or complete an activity. • Protocols: documents which are prescriptive and optional. Protocols provide detailed steps or conditions to reach a goal or deliver a measureable outcome. While documents within this cluster are prescriptive, they are optional to follow unless dictated within a Mandate (see next cluster). • Mandates: documents which are prescriptive and dictated by an authority. Mandates identify what should be delivered and – in some cases – how, when and by whom it should be delivered. 3 BIM Content Labels are not mutually exclusive. A Noteworthy BIM Publication (NBP) may require three or more labels to adequately describe its contents. PART III | APPENDIX B PAGE 262 Figure 1. The BIM Content Taxonomy Table 1. BIM Content Taxonomy LABEL LABEL LABEL LABEL CLUSTER CODE NAME DEFINITION - BIM SPECIFIC Guides G1 Best Practice Operational methods arising from experience; promoted as advantageous; and replicable by other individuals, organizations and teams. This label applies to publications which list unambiguous and detailed recommendations, and which if applied as recommended, generate similar advantageous outcomes G2 Case Study Summary and analysis (descriptive or explanatory) of projects and organizational efforts. This label applies to both research and industry publications which share lessons learned by others, and cover BIM deliverables, workflows, requirements, challenges and opportunities G3 Framework Theoretical structures explaining or simplifying or Model complex aspects of the BIM domain by identifying meaningful concepts and their relationships G4 Guideline Compilation of several BIM content types with the aim of providing guidance to individuals, teams or organizations. Guides typically provide insight into a complex topic (e.g. BIM Implementation Guide or Facility Handover Guide). Guides typically focus on knowledge-intensive topics, while Manuals (a complementary label) focus on skill-intensive ones. Due to the generic nature of this label, it should not be applied in isolation but in conjunction with other labels PART III | APPENDIX B PAGE 263 LABEL LABEL LABEL LABEL CLUSTER CODE NAME DEFINITION - BIM SPECIFIC G5 Learning All types of analogue and digital media (e.g. printed Module or manual or online videos) which deliver conceptual or Material practical insight intended/suitable for education, training or professional development within industry or academia G6 Report Compilation or summary of results arising from an assessment, calculation or review process (e.g. BIM capability report or profitability statement) G7 Strategy or Articulation of vision, mission and long-term goals. Vision This label applies to publications which identify a long- term strategy (and possibly middle-term goals/milestones) but without identifying the resources required and detailed steps needed to fulfil the strategy G8 Taxonomy Classification covering roles, types, levels, elements or and other structured concepts. This label applies to Classificatio publications which introduce classifications of five or n more items within a structured list; and which have a clear use in assessment, learning or implementation (e.g. construction elements, BIM roles, data exchange types or levels of detail) Protocols P1 Metric or Tools and criteria suitable for establishing levels of Benchmark performance of systems, projects, individuals, teams, organizations and other organizational units 4. This label applies to publications which include tools or explicit metrics/indicators for establishing usability, profitability, productivity, competency, capability or similar P2 Manual A structured document which is intended to clarify the steps needed to perform a measureable activity or deliver a measureable outcome (e.g. BIM training Manual). Manuals typically focus on skill-intensive topics, while Guides (a complementary label) typically focus on skill-intensive ones. Due to the generic nature of this label, it should not be applied in isolation but in conjunction with other labels P3 Plan A document describing activities to be performed, resources to be used and milestones to be reached within a defined timeframe. This label applies to publications describing – in adequate detail - how a specific strategy can be fulfilled or a pre-defined goal can be reached (e.g. a BIM Implementation Plan detailing how to fulfil a BIM Capability Strategy) P4 Procedure Structured information covering successive steps or workflow needed to fulfil an operational, rather than strategic, requirement. A documented Procedure includes the small steps needed to deliver, if executed by a competent individual, a pre-defined and desired 4 There are 12 organizational units, each with their own unique metrics (refer to Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix (Succar, 2010). PART III | APPENDIX B PAGE 264 LABEL LABEL LABEL LABEL CLUSTER CODE NAME DEFINITION - BIM SPECIFIC outcome. A Workflow identifies major successive activities to be performed and decision gates to pass- through towards reaching a delivery milestone or fulfilling a project/organizational objective P5 Protocol or Agreed or customary method of product/service Convention development or delivery which are not by themselves contractually binding (e.g. keeping minutes of meetings, how to name files and frequency of exchanging models) P6 Specification A set of criteria used to define or judge the quality of or products (e.g. object dimensions or data richness) and Prescription services (e.g. timeliness). Specifications may or may not be a Standard (a separate label). COBie is an example of BIM-related specifications which may become a service/delivery standard over time P7 Standard or Detailed set of product/service descriptions Code (prescriptive or performance-based) acting as a reference to be measured against. This label typically denotes a set of specifications (a separate label) which are authoritative and test-proven (e.g. barrier-free or accessibility standards) Mandates M1 Contract or Legally-binding document and its subparts – including Agreement contractual additions, amendments and disclaimers. This label applies to contracts and clauses, not to publications describing or promoting them (e.g. the label applies to AIA Documents E203, G201 and G202 but not to the AIA IPD guide) M2 Programme A document associating one or more classification to or Schedule time and/or location. For example, a BIM competency improvement programme is a document linking BIM competencies, BIM roles (and possibly other classifications) to a timeline or target dates M3 Requiremen Expectation or qualification mandated by clients, t, Rule or regulatory authorities or similar parties. This label Policy applies to publications with explicit identification of requirements to be met (e.g. organizational capability or previous experience) or products/services to be delivered (e.g. a tender/bid document) PART III | APPENDIX B PAGE 265 BIM Knowledge Content Relevance The BIM knowledge content relevance (BKCR) is a classification that can be applied to the knowledge deliverables (e.g. documents or publications) of organizational units. The BKCR includes five relevance values (R-values): • R0 - Redundant: the deliverable is dated or includes information which is no longer useful • R1 - Relevant: the deliverable is relevant, current and contains actionable information • R2 - Regarded: the deliverable is highly-relevant, well-cited and well-used • R3 - Recommended: the deliverable is authoritative and impactful and considered a reference • R4 - Requisite: the deliverable is the most authoritative in its relevant domain The BKCR classification has been used in paper B2 to assess noteworthy BIM publications and test their contribution towards country-scale maturity. Notes As discussed in Paper B2 (Kassem, Succar, & Dawood, 2014), the BKC taxonomy provides – in addition to organizing knowledge within NBPs - the traditional functions of indexing support and retrieval support (Hedden, 2010). The BKC facilitates indexing support through its controlled vocabulary which allows indexers to classify documents in a consistent manner. Without a controlled vocabulary, multiple documents with the same content may erroneously carry different headings. Indexers may also inadvertently use synonyms for classifying similar documents (Hedden, 2010, p. 15). Retrieval support is a direct consequence of indexing support (Hedden, 2010, p. 22) and refers to the ability of a classification to facilitate searching and improve find-ability within databases. The BKC taxonomy can be readily transformed into a facetted classification with its labels (a content type facet) augmented with additional facets – e.g. a content format facet, content relevance facet or issuer type facet. The BKC can thus support both information retrieval and the faceted analysis (Kwasnik, 1999). PART III | APPENDIX B PAGE 266 Version history The Revision Table below lists previous iterations and their change log: V. Date Applies to Description 1.0 2 Aug ‘11 All Initial version 1.1 21 Jan ‘12 Labels Content labels renamed 1.2 10 Jan ‘13 Definitions Minor changes to Summary Definitions 1.3 11 Feb ‘13 Introduction Text modified to enhance clarity of purpose Labels Label syntax changed from plural to singular 1.4 16 Feb ‘13 Labels New more granular labels added Hybrid labels introduced Classifications Renamed ‘Other Classifications’ to ‘Complementary Classifications’ 1.5 11 Apr ‘13 Introduction Added quote Included 2 images to explain how the taxonomy development Labels Added three Content Label Sets Removed ‘Assessment Tool’ to avoid overlap with Metrics 1.6 29 May ‘13 Title Renamed from BIM Content Taxonomy (BCT) to BIM Knowledge Content (BKC) taxonomy to clarify the use of the BIM Management Lens in generating all classifications Classifications Added the ‘Relevance’ classification to be used in a CIB W78 conference paper (Kassem, Succar and Dawood, 2013) Labels Modified labels to match updated naming of BIM fields 2.0 8 Jun ‘13 Introduction Updated for submission as an appendix to the PhD thesis Classifications Reorganized all classifications Provided text to discuss two main classifications (BKCC and BKCR) and identified where they have been used Removed ‘Authority’ as a separate classification type to avoid overlaps with the ‘Mandates’ cluster within BKCC 2.1 18 Jun ‘13 Introduction Minor text refinements 2.2 19 Sep ‘13 New section Added a Notes section References Hedden, H. (2010). The accidental taxonomist (1st ed.). Medford, United States: Information Today. Kassem, M., Succar, B., & Dawood, N. (2014). Building Information Modeling: Analyzing Noteworthy Publications of Eight Countries Using a Knowledge Content Taxonomy In R. Issa & S. Olbina (Eds.), Building Information Modeling: Applications and Practices in the AEC Industry. University of Miami: ASCE. Kwasnik, B. (1999). The Role of Classification in Knowledge Representation and Discovery. Library Trends, 48(1), 22-47. White, R. W., Jose, J. M., & Ruthven, I. (2005). Using top‐ranking sentences to facilitate effective information access. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1113-1125. PART III | APPENDIX B PAGE 267 APPENDIX C Citations of published papers Appendix C: citations of published papers v1.0 Building Information Modelling: conceptual constructs and performance improvement tools, This appendix is a compilation of citations received for published papers submitted as part of this study. Starting in 2008, citations were monitored 1 and recorded to provide insights into what and how published papers, conceptual constructs and practicable tools have been received by domain researchers. These citations contribute to the thesis’ validity argument and will hopefully encourage other research students to adopt a thesis by publication strategy. This compilation will be become outdated rapidly. However, it will serve as a benchmark to compare future citation numbers and citation contents over a number of years. It will thus facilitate the analysis of the study’s research impact, clarify if/which/how BIM framework components have been adopted, and inform the development of new conceptual structures. Table 1 provides a summary of citations received by type A papers 2, peer-reviewed articles with the PhD candidate being the sole or primary author. Table 2 is a non-exhaustive list of citing articles with a succinct analysis of how this study’s concepts and tools were cited: Table 1. A summary of published papers and their total citations to date. Code Paper title Reference Article Type Publication Citations Year to date A1 A Proposed Framework to (Succar, Sher, & Conference 2007 6 Investigate Building Information Aranda-Mena, paper Modelling Through Knowledge 2007) Elicitation and Visual Models A2 Building information modelling (Succar, 2009) Journal paper 2009 192 framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders A3 Building Information Modelling (Succar, 2010a) Book chapter 2010 19 Maturity Matrix A4 The Five Components of BIM (Succar, 2010b) Conference 2010 19 Performance Measurement paper A5 Measuring BIM performance: (Succar, Sher, & Journal paper 2012 3 Five metrics Williams, 2012) A6 An integrated approach to BIM (Succar, Sher, & Journal paper 2013 n/a competency assessment, Williams, 2013) acquisition and application Total citations received by official submission date - June 30, 2013: 176 Total citations received by final thesis submission - December 14, 2013: 239 1 Citations of published works were mainly monitored using automatic citation alerts sent by SCOPUS and Google Scholar. Some published works – which are not indexed by search engines - where discovered during literature reviews conducted throughout this study. 2 Paper types B and C are excluded from this appendix. For more information about paper types, please refer to section 9 of Part I. PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 268 Table 2. A succinct review of citing articles including the context in which the citation is provided Publication title Type/Date Context Reference Paper A1: A Proposed Framework to Investigate… 1 Building Surveying: A Conference “In fact if we are to believe some of (Zillante, Sustainable Profession Paper the claims that are being made by 2008) or A Passing Fad? March 2008 the developers of the new Building Information Modelling (BIM) systems it will not be long before we have a tool that allows for digital documentation, digital take offs and measurement linked to a pricing and costing program with a digital link to the BCA which will enable the architects’ original digital documentation to be measured, costed and checked against the provisions of the BCA at the touch of a button or the click of a computer mouse (Succar et al 2007).” p. 98 2 Building information Journal Paper Succar et al. (2007) defined BIM as (Aranda- modelling demystified: March 2009 “a set of interacting policies, Mena, does it make business processes and technologies Crawford, sense to adopt BIM? producing a methodology to Chevez, & manage the essential building Froese, design and project data in digital 2009) format throughout the building’s life-cycle” – p. 421 3 Towards Integrated Journal Paper “The term building information (Rekola, Design and Delivery November modelling is considered to include Kojima, & Solutions: Pinpointed 2010 the process of exchanging Mäkeläinen, Challenges of information and working on the 2010) Process Change BIM(s) (Succar et al., 2007)” p. 264 4 An Ethnographically PhD Thesis “Succar et al. (2007) argued for the (Abdelmohs Informed Analysis of October 2011 emerging and revolutionary role of en, 2011) Design Intent BIM in practice, as it produces a Communication in BIM- technological and procedural shift enabled Architectural that affects all participants in the Practice AEC industry. They also highlight the interaction between processes, technologies and policies that takes place in BIM to generate a consistent methodology that manages design and project information throughout a building lifecycle. At the same time, they point out the issues related to semantics, meaning and interpretation that result from the engagement of multiple participants in the process” p. 14 5 Building Information Conference Generic Citation (also references a (Patrick, Modelling (BIM), Paper white paper by ChangeAgents) Munir, & PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 269 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference Utilised During the October 2012 Jeffrey, Design and Construction 2012) Phase of a Project has the Potential to Create a Valuable Asset in its Own Right (‘BIMASSET’) at Handover that in turn Enhances the Value of The Development 6 Architectural Technology Conference Model used without citation. The (Kouider & and the BIM acronym: Paper BIM Nodes model, as used with Paterson, Critical Perspectives of March 2013 permission and attribution by Mr 2013) Evangelical and Sohail Razvi in an AECbytes Evolutionary Paradigms blogpost, is not referred back to the for Technical Design model’s author. “In a BIM business model, Razvi (2008) noted that a third technology node which interlocks with the other two has become critical to process development (Fig. 1)” – page 124 Paper A2: Building information modelling framework… 1 Building Information Conference “Several efforts have been made by (Olatunji & Modelling (BIM) System Paper some authors to provide Sher, 2009) in Construction in 2020: January comprehensive definitions of Opportunities and 2009 BIM”...“Guillermo Aranda-Mena, Implications John Crawford et al. (2008) and (Succar 2008) provide holistic description of the trend of BIM adoption and implementation in different parts of the world”... “However, efforts are on-going by application developers, researchers and policy makers to improve the slow of BIM adoption and further define business factors that are inherent in BIM deployment” – pp. 2&5 2 Information Online “Hence, according to Succar (2009), (Persson, management in Journal BIM can be regarded as a Malmgren, industrial housing June methodology to manage product & Johnsson, design and manufacture 2009 data throughout a building's life- 2009) cycle consisting of a set of interacting policies, processes and technologies.” – p. 112 3 Empirical Analysis of PhD Thesis “Many powerful software systems (Tatari, Construction Enterprise 02.07.09 are being utilized during the project 2009) Information Systems: (available life cycle in the construction Assessing the Critical online) environment. Yet, since insufficient Factors and Benefits attention has been given to the integration of these systems, an islands of automation’ problem has emerged. System integration, which PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 270 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference enhances “the value added in whole network of shareholders throughout the building lifecycle” (Succar 2009), is necessary to avoid this problem” p. 39 4 Model for developing PhD Thesis “Currently, BIM is characterized as (Zuppa, trust in construction August 2009 a tool, process and/or product that 2009) management develops virtual intelligent models linked to other construction management tools (i.e. schedule, estimates) that promote collaboration, visualization and constructability reviews beneficial to all stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of the facility (Kymmell 2008; Succar 2009)” p. 117 5 Developing a Conference Minor misquote (Laakso, multidisciplinary process Paper 2009) view on IFC September standardization 2009 6 Services in Digital Journal Paper “Succar’s extensive BIM definition (Penttila, Design: new visions for Sep 2009 attempts to form a unified 2009) AEC-field collaboration description of contemporary BIM [16] (p. 465)... connecting also a global socio-political issue of modelling for long term building design [16] (p. 468)... Policy issues are crucially important in the preliminary phases of a building project planning, i.e. before the project launch. This was well addressed in the pre-interviews performed in the early of this research study. Also Succar claims decision making and policy being one constitutive field for building information models [16] - p. 472. 7 Simulation and BIM For Conference “Recent developments in the (Tuohy, Building Design, Paper buildings industry and the 2009) Commissioning and 23.09.09 associated legislation are moving Operation: a (available towards a more automated and Comparison with The online) integrated approach. The Microelectronics recognition of building simulation in Industry recent legislation leading to more widespread adoption as well as the ongoing development and increasing adoption of the Building Information Management (BIM) methodology (including adoption by the US Army (Succor, 2009)) are steps in this direction.” – p. 1539 8 A Study of the Conference “Interoperability – Succar (2009 (Davidson, Deployment and Impact Paper p.363) defines interoperability as 2009) PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 271 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference of Building Information Oct 2009 ‘the ability of two or more systems Modelling Software in or components to exchange the Construction information and to use the Industry information that has been exchanged” – p. 4 9 Automated construction Conference One citation “Information which is (Mrkela & schedule creation using Paper contained in BIM is usually Rebolj, project information Oct 2009 aggregated. If we need specific 2009) model information, we have to select it and conceptually divide it based on fields and stages and also through the point of view, which is called through lens. Depending on how much information is included in BIM, fields and stages can be sub- divided according to the meaning of the information (Succar B. 2009).” 10 Modelling sustainable Conference More consideration is being given (Toth, and optimal solutions paper to whole of building lifecycle Fernando, for building services Nov, 2009 considerations earlier on in the Salim, integration in early design process, which is Drogemuller architectural design: necessitating the embrace of , Burry, confronting the integrated design policies, Burry, & software and technologies and processes (Succar, Frazer, professional 2009) 2009) interoperability deficit 11 New Interfaces, new Conference No quote…referencing Succara (León & scenarios. Vroom n.0: Paper Molina, Vroom n.0: The Nov 2009 2009) emerging potential of collaborative 3D web platforms 12 Research and Journal Paper No longer available online (Ji, Zhang, development of high- (Chinese Yang, & rise steel structural BIM Language) Chang, software and its Nov 2009 2009) application in Shanghai Center Project 13 A CAD-Based Interface Book Chapter Generic citation (Lin, 2010) Management System Jan 2010 using Building Information Modelling in Construction 14 Building Information Book Chapter “Succar (2009) proposed a BIM (Gerrard, Modelling in the Jan 2010 framework which aims to provide a Zuo, Australian Architecture, research and delivery foundation so Zillante, & Engineering and that industry practitioners can have Skitmore, Construction Industry a better understanding of 2010) underlying knowledge structures and from this are able to negotiate implementation requirements. This is a tri-axial model involving BIM stages, BIM lenses and BIM fields. PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 272 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference The model also defined the interactions between policy, technology and process is imperative for the implementation of BIM in the AEC industry.” p. 524 15 Effective Capture, Conference Referenced in bibliography only (Shahrin, Translating and paper Johansen, Delivering Client Jan 2010 Lockley, & Requirements Using Udeaja, Building Information 2010) Modelling (BIM) Technology 16 The application of Book Chapter Generic citation (Olatunji & Building Information Jan 2010 Sher, Modelling in Facilities 2010b) Management 17 Understanding adoption Journal Paper “…the actor network approach can (Linderoth, and use of BIM as the Jan 2010 also be applied on the framework 2010) creation of actor developed by Succar [45] in which networks three interrelated and reinforcing fields (each of them encompassing a wide array of actors) are identified in order to frame BIM implementation.” p. 71 18 Value proposition of Journal Paper “Hence, it becomes necessary to (Grilo & interoperability on BIM Jan 2010 understand the value level that BIM Jardim- and collaborative and interoperability may bring to Goncalves, working environments AEC players [47]” references Succur 2010) [sic] - p. 527 19 Effective Capture, Workshop Referenced in bibliography but not (Shahrin et Translating and Paper cited within text al., 2010) Delivering Client Feb 2010 Requirements Using Building Information Modelling (BIM) Technology 20 Meer begrip voor meer Master’s Extensive quotes (Idema, grip - Greater Thesis 2010) understanding of grip- Feb 2010 graduate research into the use of virtual construction by construction companies in the B & E sector to obtain quantities 21 Fostering E-Services in Conference Extensive citations and use of (Reffat, Architecture and Paper knowledge models 2010) Construction Using the March 2010 Building Information Model 22 Advantages And Master’s Multiple quotes and one visual (Lehtinen, Disadvantages of Thesis knowledge model (modified) 2010) Vertical Integration in May 2010 PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 273 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference The Implementation of Systemic Process Innovations: Case studies on implementing building information modelling (BIM) in the Finnish construction industry 23 Building Information Conference Many generic references plus one (Olatunji, Modelling Processes: Paper inaccurate statement: “According Sher, Gu, & Benefits for May 2010 to (Succar 2009), it is difficult to Ogunsemi, Construction Industry effect, monitor and manage change 2010) in the construction industry.” 24 Building Information Conference The ICMM limitation (a full page) (Haron, Modelling: Literature Paper plus two images are Marshall- Review on Model to May 2010 copied/referenced from the BIM Ponting, & Determine the Level of Maturity Matrix Chapter. Aouad, Uptake by Organisation 2010) 25 Implementation of Master’s of No quote, just listed in the (Luthra, Building Information Science, bibliographic section 2010) Modeling in Purdue Architectural Firms in May, 2010 India 26 A review and outlook for Journal Paper Extensive quotes and a Figure (the (Cerovsek, a ‘Building Information June, 2010 BIM Cube) influenced by some of 2011) Model’ (BIM): A multi- the framework’s visual models. standpoint framework for technological development 27 Developing incentives Conference A couple of citations plus using the (Oti & for collaboration in the Paper June BIM Fields venn diagram (Figure 1, Tizani, AEC Industry 2010 page 2 2010) 28 Research and Conference Inaccurate citation (Wong & application of Building Paper “Current delivery methods include Yang, 2010) Information Modelling June 2010 providing the facility manger with (BIM) in the CAD documentation or creating a Architecture, Record BIM (Succar 2009) but this is Engineering and highly inadequate.” p. 7 Construction (AEC) industry: a review and direction for future research 29 BIM - A Driver for Conference “Succar defines a series of (Watson, Change Paper (increasingly integrated) stages in 2010) June-July the deployment of BlM and notes 2010 that the associated changes at an organisational and industrial level will be transformational rather than incremental (Succar, 2009)”…. “Just how this will resolve itself is unclear but, as Succar implies, some form of IT based integrated project PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 274 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference delivery will be part of the solution.” p. 6 30 Exploring the challenges Master’s Extensive quotes (Younas, for the implementation Thesis 2010) and adoption of BIM July, 2010 31 Closure to “Areas of Journal Paper Mistakenly refers to the framework (Hartmann, Application for 3D and August, as advocating a single integrated Gao, & 4D Models on 2010 model: “In particular, our Fischer, Construction Projects” experience with applying BIM in 2010) practice does not support the notion—put forth by the discusser and others, e.g., Succar (2009)— that one integrated information model of a building can technically support all practical data needs throughout the life cycle of a project” – p. 933 32 Assessing the Impact of Conference Multiple citation and an adaptation (Matipa, New Rules of Cost Paper of the BIM Fields Venn diagram Cunningha Planning on Building Sep 2010 m, & Naik, Information Model 2010) (BIM) Schema Pertinent to Quantity Surveying Practice 33 Application of Building Master’s A few quotations (Yiye, 2010) Information Model Thesis (BIM) in building Oct 2010 thermal comfort and energy consumption analysis 34 Enhancing Control of Conference Multiple quotes, two diagrams and (Oommen, Built Assets through Paper one table have been adapted. 2010) Computer Aided Design Oct 2010 - Past, Present and Emerging Trends 35 KPIs: Analyzing the Conference Mistaken attribution to Fig.1 - a (Wei-zhuo & impact of Building Paper visual knowledge model by Alan Guo-qiang, Information Modeling October 2010 Edgar 2010) on construction industry in China 36 Model Interoperability Journal Paper “Building Information Modelling is (Steel, in Building Information October 2010 an interdependent network of Drogemuller Modelling policies, processes and , & Toth, technologies [3]…” p. 2 2010) 37 Attributes of Building Journal Paper Extensive Use. The three BIM Fields (Wong, Information Modelling November are used to structure the whole Wong, & Implementations in 2010 paper. Nadeem, Various Countries 2010) 38 BIM-based Scheduling of Conference “There are numerous explanations (Andersson Construction: A Paper and definitions of Building & Comparative Analysis of November Information Modeling, BIM, Büchmann- Prevailing and BIM- 2010 available in literature, e.g. … a set Slorup, PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 275 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference based Scheduling of interacting policies, processes 2010) Processes and technologies… (Succar 2009)…” p. 3 39 Building Information Master Thesis A few general citations (Baba, Modeling in Local December 2010) Construction Industry 2010 40 Government roles in Journal Paper Cursory note as a general resource (Wong, implementing building December Wong, & information modelling 2010 Nadeem, systems: Comparison 2011) between Hong Kong and the United States 41 'Using the Knowledge Conference “The development of curricula and (Coates, Transfer Partnership Paper learning material very much Arayici, & model as a method of December depends on a prediction of the Koskela, transferring BIM and 2010 future. Using the BIM maturity 2010) Lean process related index maybe one way of knowledge between considering future development academia and industry: (Succar, 2009).” p. 6 A Case Study Approach 42 BIM - the Next Step in Master’s Multiple use of definitions and (Winberg & the Construction of Civil Thesis visual knowledge models Dahlqvist, Structures 2010 2010) 43 Building information Journal Paper “A more comprehensive BIM (Jung & Joo, modelling (BIM) 2010 perspective was recently proposed 2010) framework for practical by Succar [40], encompassing far implementation more variables than those identified in CIC frameworks” – p. 127 44 Building Information Journal Paper Use of a Knowledge Model, “Some (Olatunji, Modeling and 2010 common interpretations of BIM” – Sher, & Gu, Quantity Surveying Figure 2, p. 69 2010a) Practice 45 Industrialised Housing Master Thesis Several citations specifically related (Jansson, Design Efficiency 2010 to BIM stages. One figure (BIM 2010) Stages – linear model) used 46 Implementation of Conference Generic citation (Rowlinson, Building Information Paper Collins, Modeling (BIM) in 2010 Tuuli, & Jia, Construction: A (possibly 2010) Comparative Case Study submitted Dec o9) 47 Modelling Outcomes of Book Chapter General references within the (Olatunji, Collaboration in Building 2010 article Sher, & Gu, Information 2010b) Modelling Through Gaming Theory Lenses 48 Legal Implications of Conference “To address this (Succar 2009) (Olatunji & BIM: Model Ownership Paper suggests that BIM adoption and Sher, 2010a) and Other Matters 2010 implementation frameworks must Arising be comprehensive and objective, involving all stakeholders – the industry, government and PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 276 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference research” – p. 460 49 Optimizing BIM Master’s Adaptation of the BIM Stages – (Mulenga & Adoption and Mindset Thesis reference not included in Han, 2010) Change - Emphasize on 2010 bibliography list although it is a Construction Company mentioned within the body of the thesis 50 The Impact of Building Conference “According to (Succar 2009), the (Olatunji, Information Modelling Paper applications of BIM transcend Sher, & on Construction Cost 2010 discipline or institutional Ogunsemi, Estimation boundaries, and its definitions are 2010) being tailored to multidisciplinary concepts” – p. 195 51 Using BIM as a Project Master’s Multiple citations and images (Broquetas, Management Tool - How Thesis 2011) can BIM improve the January 2011 delivery of Complex Construction Projects? 52 Design Error Reduction: Journal paper Multiple generic references. The (Love, Toward the Effective March 2011 BIM definition developed through Edwards, Utilization of Building the framework is mistakenly Han, & Goh, Information Modeling attributed to Penttila 2011) 53 A review and outlook for Journal Paper Multiple citations and an (Tomo, a ‘Building Information April 2011 acknowledgement of assistance 2011) Model’ (BIM): A multi- standpoint framework for technological development 54 Analysis of the Conference Multiple citations and the use of (Godager, Information Needs for Paper the Venn Diagram image (BIM 2011) Existing Buildings for May 2011 Fields) Integration in Modern BIM-Based Building Information Management 55 A Preliminary Review on Journal Paper “To address this (Succar, 2009) (Olatunji, the Legal Implications of May 2011 suggests that BIM adoption and 2011b) BIM and Model implementation frameworks must Ownership be comprehensive and objective, involving all stakeholders – the industry, government and research” p. 693 56 Knowledge and Conference One quote: “BIM can provide the (Arayici, Technology Transfer Paper required valued judgments that Coates, from Universities to May 2011 create more sustainable Koskela, & Industries: A Case Study infrastructures, which satisfy their Kagioglou, Approach from the Built owners and occupants (Succar, 2011) Environment Field 2009)” p. 6 57 Modelling Journal Paper Inaccurate citation: “This research (Olatunji, Organizations’ Structural May 2011 was conducted in Australia. Some 2011a) Adjustment to BIM authors have reported that BIM Adoption: a Pilot Study adoption in Australia is still slow PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 277 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference on Estimating (e.g. (London et al., 2008, Succar, Organizations 2009))” p. 660 58 The 3D Coordinated Journal Paper A couple of quotations plus a use of (Lv, Zou, Building Design Based May, 2011 one image “Building Information Huang, & on Building Information Models and their objects — flow Xu, 2011) Modeling diagram” p. 6588, Fig. 1 59 BIM facilitated web Conference Several citations…The authors (Wu, 2011) service for LEED Paper adapted the BIM Stages model to a automation June 2011 BIM-LEED process integration road map. 60 Research Project Cost Journal paper “Building Information Modelling (Kovacic, Benefits of Integrated June 2011 (BIM) is a set of interacting policies, Filzmoser, Planning: First processes and technologies Faatz, & experiment-results generating a “methodology to Koeszegi, manage the essential building 2011) design and project data in digital format throughout the building’s life-cycle” (Succar, 2009).” p. 258 61 The BIM-Based Conference “Although many researchers and (Feng, Information Integration Paper organizations have developed Mustaklem, Sphere for Construction June 29, 2011 guidelines and frameworks for BIM & Chen, Projects adoption into the AEC industry 2011) [1,2], outlining the added value benefit of BIM to the industry as a whole (and not as a desperate set of technologies), and even though these researches have contributed to this field of study, they still lack in developing an information model to effectively map different BIM processes and stakeholders, and integrate the information resulting from the various data exchanges and interaction between them.” p. 156 62 Enhancing Maintenance Conference One citation: “Succar (2009) (Su, Lee, & Management Using Paper explored publicly available Lin, 2011) Building Information June-July international guidelines and Modeling In Facilities 2011 introduced the BIM framework, a Management research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders” pp. 753-4 63 Creation of an Evolutive Conference Generic citation (Iordanova, Conceptual Know-how Paper Forgues, & Framework for July 2011 Chiocchio, Integrative Building 2011) Design 64 How to Measure the Master’s Multiple citations (Barlish, Benefits of BIM, a Case Thesis 2011) Study Approach August 2011 65 Empirical Analysis of Journal Paper One citation: “System integration, (Tatari & Construction Enterprise September which enhances “the value added in Skibniewski, Information Systems: 2011 whole network of shareholders 2011) Assessing System throughout the building lifecycle” PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 278 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference Integration, Critical (Succar 2009), is necessary to avoid Factors, and Benefits this problem”. 66 Integrating BIM and Conference “Succar (2009) gave a deeper (John & Planning Software for Paper description for BIM as he defined it Ganah, Health and Safety Site September as a set of interacting polices, 2011) Induction 2011 process and technologies generating a methodology to manage the key building design information in a digital format throughout the building life-cycle”. 67 Digital Buildings - Journal Paper “Succar defines a series of (Watson, Challenges and October, 2011 (increasingly integrated) stages in 2011) Opportunities the deployment of BIM and notes that the associated changes at an organisational and industrial level will be transformational rather than incremental.” 68 A Framework for Conference Minor citation Building Information Paper (Bogen, Fusion October 2011 Rashid, & East, 2011) 69 Beyond MOF Conference One citation (Duddy & Constraints - Multiple Paper Kiegeland, Constraint Set Meta October 2011 2011) modelling for Lifecycle Management 70 BIM Versus PLM: Risks Conference BIM is “the process of creating and (Otter, Pels, and Benefits Paper using digital models for design, & Iliescu, October 2011 construction and/or operations of 2011) projects” according to [Succar, 2009], 71 CloudBIM: Management Conference “A building information model at of BIM Data in a Cloud Paper the very simplest level can be (Bogen et Computing Environment October 2011 viewed as the complete collection al., 2011) of information about a building, offering a phaseless workflow (Succar 2009)”. BIM data is accessed and manipulated by utilising certain “tools of enquiry”, such as “lenses” and “filters”; lenses highlight certain objects that meet a particular criteria (e.g. photovoltaic) whilst filters remove objects that do not meet the criteria (Succar 2009)”. 72 A Domain Specific Journal Paper Attribution (citation only loosely (Şenyapılı & Software Model for November refers to what is wrote within the Bozdağ, Interior Architectural 2011 BIM Framework): 2012) Education and Practice “The general-purpose software are chosen due to their wide spread use and long existence in the market, as well as their varied utilization in 2D drawing, 3D PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 279 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference modeling and building information modeling (BIM) [4,19].” 73 On Decision-Making and Conference Multiple citations of 2 papers (Mom, Tsai, Technology- Paper & Hsieh, Implementing Factors Nov 2011 2011) for BIM Adoption 74 BIM Adoption in Iceland Master’s Extended citation of BIM Stages (Kjartansdót and Its Relation to Lean Thesis plus the usage of three images: BIM tir, 2011) Construction December as MIB, Project Lifecycle Phases 2011 liner model and BIM Maturity Stage. 75 Validation of Autodesk Conference General reference only – no citation (Vangimalla, Ecotect™ Accuracy for paper Olbina, Issa, Thermal And Daylighting December & Hinze, Simulations 2011 2011) 76 Process-and project- Doctoral “Succar (2009) defined BIM as an (Zerjav, level issues of design Thesis integrated concept consisting 2012) management in the built processes, policies and technology” environment p. 69 (disagrees with the definition) 77 Building Information Journal Paper “In response to the increase in BIM- (Ilozor & Modeling and January 2012 related research, Succar (2009) Kelly, 2012) Integrated Project developed a research framework Delivery in the to: systematize knowledge; Commercial advance awareness and Construction Industry: A implementation; recast BIM as an Conceptual Study integrated solution; and connect the gap that exists between the understandings of BIM by those in academia and their counterparts in active practice (p. 358). Refer to Fig. 2 for a depiction of Succar’s (2009) framework, which represents the interplay of BIM fields (players and deliverables), stages (implementation maturity) and lenses (“knowledge views”). Succar (2009) argues that IPD should be the desired endpoint of all BIM implementations, concurring with the AIA (2007) and Froese’s (2010) analysis, stating that, “…the long term vision of BIM [is that of] an amalgamation of domain technologies, processes and policies” P. 25 Tri-axial Framework image reused 78 Building Information Master’s Two figures and extensive citations (Ren, 2011) Modeling Integrated Thesis covering BIM Fields, Capability and with Electronic February Maturity Commerce Material 2012 Procurement and Supplier Performance PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 280 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference Management System 79 Expanding uses of Journal Paper Two citations: (Hannele, building information February “BIM is connected usually to more Reijo, Tarja, modeling in life-cycle 2012 integrated collaborative processes Sami, Jenni, construction projects also when it comes to contractual & Teija, relationships (in a mature form 2012) realized in “Integrated Project Delivery”)” “A most “mature” use of BIM is seen to involve collaboratively created, shared, and maintained models across project lifecycle [11].” 80 Using building Journal Paper “[BIM] is an emerging technological (Shrivasta & information modeling to February and procedural shift within the Chini, 2012) assess the initial 2012 Architect [sic], Engineering, embodied energy of a Construction (AEC) and Operations building industry (Succar, 2009).” p. 4 81 Epistemology of Journal Paper “…life cycle and temporal contexts, (El-Diraby, Construction Informatics March 2012 the evolving nature of data and 2012) their use with time, is becoming an integral part in any recent BIM strategy (see for example…Succar 2009…) 82 How to measure the Journal Paper General citation (Barlish & benefits of BIM — A (based on Sullivan, case study approach Master’s 2012) Thesis referenced above March 2012 83 Building Information Journal Paper General citation (Sattineni & Modeling: Trends in the April 2012 Bradford, US Construction 2012) Industry 84 User-centric knowledge Journal Paper General citation (Lee & representations based April 2012 Jeong, on ontology for AEC (online) 2012) design collaboration 85 User perceptions of ICT Journal Paper General citation (Jacobsson impacts in Swedish April 2012 & Linderoth, construction companies: 2012) ‘it’s fine, just as it is’ 86 Why advanced buildings Conference Two citations “The BIM initiative (Tuohy & don’t work? Paper may provide a framework within Murphy, April 2012 which improved processes could be 2012) integrated (Succar, 2009)”” Processes to address the performance gaps identified here do not yet appear to be defined or even a focus within the current BIM roadmap (Succar, 2009, BIS, 2012). PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 281 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference 87 A Framework for an Conference “The level of maturity as to the (Forgues, Integrated and Paper adoption of new methods of work Iordanova, Evolutionary Body of May 2012 and new technologies can be & Chiocchio, Knowledge measured through a maturity 2012) matrix. Succar (Succar, 2008) recently proposed a framework for BIM, including process, technology and policy aspects. On this same basis, he also developed a maturity matrix for BIM adoption.” 88 Generic Model for Journal Paper One citation ‘Building information (Lu, Peng, Measuring Benefits of May 2012 modeling is argued to be a useful Shen, & Li, BIM as a Learning Tool tool for reducing the construction 2013) in Construction Tasks industry’s fragmentation, improving its efficiency/effectiveness, and lowering the high costs of inadequate interoperability (Succar 2009)’’ 89 Toward Performance Conference Extensive referencing of three (Mom & Assessment of BIM Paper articles: The BIM Framework, The Hsieh, Technology June 2012 BIM Maturity Matrix and The Five 2012b) Implementation Components of BIM Performance Measurement (most citations are from the BIM Maturity Matrix) 90 Toward performance Conference Multiple citations of 3 papers (Mom & assessment of BIM Paper Hsieh, technology Jun 2012 2012a) implementation 91 Authorization Journal Paper General Citation (Skandhaku Framework using July 2012 mar, Reid, Building Information Dawson, Models Drogemuller , & Salim, 2012) 92 A Knowledge-Based Technical General citation (Kim, Framework for Report Rajagopal, Automated Space-Use July 2012 Fischer, & Analysis Kam, 2012) 93 BREEAM Based Dynamic Conference One citation “Building information (Kasim, LI, & Sustainable Building Paper modelling is becoming an Rezgui, Design Assessment July 2012 indispensable tool for providing 2012) integrated solutions to the current AEC (Succar 2009)”. 94 Mobile 2D Conference “Succar (2009) explored publicly (Lin, Su, & Barcode/BIM-based Paper available international guidelines Chen, 2012) Facilities Maintaining July 2012 and introduced the BIM framework, Management System a research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders” 95 Using a BIM maturity Conference Extensive number of citations (Shih, Sher, matrix to inform the Paper & Williams, development of AEC July 2012 2012) PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 282 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference integrated curricula 96 Cloud-based framework Journal Paper Unknown – no access to Journal (Qinghua, for the implementation July 2012 (Chinese portal) Haitao, of BIM Yongkui, & Lili, 2012) 97 An Integrated BIM PhD Thesis Single citation “Ontology has also (Lucas, Framework to Support August 2012 been used for defining formal 2012) Facility Management in relationships and capture Healthcare techniques and methodologies in Environments BIM development (Succar, 2009).” 98 An Activity Theoretical Book Chapter One quote (Miettinen, Approach to BIM- (103) Kerosuo, research Aug 2012 Korpela, Mäki, & Paavola, 2012) 99 A Utilization Approach Book Chapter Multiple citations and detailed (Jadhav & of BIM for Integrated (71) quotations covering BIM Fields and Koutamanis, Design Process Aug 2012 BIM Stages 2012) 100 BIM: In Search of the Journal Paper “We posit that this technology – (Forgues & Organisational Architect August 2012 and the Lejeune, final copy new related processes and policies 2013) (Succar, 2009)”…” Succar (2009) identifies three levels of supply chain transformation, moving from automating the BIM process within each firm, to breaking boundaries between firms, first through collaboration, then through integration.”… “Model deliverables extend beyond semantic object properties to include business intelligence, lean construction principles, green policies and whole-­‐lifecycle costing.” (Succar, 2009: 365)” 101 BIM Cube and Systems- Book Chapter Multiple citations including “One of (Cerovsek, of-Systems Framework (55) the most prominent and also 2012) August 2012 inspiring for the BIM Cube was developed by Succar (2009), who developed a holistic multi- dimensional framework that is represented by a tri-axial knowledge model comprising of: BIM Fields of activity identifying domain ‘players’ and their ‘deliverables’. These fields are represented on the x-axis, BIM Stages delineating implementation maturity levels (y-axis) and BIM Lenses providing the depth and breadth of enquiry necessary to PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 283 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference identify, assess and qualify BIM Fields and BIM Stages (z-axis)” 102 BIM Practices and Book Chapter One citation “One well known (Mäkeläinen Challenges Framed – an (65) framework illustrates the BIM , Hyvärinen, Approach to Systemic Aug 2012 approach as a tri-axial-model of & Peura, Change Management BIM Stages, BIM Lenses and BIM 2012) Fields together with three interlocking fields of BIM Activities: policy field, process field and technology field. The aim for these frameworks has been to enable the stakeholders to understand underlying knowledge structures and negotiate BIM implementing requirements (Succar 2009)” 103 BIM Technologies and Book Chapter One generic citation (Paavola, Collaboration in a Life- (113) Kerosuo, cycle Project Aug 2012 Mäki, Korpela, & Miettinen, 2012) 104 Design and Software Book Chapter One citation although it may be (Baumgärtel Architecture of a Cloud- (2) inaccurately referencing the BIM , based Virtual Energy Aug 2012 ontology (assumed to be a schema Katranuschk Laboratory for Energy- not a conceptual ontology) ov, & efficient Design and Life Scherer, Cycle Simulation 2012) 105 Integrated Collaborative Book Chapter One generic citation (Jadhav & Approach to Managing (69) Koutamanis, Building Information Aug 2012 2012) Modeling Projects 106 Transportation System Book Chapter One generic citation (Szpytko, Architecture for (96) 2009) Intelligent Management Aug 2012 107 BIM and Online Conference One generic citation (Charalamb Collaboration Paper ous, Platforms–An Sep 2012 Demian, investigation into Yeomans, emerging requirements Thorpe, Peters, & Doughty, 2012) 108 BIM Implementation Conference A few citations and quotations (Ahmad, Plans: a Comparative Paper Demain, & Analysis Sep 2012 Price, 2012) 109 Design of flexible and Conference One generic citation (Krystallis, adaptable healthcare Paper Demian, & buildings of the future-a Sep 2012 Price, 2012) BIM approach 110 A Framework for Conference Several citations (including one for (Dib, Chen, Measuring Building Paper BIM Thinkspace) and comparisons & Cox, Information Modeling Oct 2012 with other ‘BIM maturity’ 2012) PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 284 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference Maturity Based on frameworks. “Succar’s BIMMI Perception of offered a comprehensive Practitioners and framework based on a Academics Outside the comparatively exhaustive review of USA previous research effort, however, areas for information management are kind of weak” – p. 246 111 Boundaries Matter – Book Chapter Not known – no access to paper (Lehtinen, The Pros and Cons of October 2012 2012) Vertical Integration in BIM Implementation 112 A Research Review on Journal Paper “A framework designed to assess (Merschbro Building Information December construction firms’ readiness for ck & Modeling in 2012 BIM adoption in terms of IT Munkvold, Construction―An competence and experience is 2012a) presented by Succar [2009]” – p. Area Ripe for IS 217 Research 113 Information Integration Journal Paper Unknown – article is in Chinese, (Ball, Gui, and Collaborative Dec 2012 citation discovered through Google Peng, & Hu, Computation For Scholar alerts 2012) Complex Structural Model 114 Roadmap for Journal Paper This paper is based on the (Khosrowsh implementation of BIM Dec 2012 structures introduced in the ahi & in the UK construction framework “The overarching Arayici, industry methodology is based on the use of 2012) maturity concept using the Succar (2009) framework” – p. 613 115 Building information Conference Citation listing the Benefits of BIM (Clements & modeling como Paper as identified within the BIM Cachadinha, ferramenta de December Framework paper 2012) visualização de 2012 realidade aumentada em obras de reabilitação–um caso de estudo 116 BIM nas obras públicas Conference Extensive citations of BIM stages (Taborda, em Portugal: Paper including the use of one visual 2012) Condicionantes para December model uma implementação 2012 com sucesso 117 Towards Understanding Journal Paper No access to article, requested (Ayyaz, BPR Needs for BIM 2012 from author Ruikar, & Implementation Emmitt, 2012) 118 Adaptable buildings: A Journal Paper One citation (Gosling, systems approach 2012 Sassi, Naim, & Lark, 2012) 119 Aligning Building Journal Paper “Researchers (see for example Ref. (Hartmann, Information Model 2012 [13]) have since long advocated van Tools and Construction that one of the main advantages of Meerveld, PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 285 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference Management Methods the implementation of BIM based Vossebeld, tools is the global improvement of & all project processes for all Adriaanse, organizations that work together on 2012) one construction project. Focusing on a number of business processes of one single organization within a project context might actually hinder the full leverage of all benefits on such a global project level.” 120 Application of Model Master’s “Emerged in academic terms similar (Do Supported Collaboration Thesis to nD Modelling and Integrated Nascimento, In Information 2012 Design Systems, which changed its 2012) Technology for terminology to BIM in order to Construction Projects In agree with the market reality The City Of São José Dos (Succar, 2009)” – p. 86, translated Pinhais from Portuguese using Google Translate 121 A Research Review on Journal Paper “A framework designed to assess (Merschbro Building Information (revision, final construction firms’ readiness for ck & Modeling in version not BIM adoption in terms of IT Munkvold, Construction―An Area available) competence and experience is 2012b) Ripe for IS Research 2012 presented by Succar [2009]” 122 BIM for Facilitation of Report One generic citation (Amirebrahi Land Administration Section mi, 2012) Systems in Australia 2012 123 Course Outline, Masters Course Article used as a ‘basic bibliographic (PPU, 2012) of Project Management Outline 2012 reference’ for the course 124 Development of Model- Master’s One generic citation (Paukkeri, based Process for Thesis 2012) Navigation Dredging 2012 125 Extension of Building Master’s One citation – paper is in Chinese (Lin, 2012) Information Model for Thesis Disaster Mitigation: 2012 Using the Revit Platform 126 Integration in the Journal Paper One generic citation (Kamara, project development 2012 2012) process of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project 127 Physical Access Control Book Section One generic citation (Skandhaku Administration Using 2012 mar, Salim, Building Information Reid, & Models Dawson, 2012) 128 Towards Coordinated Generic citations (Lavikka, BIM based Design and Smeds, & Construction Process Smeds, 2012) 129 Utilisation of Building Master’s A couple of citations plus one graph (Häkkinen, PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 286 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference Information Models in Thesis (in Finnish) 2012) Production Organisation 2012 of Foundation Engineering 130 Expanding uses of Journal paper Two citations covering the (Hannele et building information 2012 definition or a ‘mature use of BIM’ al., 2012) modeling in life-cycle on pages 115 and 119 construction projects, 131 A WebGL application Master’s “In other word, it is a way to (Ferreira, based on BIM IFC Thesis digitally store and organise all the 2012) 2012 policies, processes, technologies, designs and projects concerning the life cycle of a building (Succar 2009)” p. 34 132 Building Information Bachelor Extensive citation of several papers (Garvin, Modeling (BIM) Thesis and industry publications 2012) Performance Assessment 2012 Framework for Organisations in the Singapore Construction Industry 133 Building information Journal Paper “The findings from the (Per Anker modelling in Denmark January 2013 questionnaire surveys presented in & Elvar Ingi, and Iceland this paper could be used as 2013) benchmarks in such re-evaluations. It could also be interesting to relate the findings to frameworks for BIM maturity as presented for instance by Succar (2009). 134 Building Information Journal Paper “However, at present, public sector (Porwal & Modeling (BIM) January 2013 is not ready with respect to the Hewage, partnering framework product, process, and people to 2013) for public construction position BIM adoption to the level projects of IPD [26]” “A coordinated BIM-Partnering framework for the design procurement is proposed with the following interrelated objectives: ….To provide a computational framework [26]”?! 135 Reinforcement Journal Paper General citation…”Engineering, (Cho, Lee, & Placement in a Concrete February Construction, and Operations Bae, 2013) Slab Object Using 2013 (AECO) industry (Succar, 2009) and Structural Building can save time and cost and improve Information Modeling quality throughout the building’s life cycle. BIM integrates the knowledge of AEC industries and academic research efforts using information technology (IT) and computer hardware” 136 A research towards Master’s A number of citations plus a (De Vries, completing the asset Thesis referenced adaptation of one visual 2013) information life cycle March 2013 knowledge model PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 287 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference 137 BIM implementation in Master’s References the three components (Parreira, organizational processes Thesis of the BIM Framework (in 2013) in construction March 2013 Portuguese) – companies - a case (in p. 16 study Portuguese) 138 Performance Journal Paper “Ontology within BIM development (Sarhan & measurement in the UK March 2013 has also been used to define formal Fox, 2013) construction industry relationships between elements and its role in (Succar, 2009)” – p. 78 supporting the application of lean construction concepts 139 The Integration of PhD Thesis Two generic citations plus an (Hetheringt Architectural Design and March 2013 inaccurate quote “Succar (2009) on, 2013) Energy Modelling describes BIM as a catalyst for Software change, predicted to reduce fragmentation in the AEC industry and improve efficiency/effectiveness” – p. 127 140 Changing building user Journal Paper Generic citation (Gulliver, attitude and April 2013 Grzybek, organisational policy Radosavljevi towards sustainable c, & Wiafe, resource use in 2013) healthcare 141 Cloud Computing for the Journal Paper Used as a reference only. No inline (Beach, Architecture, April 2013 citations Rana, Engineering & Rezgui, Construction Sector: Parashar, & Requirements, Cardiff, Prototype & Experience 2013) 142 Decision Making and Bachelor Generic citation within a footnote – (Hanlon, Design Cognition in the Thesis p. 33 2013) age of Building April 2013 Information Models 143 Implementing BIM Conference “Building Information Modeling (Martin- techniques for energy Paper is defined broadly as being “a set of Dorta, analysis: a case study of April 2013 interacting policies, processes Assef, buildings at university of technologies generating Cantero, & la Laguna a methodology to manage the Rufino, essential building design and 2013) project data in digital format throughout the building’s life-cycle” (PENTTILÄ, 2006; SUCCAR, 2009)” - page 61 144 A Governance Approach Journal Paper Three citations. However, the (Rezgui, for BIM Management April 2013 authors have misunderstood the Beach, & across Lifecycle and essence of BIM Lenses and Filters Rana, 2013) Supply Chains Using and applied these to model views. Mixed-Modes of The paper adopts 2 of 3 capability Information Delivery stages as bases for its governance model yet modifies/expands their connotations in a useful/usable PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 288 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference manner. 145 A pilot model for a proof Journal paper “Ontology within BIM development (Lucas, of concept healthcare May 2013 has also been used to define formal Bulbul, & facility information relationships between elements Thabet, management prototype (Succar, 2009)” – p. 78 2013) 146 BIM-supported planning Conference Generic citations – also cites the (Kovacic, process for sustainable Paper Five Components paper Oberwinter, buildings–Process May 2013 & Müller, Simulation and 2013) Evaluation through Exploratory Research 147 Utilizing Building May 2013 Generic Citation (Nagy, Information Models 2013) with Mobile Augmented Reality and Location- Based Services 148 A Knowledge-Based Journal Paper “Frameworks have been developed (Kim, Framework for June 2013 and used in the construction Rajagopal, Automated Space-Use industry either to view domain Fischer, & Analysis knowledge in an organized way [4– Kam, 2013) 6] or to implement a novel method and facilitate its use [7–9]”- p. 166 149 Analysis of BIM Journal Paper “Succar (2009) pointed out three (Zhang, Tan, application relationship June 2013 levels for ID of BIM application – & Zhang, with integration degree function application of single 2013) of construction model, cooperative work of model- environment based and integrated application of life-cycle construction process.” – p. 93 150 A Practice oriented BIM Conference Several citations. The framework is (Kassem, framework and paper used as a base to conduct data Iqbal, & workflows June 2013 collection to develop another Dawood, framework 2013) 151 A survey on modeling Journal Paper A generic citation (Monteiro & guidelines for quantity Available Poças takeoff-oriented BIM- online June Martins, based design 2013 2013) 152 Customer interactive Journal Paper Generic citation (Lee & Ha) building information Available modeling for apartment online unit design June 2013 153 From justification to Journal Paper Generic citation (Love, evaluation: Building Available Simpson, information modeling online Hill, & for asset owners June 2013 Standing, 2013) 154 Building Information Master’s Extensive use of BIM fields and (Majcherek, Modelling in the Thesis stages with adaptation of 2 visual 2013) business of architecture: June 2013 knowledge models Case of Sweden 155 Enhancing team Conference “Succar (2009), Philp (2012) and (Hossain, integration in Building Paper June other authors (Eastman et al., 2011) Munns, & Information Modelling 2013 agreed that implementation of BIM Rahman, PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 289 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference (BIM) projects. involves fundamental change in the 2013) working procedure in the project delivery process; which is a cultural shift, the key challenge” p.81 156 Building Information Conference “There are many (Succar, 2009, (Vernikos, Modelling and offsite Paper June Sacks et al 2010) that believe BIM Goodier, & construction In civil 2013 improves communication indirectly Gibb, 2013) engineering through its 3-D elements and visualisations, effectively communicating information on r spatial, logistical and material requirements” p.3 157 O ensino de BIM no Journal Article Multiple citations with a focus on (Ruschel, Brasil: onde estamos? June 2013 BIM Stages (as relevant to BIM Andrade, & (The teaching of BIM in education) Morais, Brazil where are we) 2013) 158 Comparative Conference One citation of BIM term definition (Kulasekar Effectiveness of Paper June a, Quantity Surveying in a 2013 Building Information Jayasena, Modelling & Implementation Ranadewa , 2013) 159 Identification of a Conference Two citations, one indirect (Gunaseka Technological Paper June quotation ra & Framework for 2013 Implementing Building Jayasena, Information Modelling 2013) In Sri Lanka 160 Assessing the BIM Conference Extensive citations and 1 model. A (Jayasena & Maturity in a BIM Infant Paper June discussion of BIM stages and Bew- Weddikkara Industry 2013 Richards BIM levels. , 2013) 161 Facilitating meaningful Conference Generic citation (Harty & collaboration in Paper June Laing, 2013) architectural design 2013 through the adoption of BIM (Building Information Modelling) 162 Factors affecting the Conference One citation – BIM definition (Panuwatwa current diffusion of BIM: Paper July nich & a qualitative study of 2013 Peansupap, online professional 2013) network 163 BIM implementation: Conference Extensive citations of BIM stages (Sackey, from capability maturity Paper July including an adaptation of a visual Tuuli, & models to 2013 knowledge model. First paper to Dainty, implementation strategy adopt the viDCO term. Also 2013) references the Five Components paper 164 Beyond sharing: Journal Paper Generic citation (Miller, cultivating cooperative July 2013 2013) transportation systems through geographic information science PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 290 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference 165 Characteristics of Green Book Chapter No access to chapter – citation (Gandhi & BIM: Process and July 2013 discovered through Google Scholar Jupp, 2013) Information alerts Management Requirements 166 Incomplete BIM Book Chapter No access to chapter – citation (Jupp, 2013) Implementation: July 2013 discovered through Google Scholar Exploring Challenges alerts and the Role of Product Lifecycle Management Functions 167 Developing a Building Book Chapter No access to chapter – citation (Love et al., Information Modelling July 2013 discovered through Google Scholar 2013) Educational Framework alerts for the Tertiary Sector in New Zealand 168 Sustainable Construction Conference Unknown – no access to content (He, Wang, Project Life-Cycle Paper yet & Liu, 2014) Management Based on August 2013 Building Information Modeling 169 Development of Building Conference Generic citation (Shih & Information Modelling Paper Sher, 2014) Enabled Code Checking August 2013 Systems for Australia 170 Organisational readiness PhD Thesis Multiple citations (Haron, to implement building August 2013 2013) information modelling: A framework for design consultants in Malaysia 171 Exploring the adoption Journal Paper Generic and inaccurate citation (Zahrizan, of Building Information August 2013 “The United Kingdom (UK), the Ali, Haron, Modelling (BIM) in the United States of America (USA), Marshall- Malaysian construction Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia Ponting, & industry- a qualitative and Denmark have established a Abd, 2013) approach policy whereby public construction projects are required to use BIM [34] and [16].” – page 392 172 Plumes: Towards a Conference One citation “The BIM (Robert, unified approach to Paper August covers an extensive range of assets Delinchant, building physical 2013 (Succar, 2009)” – page 2831 Hilaire, & modeling Tanguy, 2013) 173 Construction Industry Journal Paper No citation, just a reference in the (Kalinichuk Products Diversification September bibliography & Tomek, by Implementation of 2013 2013) BIM 174 The project benefits of Journal Paper Three citations, mainly about BIM (Bryde, Building Information October 2013 term definition…One quote “It has Broquetas, Modelling (BIM) been defined as “a set of & Volm, interacting policies, processes and 2013) technologies generating a methodology to manage the PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 291 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference essential building design and project data in digital format throughout the building's life-cycle” (Succar, 2009: 357) 175 Applications of GIS- Journal Paper No access yet (Sergi & Li, Enhanced Networks of October 2013 2014) Engineering Information 176 A semiotic analysis of Journal Paper “Contrary to this conceptualization (Hartmann) user interfaces of Available of computer systems as semiotic building information Online Sep knowledge encoding devices, model systems 2013 researchers usually characterize BI software as systems to support the seamless information exchange between applications (Succar, 2009). These scholars have acknowledge the support of communication activities between different participants involved in a design and construction project as one of the main benefits that BI systems offer (Tomo and Cerovsek, 2011; Succar, 2009).” – page 5 177 Enhancing Knowledge Journal Paper General citation of the BIM (Ho, Tserng, Sharing Management September Framework and the Five Metrics & Jan, 2013) Using BIM Approach in 2013 articles Construction 178 Application of Journal Paper Unknown – no access to content (Gan & Luo, Earthquake Resistance September yet 2013) Analysis Technique in 2013 the Design of Constructional Engineering 179 Lessons From Using BIM Journal Paper Inaccurate citation “Therefore, (Luth, to Increase Design- September there have been numerous case Schorer, & Construction Integration 2013 studies identifying the benefits, and Turkan, testing the capabilities and 2013) limitations of BIM (Barlish and Sullivan 2012; Sacks and Barack, 2008; Succar, 2009).” – page 4 180 "BIM & cloud" Journal Paper Unknown – no access to content (Xiaobo, management system Sep 2013 yet 2013) security research In Chinese 181 Novas demandas para as Journal Paper Two citations including “Succar (De Paula, empresas de projeto de Sep 2013 (2009) defines the stages of Uechi, & edifícios (New demands evolution of the implementation of Melhado, for building design firms) BIM and points to be worked for 2013) evolution to occur from one stage to another. The volume and complexity of the changes identified in the BIM stage, both organizational and industrial, are transformational and cannot be PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 292 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference implemented without an incremental evolution (Succar, 2009).” – page 139 as translated from Portuguese using Google Translate 182 A distributed virtual Conference Generic citation (Zhou, Tah, reality application Paper & Heesom, framework for Oct 2013 2013) collaborative construction planning using BIMserver 183 High-Performance Licentiate Generic citation (Ren, 2013) Building Design and Thesis Decision-Making Oct 2013 Support for Architects in the Early Design Phases 184 Construction waste PhD Thesis Two inaccurate citations “However, (Porwal, management at source: a Nov 2013 at present, the public sector is not 2013) Building Information ready to accept BIM at the level of Modeling based system IPD (Succar et al., 2009)” – page 25, dynamic approach and “To provide a computational framework (Succar, 2009) that can be developed and implemented as an interactive computational BIM- Partnering design management tool to assist BIM managers and similar roles” – page 144. 185 Early Implementation of Journal Paper Two citations “Penttila, (2006) (Barrett, Building Information Nov 2013 appreciates that BIM is more than a Spillane, & Modeling into a Cold- 3D CAD system that creates a Lim, 2013) Formed Steel Company: building’s geometrical data, but a Providing Novel Project methodology, essential to manage Management Techniques the project data in a digital format and Solutions to Industry throughout the building’s lifecycle, this may be through interacting policies, processes and technologies [22]” – page 166. The other citation is more generic and refers to how BIM encourages waste reduction – page 170 186 Early Implementation of Conference “Penttila, (2006) appreciates that (Barett, BIM into a Cold-Formed Paper BIM is more than a 3D CAD system Treacy, Steel Design/ Fabricator Nov 2013 that creates a building’s O'Reilly, and an geometrical data, but a Spillane, Architectural/Planning methodology essential to manage Lim, von Consultancy the project data in a digital format Meding, throughout the building’s lifecycle Geary, through interacting policies, Deary, & processes and technologies (Succar, Booth, 2009)” 2013) 187 Green BIM and Green Conference Generic Citation (Ghandi & Star certification Paper Jupp, 2013) practices: Case studies in Nov 2013 commercial high-rise PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 293 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference office design. 188 Successfully Conference “Not only do a wide range of (Ryan, implementing building Paper definitions of BIM exist but, as Miller, & information modelling in Nov 2013 Succar (2009) presents, completely Wilkinson, New Zealand: different terms are used all with the 2013) maintaining the intent of describing BIM.” relevance of contract forms and procurement models 189 Governance Model for Journal Paper One citation “It has also become (Thomas, Cloud Computing in November accepted that BIM should present 2013) Building Information 2013 the complete model of the Management (accepted for building as a “phaseless” workflow publication) [37]” – page 3 190 BIM implementation Journal Paper One generic citation: “From BIM (Eadie, throughout the UK December stage 2 individual disciplinary BIM Browne, construction project 2013 models within each discipline Odeyinka, lifecycle: an analysis provided separately may be McKeown, supplied at commissioning and & McNiff, handover [55].” – page 146 2013) 191 Contractor practices for Journal Paper Inaccurate citation “Succar (2009) (Pala, Edum- managing extended December showed that adoption of Fotwe, supply chain tiers 2013 technologies such as BIM is limited Ruikar, as they are being evolved and have Doughty, & not reached to a maturity stage” – Peters, page 10 (of early cite document) 2014) 192 BIM Feasibility Study For Journal Paper Generic citation (Kim & Park, Housing Refurbishment December 2013) Projects In The UK. 2013 Paper A3: Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix 1 Building Information Conference The ICMM limitation (a full page) (Haron et Modelling: Literature Paper plus two images are al., 2010) Review on Model to May 2010 copied/referenced from the BIM Determine the Level of Maturity Matrix Chapter. Uptake by Organisation 2 Challenges to Conference “We sought to define three levels (Manzione, implementation of paper of maturity of BIM implementation Abaurre, collaborative design August 2010 in companies from the model Melhado, & process: analysis of (Succar, 2009) with reductions and Owen, human factor simplifications. 2011) We understand that the full use of the model (Succar, 2009) can only be made from a sectoral approach in the AEC and a broad spectrum of respondents. According to the Brazilian reality the adoption of this model will require refinements and the introduction of other sub-levels of granularity before stage 1 as defined by the researcher.” translated from Portuguese p. 3 Tool for Benchmarking Journal Paper Extensive quotes yet arguing the (Sebastian PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 294 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference BIM Performance of November BIM Maturity Matrix can measure & Van Berlo, Design, Engineering and 2010 only organizational BIM and not the 2010) Construction Firms in Product Model itself. the Netherlands 4 Building Information Master Thesis A few general citations (Baba, Modeling in Local December 2010) Construction Industry 2010 5 Design Process PhD Thesis “While I did not add BIM maturity (Senescu, Communication June 2011 to my assessments of 2011) Methodology communication and complexity, I am confident that I could have used an assessment method such as the BIM Maturity Matrix (Succar 2010) to demonstrate that the effectiveness of product communication increased with increased usage of BIM” 6 Benefits and ROI of BIM Undergraduat Heavily based on the BIM Maturity (Qian, 2012) for Multi-Disciplinary e Report Index, Maturity Matrix and Scoring Project Management March 2012 System. Survey developed based on the above and data then collected from industry. 7 Quality and Maturity of Conference Extensive citations (Giel & Issa, BIM Implementation Paper 2012) within the AECO June 2012 Industry 8 Toward Performance Conference Extensive referencing of the (Mom & Assessment of BIM Paper previous work in three articles: The Hsieh, Technology June 2012 BIM Framework, The BIM Maturity 2012b) Implementation Matrix and The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement (most citations are from the BIM Maturity Matrix) 9 Using a BIM maturity Conference Extensive number of citations. The (Shih et al., matrix to inform the Paper BIM Maturity Matrix is used as a 2012) development of AEC July 2012 basis for assessing two case studies. integrated curricula 10 A Framework for Conference Extensive citations – more than 20 (Chen, Dib, Measuring Building Paper from the BIM Maturity Matrix and 1 & Cox, Information Modeling October 2012 from BIM ThinkSpace 2012) Maturity in Construction Projects 11 Construction Innovation Book “Frameworks for measuring BIM (Akintoye, and Process 2012 maturity can greatly facilitate Goulding, & Improvement organisations in positioning Zawdie, themselves against their 2012) Competitors in terms of technological, methodological and process maturity. Such a maturity framework is explained in Succar (201 0), where a five- PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 295 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference level BIM-specific maturity index is developed to measure the BIM maturity of organisations” (p. 400) 12 Dictionary of Dictionary 8 dictionary terms are derived from (Khosrowpo Information Science and 2012 the chapter: BIM Capability Stages, ur, 2012) Technology BIM Competency Sets, and BIM Fields, BIM Lenses, BIM Maturity Index (BIMMI), BIM Maturity Matrix, BIM Organizational Scales, and BIM Step – pp. 85 and 86 13 Building Information Bachelor Extensive citation of several papers (Garvin, Modeling (BIM) Thesis and industry publications 2012) Performance Assessment 2012 Framework for Organisations in the Singapore Construction Industry 14 Contemporary PhD Thesis One extensive citation of BIM (Farias, Strategies for May 2013 nodes and stages – also references 2013) Sustainable Design BIM Thinkspace episode 9 15 Synthesis of Existing BIM Conference Basic comparison of BIM maturity (Giel & Issa, Maturity Toolsets to Paper tools 2013) Evaluate Building June 2013 Owners’ BIM Competency 16 Systems Engineering as Book Chapter No access yet – citation detected (Pels, Beek, a First Step to Effective July 2013 through Google Scholar & Otter, Use of BIM 2013) 17 Proposition for a PhD Thesis Three models and a number of (Manzione, Collaborative Design citations with a focus on BIM Stages 2013) Process Management and their effect on project lifecycle Conceptual Structure phases using BIM 18 Organisational readiness PhD Thesis Multiple citations (Haron, to implement building August 2013 2013) information modelling: A framework for design consultants in Malaysia 19 Research on Structure Journal Paper Unknown – journal not available. (Guo, 2013) Model of Building September Citation reference appearing Information Modeling 2013 through Google email alerts Technology Paper A4: The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement 1 Open Information Web page “InPro generated the necessary (INPRO, PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 296 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference Environment for October 2010 knowledge to facilitate the 2010) Knowledge-Based construction industry to take a Collaborative Processes significant step to progress with throughout the Lifecycle BIM (refer to the implementation of a Building – What is stages as described by Succar Inpro (Succar, B. (2010) The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement, in: Proceedings of CIB World Congress, Salford, UK).” - section 2 2 Tool for Benchmarking Journal Paper Extensive quotes yet arguing that (Sebastian BIM Performance of November the BIM Maturity Matrix can & Van Berlo, Design, Engineering and 2010 measure only organizational BIM 2010) Construction Firms in and not the Product Model itself the Netherlands 3 Optimizing BIM Master’s Several citations (Mulenga & Adoption and Mindset Thesis Han, 2010) Change - Emphasize on 2010 a Construction Company 4 How to Measure the Master’s Several citations and direct quotes (Barlish, Benefits of BIM, a Case Thesis 2011) Study Approach August 2011 5 BIM in Different Conference “These criteria were based on the (Sebastian, Methods of Project paper main aspects of the BIM 2011) Delivery October 2011 performance measurement tools used in The Netherlands and in the USA (Sebastian and Van Berlo 2010; Succar 2010)” p. 6 6 BIM – Adding Value By Conference General citation (Macdonald, Assisting Collaboration Paper 2011) October 2011 7 On Decision-Making and Conference Multiple citations (Mom et al., Technology- Paper 2011) Implementing Factors Nov 2011 for BIM Adoption 8 Building Information Master’s Two figures and extensive citations (Ren, 2011) Modeling Integrated Thesis covering BIM Fields, Capability and with Electronic February Maturity Commerce Material 2012 Procurement and Supplier Performance Management System 9 How to measure the Journal Paper Multiple citations and 1 figure (Barlish & benefits of BIM — A (based on Sullivan, case study approach Master’s 2012) Thesis) March 2012 10 BIM at Small Master’s “The questions asked were based (Leeuwis, Architectural Firms Thesis on the topics of the BIM Maturity 2012) April 2012 Index by Succar (2010) and the BIM Quick Scan of TNO (Sebastian and van Berlo 2010)” 11 Toward performance Conference Multiple citations of 3 papers (Mom & PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 297 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference assessment of BIM Paper Hsieh, technology Jun 2012 2012a) implementation 12 Toward Performance Conference Extensive referencing of previous (Mom & Assessment of BIM Paper work in the BIM Framework, The Hsieh, Technology June 2012 BIM Maturity Matrix and The Five 2012b) Implementation Components (most citations are from the BIM Maturity Matrix) 13 BIM-Supported Conference Generic citation (Kovacic & Lifecycle-oriented paper Oberwinter, Design for Energy June-July 2012) Efficient Industrial 2012 Facility - a Case Study 14 Using a BIM maturity Conference Extensive number of citations (Shih et al., matrix to inform the Paper 2012) development of AEC July 2012 integrated curricula 15 BIM Anatomy An Master’s References the use of DCO, closely (Hooper, investigation into Thesis adapts Project Lifecycle Phases 2012) implementation August 2012 without attribution. Copies an prerequisites image from Episode 14 on BIMThinkSpace.com (with attribution) but without listing it in the bibliography 16 Building Information Bachelor Extensive citation of several papers (Garvin, Modeling (BIM) Thesis and industry publications 2012) Performance Assessment 2012 Framework for Organisations in the Singapore Construction Industry 17 BIM-supported planning Conference Generic citations – also cites the (Kovacic et process for sustainable Paper BIM Framework paper al., 2013) buildings–Process May 2013 Simulation and Evaluation through Exploratory Research 18 Interdisciplinary, BIM- Conference Two inaccurate citations “In this (Oberwinter supported planning Paper context BIM addresses primarily , Kovacic, process July 2013 the process of model‐building Müller, and information exchange Kiesel, Skoruppa, & (Succar 2010)” and “Rather the Mahdavi, design process itself needs to be 2013) organized (Succar 2010, Penttilä 2008)” – pages 2 & 3 19 BIM implementation: Conference Extensive citations of BIM stages (Sackey et from capability maturity Paper July including an adaptation of a visual al., 2013) models to 2013 knowledge model. First paper to implementation strategy adopt the viDCO term. Also references the BIM Framework Paper A5: Measuring BIM performance: Five metrics PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 298 Publication title Type/Date Context Reference 1 Using a BIM maturity Conference Extensive number of citations (Shih et al., matrix to inform the Paper 2012) development of AEC July 2012 integrated curricula 2 Improving Conference Used BIM Stages (pre-BIM, Stage 1 (Merschbro Interorganizational Paper and Stage 2) for assessing the ck & Design Practices in the June 2013 capability of research subjects. Munkvold, Wood‐based Building Sample citation: “From the 2013) Industry discussion emerged that the organizations working in the wood- based building industry can be roughly classified into three levels of ‘BIM capability’ (Succar, 2012)” – p. 482 3 Enhancing Knowledge Journal Paper General citation of the BIM (Ho et al., Sharing Management September Framework and the Five Metrics 2013) Using BIM Approach in 2013 articles Construction Paper A6: An integrated approach to competency… Published online June 20, 2013…no citations to date Paper B1: Building Information Modeling: analyzing noteworthy publications… To be published in February 2014 Paper B2: A proposed approach to comparing the BIM maturity of countries Published October 12, 2013…no citations to date Paper C: BIM in Practice – BIM Education 1 Exploring BIM-based Conference Extensive quotations…The paper is (Suwal, education perspectives Paper partially based on the BIM in Jäväjä, Nov 2013 Practice – BIM Education set of Rahman, & papers. Gonzalez, 2013) PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 299 Bibliography Abdelmohsen, S. M. A. (2011). An Ethnographically Informed Analysis of Design Intent Communication in BIM-enabled Architectural Practice. (PhD Doctor of Philosophy), Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved from https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/41181/abdelmohsen_sherif_m_ 201108_phd.pdf Ahmad, M. A., Demain, P., & Price, A. D. F. (2012). BIM Implementation Plans: a Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) 28th Annual Conference, Edinburgh, UK. http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/ar2012-0033- 0042_Ahmad_Demian_Price.pdf Akintoye, A., Goulding, J., & Zawdie, G. (2012). Construction Innovation and Process Improvement (First ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Amirebrahimi, S. (2012). BIM for Facilitation of Land Administration Systems in Australia. In A. Rajabifard, I. Williamson & M. Kalantari (Eds.), A National Infrastructure for Managing Land Information, a Research Snapshot (pp. 95-99). Andersson, N., & Büchmann-Slorup, R. (2010, 16-18 November, 2010). BIM-based Scheduling of Construction: A Comparative Analysis of Prevailing and BIM-based Scheduling Processes. Paper presented at the Applications Of IT In The AEC Industry: Proceeding Of The 27th International Conference - CIB W78 2010, Cairo, Egypt. Aranda-Mena, G., Crawford, J., Chevez, A., & Froese, T. (2009). Building information modelling demystified: does it make business sense to adopt BIM? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(3), 419-434. doi: 10.1108/17538370910971063 Arayici, Y., Coates, P., Koskela, L., & Kagioglou, M. (2011). Knowledge and Technology Transfer from Universities to Industries: A Case Study Approach from the Built Environment Field. Paper presented at the International Higher Education Congress: New Trends and Issues, Istanbul, Turkey. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/15876/2/Knowledge_and_Technology_Transfer_from_Univer sities_to_Industries_A_Case_Study_Approach_from_the_Built_Environment_Field.pdf Ayyaz, M., Ruikar, K., & Emmitt, S. (2012). Towards Understanding BPR Needs for BIM Implementation (pp. 18-28): IGI Global. Baba, H. D. (2010). Building Information Modeling in Local Construction Industry. (Master's of Science), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Nahru. Retrieved from http://eprints.utm.my/15311/1/HammadDaboBabaMFKA2010.pdf Ball, L. Z., Gui, L. Y., Peng, L., & Hu, Q. (2012). Complex structural model information integration and collaborative computing. Industrial Construction, 42(10). Barett, S., Treacy, M., O'Reilly, B., Spillane, J., Lim, J., von Meding, J., Geary, K., Deary, N., & Booth, G. (2013). Early Implementation of BIM into a Cold-Formed Steel Design/ Fabricator and an Architectural/Planning Consultancy. Paper presented at the 38th PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 300 Australasian University Building Educators Association (AUBEA) Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. Barlish, K. (2011). How to Measure the Benefits of BIM, a Case Study Approach. (Master of Science), Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://repository.asu.edu/attachments/57013/content/Barlish_asu_0010N_10983.pdf Barlish, K., & Sullivan, K. (2012). How to measure the benefits of BIM — A case study approach. Automation in Construction, 24(0), 149-159. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2012.02.008 Barrett, S. A., Spillane, J. P., & Lim, J. B. (2013). Early Implementation of Building Information Modeling into a Cold-Formed Steel Company: Providing Novel Project Management Techniques and Solutions to Industry. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 1(6), 164-173. Baumgärtel, K., Katranuschkov, P., & Scherer, R. (2012). Design and Software Architecture of a Cloud-based Virtual Energy Laboratory for Energy-efficient Design and Life Cycle Simulation eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. 9- 16): CRC Press. Beach, T. H., Rana, O. F., Rezgui, Y., Parashar, M., & Cardiff, U. (2013). Cloud Computing for the Architecture, Engineering & Construction Sector: Requirements, Prototype & Experience. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications, 2(1), 8. Bogen, C., Rashid, M., & East, W. (2011). A Framework for Building Information Fusion. Paper presented at the ICT for a Low Carbon Economy, Building Data Models, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop organised by the EEB Data Models Community CIB Conference W078-W012, Sophia Antipolis, France. http://2011-cibw078- w102.cstb.fr/papers/Paper-66.pdf Broquetas, M. (2011). Using BIM as a Project Management Tool - How can BIM improve the delivery of Complex Construction Projects? (Master Degree Master's Thesis), HFT Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. (x) Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. (2013). The project benefits of Building Information Modelling (BIM). International Journal of Project Management, 31(7), 971-980. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.001 Cerovsek, T. (2011). A review and outlook for a ‘Building Information Model’(BIM): A multi- standpoint framework for technological development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(2), 224-244. Cerovsek, T. (2012). BIM cube and systems-of-systems framework eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. 421-428): CRC Press. Charalambous, G., Demian, P., Yeomans, S., Thorpe, T., Peters, C., & Doughty, N. (2012). BIM and Online Collaboration Platforms–An investigation into emerging requirements. Paper presented at the Engineering, Project and Production Management (EPPM 2012), 3rd International Conference, University of Brighton, UK. http://www.ppml.url.tw/EPPM/conferences/2012/downioad/SESSON3_A/04%20E147 .pdf PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 301 Chen, Y., Dib, H., & Cox, R. F. (2012). A Framework for Measuring Building Information Modeling Maturity in Construction Projects. Paper presented at the 29th International Conference on Applications of IT in the AEC Industry - CIB W078, Beirut Lebanon. Cho, Y. S., Lee, S. I., & Bae, J. S. (2013). Reinforcement Placement in a Concrete Slab Object Using Structural Building Information Modeling. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8667.2012.00794.x Clements, J., & Cachadinha, N. (2012). Building information modeling como ferramenta de visualização de realidade aumentada em obras de reabilitação–um caso de estudo. Paper presented at the Building Congress, 2012, Coimbra, Portugal. http://hdl.handle.net/10362/10013 Coates, P., Arayici, Y., & Koskela, L. (2010). Using the Knowledge Transfer Partnership model as a method of transferring BIM and Lean process related knowledge between academia and industry: A Case Study Approach. Paper presented at the International Conference of Ecobuild America: Sustainable, High Performance & Technology Solutions for Built Environment, Washington DC, USA. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/12890/ Davidson, A. R. (2009). A Study of the Deployment and Impact of Building Information Modelling Software in the Construction Industry. e-Engineering: a journal of research papers written by undergraduate students in the Faculty of Engineering, the University of Leeds(1). De Paula, N., Uechi, M. E., & Melhado, S. B. (2013). Novas demandas para as empresas de projeto de edifícios (New demands for building design firms). Ambiente Construído, 13(3), 137-159. De Vries, L. (2013). A research towards completing the asset information life cycle. (Master's of Science in Geographical Information Management and Applications), TU Delft, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2013- 0425-200627/Thesis%20report.pdf Dib, H., Chen, Y., & Cox, R. (2012, 17-19 October 2012). A Framework for Measuring Building Information Modeling Maturity Based on Perception of Practitioners and Academics Outside the USA. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the CIB W78 2012: 29th International Conference, Beirut, Lebanon. Do Nascimento, E. L. (2012). Application of Model Supported Collaboration In Information Technology for Construction Projects In The City Of São José Dos Pinhais (translated title from Portuguese). (Masters in Civil Construction Maters), Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. Retrieved from http://www.prppg.ufpr.br/ppgcc/sites/www.prppg.ufpr.br.ppgcc/files/dissertacoes/d 0178.pdf Duddy, K., & Kiegeland, J. (2011). Beyond MOF Constraints - Multiple Constraint Set Meta modelling for Lifecycle Management. Paper presented at the ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Wellington, New Zealand. PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 302 Eadie, R., Browne, M., Odeyinka, H., McKeown, C., & McNiff, S. (2013). BIM implementation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: An analysis. Automation in Construction, 36(0), 145-151. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.09.001 El-Diraby, T. E. (2012). Epistemology of Construction Informatics. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(1), 53-65. Farias, F. (2013). Contemporary Strategies for Sustainable Design. (PhD Doctor of Philosophy), Texas A&M University, Texas, United States. Retrieved from http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/149379 Feng, C.-W., Mustaklem, O., & Chen, Y.-J. (2011). The BIM-Based Information Integration Sphere for Construction Projects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2011), Seoul, Korea. http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/S04-6.pdf Ferreira, N. B. T. (2012). A WebGL application based on BIM IFC. (Master's in Information Engineering), Universidade Fernando Pessoa. Retrieved from http://bdigital.ufp.pt/bitstream/10284/3712/1/A%20WebGL%20Application%20Based %20on%20BIM%20IFC%20-%20Nelson%20Ferreira%2019004.pdf Forgues, D., Iordanova, I., & Chiocchio, F. (2012). A Framework for an Integrated and Evolutionary Body of Knowledge. Paper presented at the Construction Research Congress, ASCE 2012, Indiana. USA. http://rebar.ecn.purdue.edu/crc2012/papers/pdfs/-275.pdf Forgues, D., & Lejeune, A. (2013). BIM: In Search of the Organisational Architect. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 0(0). Gan, C., & Luo, X. S. (2013). Application of Earthquake Resistance Analysis Technique in the Design of Constructional Engineering. Advanced Materials Research, 756-759, 4482- 4486. Gandhi, S., & Jupp, J. (2013). Characteristics of Green BIM: Process and Information Management Requirements. In A. Bernard, L. Rivest & D. Dutta (Eds.), Product Lifecycle Management for Society (Vol. 409, pp. 596-605): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Garvin, G. J. (2012). Building Information Modeling (BIM) Performance Assessment Framework for Organisations in the Singapore Construction Industry. (Bachelor of Science - Project and Facilities Management Bachelor of Science), National University of Singapore. (U086761Y) Gerrard, A., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., & Skitmore, M. (2010). Building Information Modelling in the Australian Architecture, Engineering and Construction Industry. In J. Underwood & U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies (pp. 521-544): Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing. Ghandi, S., & Jupp, J. R. (2013). Green BIM and Green Star certification practices: Case studies in commercial high-rise office design. Paper presented at the 38th Australasian PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 303 University Building Educators Association (AUBEA) Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. Giel, B., & Issa, R. R. A. (2012). Quality and Maturity of BIM Implementation within the AECO Industry. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Moscow. http://www.icccbe.ru/paper_long/0234paper_long.pdf Giel, B., & Issa, R. R. A. (2013). Synthesis of Existing BIM Maturity Toolsets to Evaluate Building Owners’ BIM Competency. Paper presented at the 2013 ASCE International Workshop on Computing in Civil Engineering (IWCCE), University of Southern California, CA. Godager, B. (2011). Analysis of the Information Needs for Existing Buildings for Integration in Modern BIM-Based Building Information Management. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Environmental Engineering; ICEE-2011 - International Conference on Environmental Engineering, Vilnius, Lithuania. http://old.vgtu.lt/leidiniai/leidykla/Enviro2011/Articles/4/886_892_Godager_B.pdf Gosling, J., Sassi, P., Naim, M., & Lark, R. (2012). Adaptable buildings: A systems approach. Sustainable Cities and Society(0). doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2012.11.002 Grilo, A., & Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2010). Value proposition on interoperability of BIM and collaborative working environments. Automation in Construction, 19(5), 522-530. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2009.11.003 Gulliver, S., Grzybek, H., Radosavljevic, M., & Wiafe, I. (2013). Changing building user attitude and organisational policy towards sustainable resource use in healthcare. Health Policy and Technology, 0(0). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2013.03.006 Gunasekara, K., & Jayasena, H. S. (2013). Identification of a Technological Framework for Implementing Building Information Modelling In Sri Lanka. Paper presented at the The Second World Construction Symposium 2013: Socio-Economic Sustainability in Construction, Colombo, Sri Lanka. http://www.suranga.net/publications/2013_bim_tech_framework.pdf Guo, X. F. (2013). Research on Structure Model of Building Information Modeling Technology. Advanced Materials Research, 791, 1704-1709. Häkkinen, L. (2012). Utilisation of Building Information Models in Production Organisation of Foundation Engineering. (Master's of Science Master’s Degree), Tampere University of Technology, Finland. Hanlon, B. P. O. (2013). Decision Making and Design Cognition in the age of Building Information Models. (Bachelor of Science), School of Built Environment, Limerick Institute of Technology. Hannele, K., Reijo, M., Tarja, M., Sami, P., Jenni, K., & Teija, R. (2012). Expanding uses of building information modeling in life-cycle construction projects. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41(0), 114-119. doi: 10.3233/wor-2012- 0144-114 PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 304 Haron, A. T. (2013). Organisational readiness to implement building information modelling: A framework for design consultants in Malaysia. University of Salford. Retrieved from http://usir.salford.ac.uk/29383/1/AHMAD_TARMIZI_PhD_eThesis_2013_BIM_readine ss.pdf Haron, A. T., Marshall-Ponting, A., & Aouad, G. (2010). Building Information Modelling- Literature Review on Model to Determine the Level of Uptake by Organisation. Paper presented at the W078 - Special Track, 18th CIB World Building Congress, Salford, United Kingdom. Hartmann, T. A semiotic analysis of user interfaces of building information model systems. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 0(ja), null. doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943- 5487.0000358 Hartmann, T., Gao, J., & Fischer, M. (2010). Closure to “Areas of Application for 3D and 4D Models on Construction Projects” by Timo Hartmann, Ju Gao, and Martin Fischer. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(8), 932-934. Hartmann, T., van Meerveld, H., Vossebeld, N., & Adriaanse, A. (2012). Aligning Building Information Model Tools and Construction Management Methods. Automation in Construction, 22(0), 605-613. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.12.011 Harty, J., & Laing, R. (2013, 27-29 June 2013). Facilitating meaningful collaboration in architectural design through the adoption of BIM (Building Information Modelling). Paper presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), 2013 IEEE 17th International Conference on. He, G., Wang, G., & Liu, H. (2014). Sustainable Construction Project Life-Cycle Management Based on Building Information Modeling. In J. Wang, Z. Ding, L. Zou & J. Zuo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate (pp. 31-42): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Hetherington, R. (2013). The Integration of Architectural Design and Energy Modelling Software. (Doctor of Philosophy PhD), The Open University. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/38060/1/ThesisRobinaHetherington.pdf Ho, S.-P., Tserng, H. P., & Jan, S.-H. (2013). Enhancing Knowledge Sharing Management Using BIM Approach in Construction. The Scientifc World Journal, 0(0). Hooper, M. (2012). BIM Anatomy An investigation into implementation prerequisites. (Master's Thesis), Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2972126&fileOId= 2972151 Hossain, M. K., Munns, A., & Rahman, M. M. (2013). Enhancing team integration in Building Information Modelling (BIM) projects. Paper presented at the ARCOM Doctoral Workshop on BIM Management and Interoperability, Birmingham School of the Built Environment, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom. http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/workshops/2013-06-20_Birmingham.pdf#page=82 PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 305 Idema, H. J. (2010). Meer begrip voor meer grip. (Master in Civil Engineering and Management Master Thesis), Universiteit Twente. Ilozor, B. D., & Kelly, D. J. (2012). Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project Delivery in the Commercial Construction Industry: A Conceptual Study. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2(1), 23-36. INPRO. (2010, 25 October, 2010). Open Information Environment for Knowledge-Based Collaborative Processes throughout the Lifecycle of a Building - What is InPro, Background and General Project Information. Retrieved June 26, 2013, from http://www.inpro-project.eu/what.asp Iordanova, I., Forgues, D., & Chiocchio, F. (2011). Creation of an Evolutive Conceptual Know- how Framework for Integrative Building Design. Paper presented at the Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures 2011: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures, Liege, Belgium. http://www.architexturez.net/sites/default/files/pdf/cf2011_p108.content.pdf Jacobsson, M., & Linderoth, H. C. J. (2012). User perceptions of ICT impacts in Swedish construction companies: ‘it’s fine, just as it is’. Construction Management and Economics, 30(5), 339-357. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2012.672757 Jadhav, M., & Koutamanis, A. (2012). Integrated collaborative approach to managing building information modeling projects. Paper presented at the eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b12516-83 Jansson, G. (2010). Industrialised housing design efficiency. (Master's Master's Thesis), Department of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, Division of Structural Engineering – Timber Structures, Luleå. Jayasena, H. S., & Weddikkara, C. (2013). Assessing the BIM Maturity in a BIM Infant Industry. Paper presented at the The Second World Construction Symposium 2013: Socio- Economic Sustainability in Construction, Colombo, Sri Lanka. http://www.suranga.net/publications/2013_bim_maturity.pdf Ji, J., Zhang, Q., Yang, H., & Chang, Z. (2009). Research and development of high-rise steel structural BIM software and its application in Shanghai Center Project. Journal of Southeast University. Natural Science Edition, 39. John, G. A., & Ganah, A. (2011). Integrating BIM and Planning Software for Health and Safety Site Induction. Paper presented at the The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors International Research Conference, COBRA 2011, 12-13 September 2011, University of Salford, UK. http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/2787/ Jung, Y., & Joo, M. (2010). Building information modelling (BIM) framework for practical implementation. Automation in Construction, In Press, Corrected Proof. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.010 Jupp, J. R. (2013). Incomplete BIM Implementation: Exploring Challenges and the Role of Product Lifecycle Management Functions. In A. Bernard, L. Rivest & D. Dutta (Eds.), PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 306 Product Lifecycle Management for Society (Vol. 409, pp. 630-640): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Kalinichuk, S., & Tomek, A. (2013). Construction Industry Products Diversification by Implementation of BIM. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 3(4), 254-262. Kamara, J. M. (2012). Integration in the project development process of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 8(4), 228- 245. doi: 10.1080/17452007.2012.666729 Kasim, T., LI, H., & Rezgui, Y. (2012). BREEAM Based Dynamic Sustainable Building Design Assessment. Paper presented at the European Group for Intelligent Computing in Engineering (EG-ICE), Technische Universität München, Germany, Munich, Germany. http://www.cie.bv.tum.de/upload/egice/papers/25.pdf Kassem, M., Iqbal, N., & Dawood, N. (2013). A Practice oriented BIM framework and workflows Paper presented at the 2013 ASCE International Workshop on Computing in Civil Engineering (IWCCE), University of Southern California, CA. Khosrowpour, M. (2012). Dictionary of Information Science and Technology (2nd ed.): Idea Group Inc (IGI) Global. Khosrowshahi, F., & Arayici, Y. (2012). Roadmap for implementation of BIM in the UK construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19(6), 610-635. doi: 10.1108/09699981211277531 Kim, K. P., & Park, K. S. (2013). BIM Feasibility Study For Housing Refurbishment Projects In The UK. Organization, Technology & Management In Construction: an International Journal, 5(Special), 765-774. Kim, T. W., Rajagopal, R., Fischer, M., & Kam, C. (2012). A Knowledge-Based Framework for Automated Space-Use Analysis CIFE Technical Report (pp. 1-34). Stanford: Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), Stanford University. Kim, T. W., Rajagopal, R., Fischer, M., & Kam, C. (2013). A knowledge-based framework for automated space-use analysis. Automation in Construction, 32(0), 165-176. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.08.002 Kjartansdóttir, I. B. (2011). BIM Adoption in Iceland and Its Relation to Lean Construction. (Master of Science in Construction Management Masters), Reykjavík University, Reykjavík. Kouider, T., & Paterson, G. J. (2013). Architectural Technology and the BIM acronym: Critical Perspectives of Evangelical and Evolutionary Paradigms for Technical Design. Paper presented at the 4th International Congress of Architectural Technology, Sheffield, UK. Kovacic, I., Filzmoser, M., Faatz, S., & Koeszegi, S. T. (2011). Research Project Cost Benefits of Integrated Planning: First experiment-results.pdf. Organization, Technology & Management In Construction: an International Journal, 3(1), 254-263. PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 307 Kovacic, I., & Oberwinter, L. (2012). BIM-Supported Lifecycle-oriented Design for Energy Efficient Industrial Facility - a Case Study. Paper presented at the Creative Construction Conference 2012, Budapest, Hungary. http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_209663.pdf Kovacic, I., Oberwinter, L., & Müller, C. (2013). BIM-supported planning process for sustainable buildings–Process Simulation and Evaluation through Exploratory Research. Paper presented at the CIB 2013 World Congress, Brisbane, Australia. Krystallis, I., Demian, P., & Price, A. D. (2012, September 5-7, 2012). Design of flexible and adaptable healthcare buildings of the future-a BIM approach. Paper presented at the First UK Conference on BIM, Newcastle, UK. Kulasekara, G., Jayasena, H. S., & Ranadewa, K. A. T. O. (2013). Comparative Effectiveness of Quantity Surveying in a Building Information Modelling Implementation. Paper presented at the The Second World Construction Symposium 2013: Socio-Economic Sustainability in Construction, Colombo, Sri Lanka. http://www.suranga.net/publications/2013_bim_qseffectiveness.pdf Laakso, M. (2009, September 2009). Developing a Multidisciplinary Process View on IFC Standardization. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 w78 Conference - Managing IT in Construction / Managing Construction for Tomorrow, Istanbul, Turkey. Lavikka, R., Smeds, M., & Smeds, R. (2012). Towards coordinated BIM based design and construction process eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. 513-520): CRC Press. Lee, J., & Jeong, Y. (2012). User-centric knowledge representations based on ontology for AEC design collaboration. Computer-Aided Design, In Press. doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2012.03.011 Lee, S., & Ha, M. Customer interactive building information modeling for apartment unit design. Automation in Construction(0). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.026 Leeuwis, A. J. (2012). BIM at Small Architectural Firms - English Summary. (Master Real Estatae & Housing Masters), Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands. Lehtinen, T. (2010). Advantages And Disadvantages of Vertical Integration in The Implementation of Systemic Process Innovations: Case studies on implementing building information modelling (BIM) in the Finnish construction industry. (Master’s Thesis Master’s Thesis), Aalto University. Retrieved from http://lib.tkk.fi/Dipl/2010/urn100299.pdf Lehtinen, T. (2012). Boundaries Matter – The Pros and Cons of Vertical Integration in BIM Implementation, Advances in Production Management Systems. Value Networks: Innovation, Technologies, and Management. In J. Frick & B. Laugen (Eds.), (Vol. 384, pp. 578-585): Springer Boston. León, E. A., & Molina, M. R. (Eds.). (2009). New Interfaces, new scenarios. Vroom n. 0: Vroom n. 0: The emerging potential of collaborative 3D web platforms. Sao Paulo, Brazil. PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 308 Lin, Y.-C. (2010). A CAD-Based Interface Management System using Building Information Modelling in Construction. In J. Underwood & U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies (pp. 170-169): Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing. Lin, Y.-M. (2012). Extension of Building Information Model for Disaster Mitigation: Using the Revit Platform. (Master's Thesis), National Central University, Chungli City, Taoyuan County. Retrieved from http://etd.lib.nctu.edu.tw/cgi- bin/gs32/ncugsweb.cgi?o=dncucdr&s=id=%22GC993202098%22.#XXXX Lin, Y. C., Su, Y. C., & Chen, Y. P. (2012). Mobile 2D Barcode/BIM-based Facilities Maintaining Management System. Paper presented at the Mobile 2D Barcode/BIM-based Facilities Maintaining Management System, Singapore. http://www.ipedr.com/vol43/011- ICFME2012-M00027.pdf Linderoth, H. C. J. (2010). Understanding adoption and use of BIM as the creation of actor networks. Automation in Construction, 19(1), 66-72. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2009.09.003 Love, P., Edwards, D., Han, S., & Goh, Y. (2011). Design Error Reduction: Toward the Effective Utilization of Building Information Modeling. Research in Engineering Design, 1-15. doi: 10.1007/s00163-011-0105-x Love, P. E. D., Simpson, I., Hill, A., & Standing, C. (2013). From justification to evaluation: Building information modeling for asset owners. Automation in Construction, 0(0). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.008 Lu, W., Peng, Y., Shen, Q., & Li, H. (2013). Generic Model for Measuring Benefits of BIM as a Learning Tool in Construction Tasks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(2), 195-203. doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000585 Lucas, J., Bulbul, T., & Thabet, W. (2013). A pilot model for a proof of concept healthcare facility information management prototype. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITCON), 18. Lucas, J. D. (2012). An Integrated BIM Framework to Support Facility Management in Healthcare Environments. (PhD PhD), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08072012-155247/ (etd-08072012- 155247) Luth, G. P., Schorer, A., & Turkan, Y. (2013). Lessons From Using BIM to Increase Design- Construction Integration. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction. Luthra, A. (2010). Implementation of Building Information Modeling in Architectural Firms in India. (Master of Science Master's), Purdue University. Lv, X., Zou, Y., Huang, Y., & Xu, J. (2011). The 3D Coordinated Building Design Based on Building Information Modeling. Advanced Materials Research, 243 - 249, 6587-6591. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.243-249.6587 PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 309 Macdonald, J. (2011). BIM – Adding Value by Assisting Collaboration. Paper presented at the Lightweight Structures Association Australia,, Sydney, Australia. http://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Macdonald_LSAA.pdf Majcherek, E. (2013). Building Information Modelling in the business of architecture: Case of Sweden. (Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management Master's of Science), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:634189/FULLTEXT01.pdf Mäkeläinen, T., Hyvärinen, J., & Peura, J. (2012). BIM practices and challenges framed - an approach to systemic change management eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. 497-504): CRC Press. Manzione, L. (2013). Proposition for a Collaborative Design Process Management Conceptual Structure using BIM. (PhD in Engineering PhD), University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. Manzione, L., Abaurre, M. W., Melhado, S. B., & Owen, R. (2011). Challenges to implementation of collaborative design process: analysis of human factor. Paper presented at the TIC2011, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil. http://www.coordenar.com.br/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/2011_projetocolaborativo-tic.pdf Martin-Dorta, N., Assef, P. G. d. C., Cantero, J. D. l. T., & Rufino, G. R. (2013, April 17-19, 2013). Implementing BIM techniques for energy analysis: a case study of buildings at university of la Laguna. Paper presented at the Environmental security, geological hazards and management, Tenerife, UK. Matipa, W. M., Cunningham, P., & Naik, B. (2010). Assessing the Impact of New Rules of Cost Planning on Building Information Model (BIM) Schema Pertinent to Quantity Surveying Practice. Paper presented at the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) 26th Annual Conference, Reading, England. http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/ar2010-0625- 0632_Matipa_Cunningham_and_Naik.pdf Merschbrock, C., & Munkvold, B. (2013, 12-14 June 2013). Improving Interorganizational Design Practices in the Wood‐based Building Industry. Paper presented at the 7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization, Trondheim, Norway. Merschbrock, C., & Munkvold, B. E. (2012a). A Research Review on Building Information Modeling in Construction―An Area Ripe for IS Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 31(10). Merschbrock, C., & Munkvold, B. E. (2012b). A Research Review on Building Information Modeling in Construction - An Area Ripe for IS Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 31(1), 10. Miettinen, R., Kerosuo, H., Korpela, J., Mäki, T., & Paavola, S. (2012). An activity theoretical approach to BIM-research eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. 777-781): CRC Press. PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 310 Miller, H. J. (2013). Beyond sharing: cultivating cooperative transportation systems through geographic information science. Journal of Transport Geography, 31, 296-308. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.04.007 Mom, M., & Hsieh, S.-H. (2012a). Toward performance assessment of BIM technology implementation. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCBBE2012), Moscow, Russia. http://bit.ly/O7KxZD Mom, M., & Hsieh, S.-H. (2012b). Toward Performance Assessment of BIM Technology Implementation. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Moscow. http://www.icccbe.ru/paper_long/0187paper_long.pdf Mom, M., Tsai, M. H., & Hsieh, S.-H. (2011). On Decision-Making and Technology-Implementing Factors for BIM Adoption. Paper presented at the International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality (CONVR2011), Weimar, Germany. Monteiro, A., & Poças Martins, J. (2013). A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff- oriented BIM-based design (corrected proof). Automation in Construction, 0(0). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005 Mrkela, A., & Rebolj, D. (2009). Automated construction schedule creation using project information model. Paper presented at the CIB W78 Conference - Managing IT in Construction, Istanbul, Turkey. http://itc.scix.net/data/works/att/w78-2009-1-03.pdf Mulenga, K., & Han, Z. (2010). Optimizing BIM Adoption and Mindset Change - Emphasize on a Construction Company. (Master of Science Master's), Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.kelmatics.com/apps/documents/ Nagy, M. V. (2013). Utilizing Building Information Models with Mobile Augmented Reality and Location-Based Services. (Master of Science in Informatics), Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:664085/FULLTEXT01.pdf Oberwinter, L., Kovacic, I., Müller, C., Kiesel, K., Skoruppa, L., & Mahdavi, A. (2013). Interdisciplinary, BIM-supported planning process. Paper presented at the Creative Conference Conference, Budast, Hungary. http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_219839.pdf Olatunji, O., & Sher, W. (2010a, May 10-13, 2010). Legal Implications of BIM: Model Ownership and Other Matters Arising. Paper presented at the W113-Special Track 18th CIB World Building Congress Salford, United Kingdom. Olatunji, O., Sher, W., Gu, N., & Ogunsemi, D. (2010). Building Information Modelling Processes: Benefits for Construction Industry. Paper presented at the W078 - Special Track, 18th CIB World Building Congress, Salford, United Kingdom. Olatunji, O., Sher, W., & Ogunsemi, D. (2010, May 10th-13th). The impact of Building Information Modelling on Construction Cost estimation. Paper presented at the W055 - Special Track, 18th CIB World Building Congress, Salford, United Kingdom. PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 311 Olatunji, O. A. (2011a). Modelling Organizations’ Structural Adjustment to BIM Adoption: a Pilot Study on Estimating Organizations. Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITCON), Special Issue Innovation in Construction e-Business, 16(38), 687-696. Olatunji, O. A. (2011b). A Preliminary Review on the Legal Implications of BIM and Model Ownership. Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITCON), Special Issue Innovation in Construction e-Business, 16(40), 687-696. Olatunji, O. A., & Sher, W. (2010b). The application of Building Information Modelling in Facilities Management. In J. Underwood & U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies (pp. 239-253): Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing. Olatunji, O. A., Sher, W., & Gu, N. (2010a). Building Information Modeling and Quantity Surveying Practice. Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 15(1), 67-70. Olatunji, O. A., & Sher, W. D. (2009). Building Information Modelling (BIM) System in Construction in 2020: Opportunities and Implications. Paper presented at the BuHu 9th International Postgraduate Research Conference (IPGRC 09), Salford Quays, Greater Manchester, UK. http://bit.ly/jalW0 Olatunji, O. A., Sher, W. D., & Gu, N. (2010b). Modelling Outcomes of Collaboration in Building Information Modelling Through Gaming Theory Lenses. In I. Wallis, L. Bilan, M. Smith & A. S. Kazi (Eds.), Industrialised, Integrated, Intelligent Sustainable Construction, I3COn Handbook 2 (pp. 91-108). UK: I3CON and BSRIA. Oommen, C. (2010). Enhancing Control of Built Assets through Computer Aided Design - Past, Present and Emerging Trends. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference for Enhanced Building Operations, Kuwait. http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/94092/ESL-IC-10-10- 45.pdf?sequence=1 Oti, A. H., & Tizani, W. (2010). Developing incentives for collaboration in the AEC Industry. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Nottingham, UK. Otter, A. d., Pels, H. J., & Iliescu, I. (2011). BIM Versus PLM: Risks and Benefits. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the CIB W078 - W102 Conference: Computer, Knowledge, Building, Sophia Antipolis, France. http://cibworld.xs4all.nl/dl/publications/W078_W102_pub365.pdf Paavola, S., Kerosuo, H., Mäki, T., Korpela, J., & Miettinen, R. (2012). BIM Technologies and Collaboration in a Life-cycle Project eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. 855-862): CRC Press. Pala, M., Edum-Fotwe, F., Ruikar, K., Doughty, N., & Peters, C. (2014). Contractor practices for managing extended supply chain tiers. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(1), 4-4. PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 312 Panuwatwanich, K., & Peansupap, V. (2013). Factors affecting the current diffusion of BIM: a qualitative study of online professional network. Paper presented at the Creative Construction Conference, Budapest, Hungary. Parreira, J. P. d. C. (2013). BIM implementation in organizational processes in construction companies - a case study (Portuguese Language). (Master's in Civil Engineering), The New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. Retrieved from http://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/9907/1/Parreira_2013.pdf Patrick, R., Munir, M., & Jeffrey, H. (2012). Building Information Modelling (BIM), Utilised During the Design and Construction Phase of a Project has the Potential to Create a Valuable Asset in its Own Right (‘BIMASSET’) at Handover that in turn Enhances the Value of The Development. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference for Enhanced Building Operations, Manchester, England. http://icebo2012.com/cms/resources/uploads/files/papers/19%20BIM%20ASSET%20P APER%20working%20final.pdf Paukkeri, H. (2012). Development of Model-based Process for Navigation Dredging. (Master's Thesis Master's), AALTO University, Finland. Retrieved from http://civil.aalto.fi/fi/tutkimus/vesi/opinnaytteet/paukkeri2012.pdf Pels, H., Beek, J., & Otter, A. (2013). Systems Engineering as a First Step to Effective Use of BIM. In A. Bernard, L. Rivest & D. Dutta (Eds.), Product Lifecycle Management for Society (Vol. 409, pp. 651-662): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Penttila, H. (2009). Services in Digital Design: new visions for AEC-field collaboration. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 7, 459-478. Per Anker, J., & Elvar Ingi, J. (2013). Building information modelling in Denmark and Iceland. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 20(1), 99-110. doi: 10.1108/09699981311288709 Persson, S., Malmgren, L., & Johnsson, H. (2009). Information management in industrial housing design and manufacture. ITCON(14), 110-122. Porwal, A. (2013). Construction waste management at source: a Building Information Modeling based system dynamic approach. (Doctor of Philosophy), Unversity of British Columbia, Okanagan, Canada. Retrieved from https://elk.library.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/45509/ubc_2014_spring_porwal_at ul.pdf?sequence=1 Porwal, A., & Hewage, K. N. (2013). Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering framework for public construction projects. Automation in Construction, 31(0), 204-214. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.12.004 PPU. (2012). Universidade Estadul de Londrina_Masters of Project Management - Course Outline. http://www.ppu.uem.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Gest%C3%A3o-de- Processo-de-Projeto.pdf Qian, A. Y. (2012). Benefits and ROI of BIM for Multi-Disciplinary Project Management. (Project Management), National University of Singapore. Retrieved from PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 313 http://www.icoste.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Benefits-and-ROI-of-BIM-for- Multi-Disciplinary-Project-Management.pdf Qinghua, Haitao, P., Yongkui, L., & Lili, Q. (2012). Cloud-based framework for the implementation of BIM. Construction Economics (translated), 5. Reffat, R. M. (2010). Fostering E-Services in Architecture and Construction Using the Building Information Model. Paper presented at the The 5th eServices Symposium of the Eastern Province, Comprehensive eServices: Successes and Challenges, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia. www.eservices-sa.org/Event/UploadFiles/Book5.pdf Rekola, M., Kojima, J., & Mäkeläinen, T. (2010). Towards integrated design and delivery solutions: pinpointed challenges of process change. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 6(4), 264-278. Ren, J. (2013). High-Performance Building Design and Decision-Making Support for Architects in the Early Design Phases. (Licentiate Thesis), The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:664309 Ren, Y. (2011). Building Information Modeling Integrated with Electronic Commerce Material Procurement and Supplier Performance Management System. (Master of Science), University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, US. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1903/12349 Rezgui, Y., Beach, T., & Rana, O. (2013). A Governance Approach for BIM Management across Lifecycle and Supply Chains Using Mixed-Modes of Information Delivery. Journal of Civil Engineering & Management, 19(2), 239-258. doi: 10.3846/13923730.2012.760480 Robert, S., Delinchant, B., Hilaire, B., & Tanguy, Y. (2013, August 26-28). Plumes: Towards a unified approach to building physical modeling. Paper presented at the 13th Conference of IBPSA 2013. Rowlinson, S., Collins, R., Tuuli, M. M., & Jia, Y. (2010). Implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in construction: A comparative case study, Hong Kong, Macau. Ruschel, R. C., Andrade, M. L. V. X. d., & Morais, M. d. (2013). O ensino de BIM no Brasil: onde estamos? Ambiente Construído, 13, 151-165. Ryan, A., Miller, G., & Wilkinson, S. (2013). Successfully implementing building information modelling in New Zealand: maintaining the relevance of contract forms and procurement models. Paper presented at the 38th Australasian University Building Educators Association (AUBEA) Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. Sackey, E., Tuuli, M., & Dainty, A. (2013). BIM implementation: from capability maturity models to implementation strategy. Paper presented at the Sustainable Building Conference 2013, Coventry, UK. http://www.coventry.ac.uk/Global/Faculty%20events/SB13/SB13- 21-BIM-implementation-from-capability-maturity-models-to-implementation- strategy.pdf PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 314 Sarhan, S., & Fox, A. (2013). Performance measurement in the UK construction industry and its role in supporting the application of lean construction concepts (Vol. 13). Sattineni, A., & Bradford, H. (2012). Building Information Modeling: Trends in the US Construction Industry. Design Principles and Practices, 5(4), 187-203. Sebastian, R. (2011). BIM in Different Methods of Project Delivery. Paper presented at the ICT for a Low Carbon Economy, Building Data Models, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop organised by the EEB Data Models Community CIB Conference W078-W012, Sophia Antipolis, France. http://2011-cibw078-w102.cstb.fr/papers/Paper-134.pdf Sebastian, R., & Van Berlo, L. (2010). Tool for Benchmarking BIM Performance of Design, Engineering and Construction Firms in the Netherlands. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Special Issue: Integrated Design and Delivery Solutions, 6, 254- 263. doi: 10.3763/aedm.2010.IDDS3 Senescu, R. R. (2011). Design Process Communication Methodology. (Doctor of Philosophy), Stanford University, Stanford. Retrieved from http://cife.stanford.edu/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=rs:papers:senescu- designprocesscommunicationmethodology.pdf Şenyapılı, B., & Bozdağ, B. G. (2012). A Domain Specific Software Model for Interior Architectural Education and Practice. Automation in Construction, 21(0), 10-23. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.05.008 Sergi, D. M., & Li, J. (2014). Applications of GIS-Enhanced Networks of Engineering Information. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 444, 1672-1679. Shahrin, F., Johansen, E., Lockley, S., & Udeaja, C. (2010). Effective Capture, Translating and Delivering Client Requirements Using Building Information Modelling (BIM) Technology. Paper presented at the ARCOM Research Workshop on Decision Making Across Levels, Time and Space: Exploring Theories, Methods and Practices, University of Manchester. http://www.academia.edu/1196255/EFFECTIVE_CAPTURE_TRANSLATING_AND_DELIV ERING_CLIENT_REQUIREMENTS_USING_BUILDING_INFORMATION_MODELLING_BIM_ TECHNOLOGY Shih, S.-Y., & Sher, W. (2014). Development of Building Information Modelling Enabled Code Checking Systems for Australia. In J. Wang, Z. Ding, L. Zou & J. Zuo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate (pp. 1003-1010): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Shih, S.-Y., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2012). Using a BIM maturity matrix to inform the development of AEC integrated curricula. Paper presented at the 37th Annual International Conference, Proceedings of the Australasian Universities Building Educators Association (AUBEA), Sydney. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/933959 Shrivasta, S., & Chini, A. (2012). Using Building Information Modeling to assess the initial embodied energy of a building. The International Journal of Construction Management, 12(1), 51-63. PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 315 Skandhakumar, N., Reid, J., Dawson, E., Drogemuller, R., & Salim, F. (2012). An Authorization Framework using Building Information Models. The Computer Journal. doi: 10.1093/comjnl/bxs098 Skandhakumar, N., Salim, F., Reid, J., & Dawson, E. (2012). Physical Access Control Administration Using Building Information Models. In Y. Xiang, J. Lopez, C. C. J. Kuo & W. Zhou (Eds.), Cyberspace Safety and Security (Vol. 7672, pp. 236-250): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Steel, J., Drogemuller, R., & Toth, B. (2010). Model interoperability in building information modelling. Software and Systems Modeling, 1-11. doi: 10.1007/s10270-010-0178-4 Su, Y. C., Lee, Y. C., & Lin, Y. C. (2011). Enhancing Maintenance Management Using Building Information Modeling In Facilities Management. Paper presented at the 28th Conference of the International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Seoul, Korea. http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/S22- 5.pdf Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357-375. Succar, B. (2010a). Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix. In J. Underwood & U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies (pp. 65-103): Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing. Succar, B. (2010b). The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement. Paper presented at the CIB World Congress, Salford, United Kingdom. Succar, B., Sher, W., & Aranda-Mena, G. (2007). A Proposed Framework to Investigate Building Information Modelling Through Knowledge Elicitation and Visual Models. Paper presented at the Australasian Universities Building Education (AUBEA2007), Melbourne, Australia. http://aubea.org.au/ocs/viewpaper.php?id=15&cf=1 Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2012). Measuring BIM performance: Five metrics. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 8(2), 120-142. doi: 10.1080/17452007.2012.659506 Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2013). An integrated approach to BIM competency acquisition, assessment and application (published online). Automation in Construction, 35, 174-189. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.016 Suwal, S., Jäväjä, P., Rahman, M. A., & Gonzalez, V. (2013). Exploring BIM-based education perspectives. Paper presented at the 38th Australasian University Building Educators Association (AUBEA) Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. Szpytko, J. (2009). Transportation System Architecture for Intelligent Management Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation: CRC Press. PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 316 Taborda, P. (2012). BIM nas obras públicas em Portugal: Condicionantes para uma implementação com sucesso. Paper presented at the Building Congress, 2012, Coimbra, Portugal. http://hdl.handle.net/10362/10012 Tatari, M. O. (2009). Empirical Analysis of Construction Enterprise Information Systems: Assessing the Critical Factors and Benefits. (PhD), University of Maryland (College Park, Md.), Maryland. Retrieved from http://www.lib.umd.edu/drum/bitstream/1903/9131/1/Tatari_umd_0117E_10220.pd f Tatari, O., & Skibniewski, M. J. (2011). Empirical Analysis of Construction Enterprise Information Systems: Assessing System Integration, Critical Factors, and Benefits. Journal of Computing and Civil Engineering, 25(5), 347. Thomas, B. (2013). Governance Model for Cloud Computing in Building Information Management. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 99(PrePrints), 1-1. Tomo, C. (2011). A Review and Outlook for a ‘Building Information Model’ (BIM): A Multi- Standpoint Framework for Technological Development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(2), 224-244. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.003 Toth, B., Fernando, R., Salim, F., Drogemuller, R., Burry, J., Burry, M., & Frazer, J. H. (2009). Modelling sustainable and optimal solutions for building services integration in early architectural design: confronting the software and professional interoperability deficit. Proceedings off Cumulus 38 Degrees South, Hemispheric Shifts Across Learning, Teaching and Research. Tuohy, P. (2009). Simulation and BIM For Building Design, Commissioning and Operation: a Comparison with The Microelectronics Industry. Paper presented at the Building Simulation 2009, Eleventh International IBPSA Conference, Glasgow, Scotland. http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2009/BS09_1538_1545.pdf Tuohy, P. G., & Murphy, G. B. (2012). Why advanced buildings don’t work? Paper presented at the Proceedings of 7th Windsor Conference: The changing context of comfort in an unpredictable world, Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings, Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK, 12-15 April 2012. https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/files/19994378/Tuohy_PG_Pure_Why_advanced_buil dings_dont_work_Apr_2012.pdf Vangimalla, P. R., Olbina, S. J., Issa, R. R., & Hinze, J. (2011). Validation of Autodesk Ecotect™ Accuracy For Thermal And Daylighting Simulations. Paper presented at the WSC 2011 Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference, Phoenix, Arizona. http://www.informs-sim.org/wsc11papers/300.pdf Vernikos, V. K., Goodier, C. I., & Gibb, A. G. F. (2013). Building Information Modelling and offsite construction In civil engineering. Paper presented at the ARCOM Doctoral Workshop on BIM Management and Interoperability, Birmingham School of the Built Environment, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom. http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/workshops/2013-06-20_Birmingham.pdf#page=82 PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 317 Watson, A. (2010). BIM - A Driver for Change. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference of Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (icccbe), Nottingham, UK. http://www.engineering.nottingham.ac.uk/icccbe/proceedings/pdf/pf69.pdf Watson, A. (2011). Digital buildings – Challenges and opportunities. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(4), 573-581. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2011.07.003 Wei-zhuo, S., & Guo-qiang, Z. (2010). KPIs: Analyzing the impact of Building Information Modeling on construction industry in China. Paper presented at the Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IE&EM), 2010 IEEE 17Th International Conference on. Winberg, A., & Dahlqvist, E. (2010). BIM - the Next Step in the Construction of Civil Structures. (Master's Thesis), Royal Institute of Technology KTH. (ISSN 1103-4297) Wong, A. K., Wong, F. K., & Nadeem, A. (2011). Government roles in implementing building information modelling systems: Comparison between Hong Kong and the United States. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 11(1), 61-76. Wong, A. K. D., Wong, F. K. W., & Nadeem, A. (2010). Attributes of Building Information Modelling Implementations in Various Countries. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Special Issue: Integrated Design and Delivery Solutions, 6, 288-302. Wong, J., & Yang, J. (2010). Research and application of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry: a review and direction for future research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering & Construction (AEC), organized in collaboration with the Centre for Innovative and Collaborative Engineering at Loughborough University, UK, Pennsylvania, US. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38333/1/38333.pdf Wu, W. (2011, June 19-22,). BIM Facilitated Web Service for LEED Automation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2011 ASCE International Workshop on Computing in Civil Engineering, Miami, Florida. Xiaobo, C. (2013). "BIM & cloud" management system security research. Construction Economy(7), 93-96. Yiye, L. (2010). Application of Building Information Model (BIM) in building thermal comfort and energy consumption analysis. (Master's M. Phil), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://repository.lib.polyu.edu.hk/jspui/bitstream/10397/4301/2/b24415820_ir.pdf Younas, M. Y. (2010). Exploring the challenges for the implementation and adoption of BIM. (International Master of Science in Construction & Real Estate Management Master's), Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences. Zahrizan, Z., Ali, N. M., Haron, A. T., Marshall-Ponting, A., & Abd, Z. (2013). Exploring the adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Malaysian construction PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 318 industry: a qualitative approach. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 2(8), 384-395. Zerjav, V. (2012). Process-and project-level issues of design management in the built environment. (Doctor of Science in Civil Engineering Doctor of Science in Civil Engineering), Vienna University of Technology. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30870261/AC07812616.pdf?AW SAccessKeyId=AKIAIR6FSIMDFXPEERSA&Expires=1374307898&Signature=7HIUCfJd%2 FJB4rb2NqQSb8pcNsFM%3D&response-content-disposition=inline Zhang, M., Tan, D., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Analysis of BIM application relationship with integration degree of construction environment. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 11(1), 92-96. doi: 10.1080/10042857.2013.777527 Zhou, W., Tah, J., & Heesom, D. (2013). A distributed virtual reality application framework for collaborative construction planning using BIMserver. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality (CONVR), London, UK. Zillante, G. (2008). Building Surveying: A Sustainable Profession or A Passing Fad? Paper presented at the 2008 AIBS South Australian Conference – Climate Change: Engaging the elements. http://www.aibs.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid =147 Zuppa, D. (2009). Model for developing trust in construction management. (PhD Thesis), University of Florida. Retrieved from http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0024734/zuppa_d.pdf PART III | APPENDIX C PAGE 319 APPENDIX D Focus groups info sheet and feedback form FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT Focus Group Feedback Form Building Information Modelling Framework Document Version 2.2 (17/05/2010) Bilal Succar Willy Sher PhD Candidate Senior Lecturer (primary supervisor) Bilal.Succar@uon.edu.au Willy.Sher@newcastle.edu.au Tel +614 1255 6671 Tel +61 2 4921 5794 Fax +61 3 8502 7872 Fax +61 2 4921 6913 PART I: Participant Details (1 page) PART II: Feedback Sheets (6 pages) Please do not complete this anonymous feedback form before reviewing the Research Project Information Statement and signing the Research Participant’s Consent Form PART III | APPENDIX D PAGE 320 Part II: Participant Details Page 2 of 8 V2.2 May 17, 2010 Please provide all applicable details to assist the researcher in contextualising your comments and suggestions. No personal information will be shared or disclosed. When completing this form, please use CAPITAL LETTERS as much as possible....Thank you. Role within Industry only if applicable (e.g. architect, engineer, contractor,...) Role within Academia only if applicable (e.g. researcher, lecturer,...) Focus Group Location e.g. RMIT UNIVERSITY, MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA (Institution, City and Country) Focus Group Date e.g. 23/11/2010 (day/month/year) PART III | APPENDIX D PAGE 321 Framework top-level component Part I: Feedback Sheets BIM Capability Stages Page 3 of 8 V2.2 May 17, 2010 Knowledge Model and Summary BIM Capability is the basic ability to perform a task or deliver a BIM service/product. BIM Capability Stages (or BIM Stages) define the minimum BIM requirements. BIM Stages identify a fixed starting point - the status before BIM implementation, three fixed BIM stages and a variable ending point which allows for unforeseen future advancements in technology. Feedback Section 1 (required): Do you agree with the following statements? BIM Stages are clear and Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree easy to understand      BIM Stages are accurate Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree and representative      BIM Stages are usable for Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree implementation, assessment and      education The knowledge model facilitates Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree my understanding of BIM      Feedback Section 2 (optional): Please provide additional written feedback or suggestions PART III | APPENDIX D PAGE 322 Framework top-level component Part I: Feedback Sheets BIM Fields (players, requirements and deliverables) Page 4 of 8 V2.2 May 17, 2010 Knowledge Model and Summary BIM Fields are conceptual clusters of domain players interacting and overlapping within the AECO industry. There are three BIM Field Types (Technology, Process and Policy) and three Field Components (Players, Requirements and Deliverables). Feedback Section 1 (required): Do you agree with the following statements? BIM Fields are clear and Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree easy to understand      BIM Fields are accurate Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree and representative      BIM Fields are usable for Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree implementation, assessment and      education The knowledge model facilitates Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree my understanding of BIM      Feedback Section 2 (optional): Please provide additional written feedback or suggestions PART III | APPENDIX D PAGE 323 Framework top-level component Part I: Feedback Sheets BIM Lenses Page 5 of 8 V2.2 May 17, 2010 Knowledge Model and Summary Sample Lenses: Change Management Construction/Project Management Data Management Design Management Financial Management Human Resource Management Knowledge Management Organisational Behaviour Process Management Quality Management Product Management Supply Chain Management Risk Management BIM Lenses represent the third dimension of the Framework and generate its depth of enquiry. BIM Lenses are distinctive layers of analysis which allow the researchers to selectively focus on any aspect of the AECO industry and generate knowledge views that either (a) highlight observables which meet the research criteria or (b) filter out those that do not. Feedback Section 1 (required): Do you agree with the following statements? BIM Lenses are clear and Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree easy to understand      BIM Lenses are accurate Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree and representative      BIM Lenses are usable for Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree implementation, assessment and      education The knowledge model facilitates Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree my understanding of BIM      Feedback Section 2 (optional): Please provide additional written feedback or suggestions PART III | APPENDIX D PAGE 324 Sample framework deliverable Part I: Feedback Sheets BIM Competency Sets Page 6 of 8 V2.2 May 17, 2010 Knowledge Model and Summary A BIM Competency Set is a hierarchical collection of individual competencies identified for the purposes of BIM implementation and assessment. If BIM Competency Set is used for active implementation, they are referred to as BIM Implementation Steps. However, if used for assessing existing implementations, they are referred to as BIM Assessment Areas. Feedback Section 1 (required): Do you agree with the following statements? BIM Competencies are clear and Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree easy to understand      BIM Competencies are accurate Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree and representative      BIM Competencies are usable for Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree implementation, assessment and      education The knowledge model facilitates Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree my understanding of BIM      Feedback Section 2 (optional): Please provide additional written feedback or suggestions PART III | APPENDIX D PAGE 325 Sample framework deliverables Part I: Feedback Sheets BIM Maturity Levels Page 7 of 8 V2.2 May 17, 2010 Knowledge Model and Summary BIM Maturity is the ability to excel in performing a task or delivering a BIM service/product and its benchmarks (the five maturity levels) are performance improvement milestones for teams and organizations aspire to or work towards. The progression from low to higher levels of maturity indicate (i) better control through minimising variations between performance targets and actual results, (ii) better predictability and forecasting by lowering variability in competency, performance and costs, and (iii) greater effectiveness in reaching defined goals and setting new more ambitious ones Feedback Section 1 (required): Do you agree with the following statements? BIM Maturity Levels are clear and Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree easy to understand      BIM Maturity Levels are accurate Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree and representative      BIM Maturity Levels are usable for Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree implementation, assessment and      education The knowledge model facilitates Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree my understanding of BIM      Feedback Section 2 (optional): Please provide additional written feedback or suggestions PART III | APPENDIX D PAGE 326 Optional empty feedback sheet for any additional Part I: Feedback Sheets Comments or Suggestions Page 8 of 8 V2.2 May 17, 2010 PART III | APPENDIX D PAGE 327 APPENDIX E Statements of contribution PART III | APPENDIX E PAGE 328 PART III | APPENDIX E PAGE 329 PART III | APPENDIX E PAGE 330 PART III | APPENDIX E PAGE 331 PART III | APPENDIX E PAGE 332 PART III | APPENDIX E PAGE 333 PART III | APPENDIX E PAGE 334 PART III | APPENDIX E PAGE 335 PART III | APPENDIX E PAGE 336 PART III | APPENDIX E PAGE 337 PART III | APPENDIX E PAGE 338 APPENDIX F Compilation of all bibliographic references cited within the introduction document, submitted papers and preceding appendices Appendix F: compiled bibliography v1.0 Building Information Modelling: conceptual constructs and performance improvement tools 1. Abdelmohsen, S. M. A. (2011). An 11. AIA, (2007), Integrated project delivery: a guide, Ethnographically Informed Analysis of Design AIA California Council, Washington, DC, U.S. Intent Communication in BIM-enabled 12. AIA. (2008). Model Progression Specifications. Architectural Practice. (Doctor of Philosophy), In M. P. Specifications (Ed.): AIA California Georgia Institute of Technology. Council. 2. Accenture Consulting, (2004). “e-Government 13. AIA, (2012a), E203: Building Information Leadership: High Performance, Maximum Modeling and Data Exhibit, The American Value”, fifth annual global study of e- Institute of Architects, Washington, DC, U.S. government, Washington, U.S. 14. AIA, (2012b), G Document 201: Project Digital 3. ACG. (2010). Productivity in the Building Data Protocol Form, The American Institute of Network-Assessing the Impacts of Building Architects, Washington, DC, U.S. Information Models, Report to the Built Environment, Innovation and Industry Council 15. AIA, (2012c), G Document 202: Building (BEIIC) (pp. 98). Sydney: Allen Consulting Group. Information Modeling Form, The American Institute of Architects, Washington, DC, U.S. 4. Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a System of Systems Concepts. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 16. AIA-CA, (2012), BIM in Practice - BIM Education, 17(11), 661-671. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.17.11.661 a Position Paper by the Australian Institute of Architects and Consult Australia, Available at: 5. AEC, (2012), AEC UK: BIM Protocol http://www.bim.architecture.com.au/ [last Implementing UK BIM Standards for the accessed April 10, 2013]. Architectural, Engineering and Construction industry 17. AIA and University of Minnesota, (2012), IPD http://aecuk.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/aec Case Studies, The American Institute of ukbimprotocol-v2-0.pdf, [last accessed April 10, Architects, Washington, DC, U.S. 2013]. 18. Akintoye, A., Goulding, J., & Zawdie, G. (2012). 6. AGC. (2006). The Contractors' Guide to BIM - Construction Innovation and Process Edition 1: Associated General Contractors of Improvement (First ed.). Chichester, UK: John America (AGC). Wiley & Sons. 7. AGC, (2006a), Consensus Docs 301 BIM 19. Alroomi, A., Jeong, D., & Oberlender, G. (2012). Addendum, the Associated General Contractor Analysis of Cost-Estimating Competencies Using of America, Arlington, U.S. Criticality Matrix and Factor Analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 8. AGC, (2006b), The Contractors' Guide to BIM 138(11), 1270-1280. doi: (1st Ed), Associated General Contractors of doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000351 America, Arlington, U.S. 20. Alshawi, M., & Faraj, I. (2002). Integrated 9. AGC. (2013). Certificate of Management — construction environments: technology and Building Information Modeling. Retrieved implementation. Construction Innovation, 2(1), January 4, 2013, from 33-51. http://www.agc.org/cs/cm-bim 21. AMCA, (2012a), BIM-MEP AUS, Roadmap, 2012 10. Ahmad, M. A., Demain, P., & Price, A. D. F. Parliamentary Launch, Melbourne, Australia: Air (2012). BIM Implementation Plans: a Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors’ Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at the Association of Australia. Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) 28th Annual 22. AMCA, (2012b), BIM-MEP AUS Practices: Conference, Edinburgh, UK. Naming Conventions and Units of Measure. http://www.arcom.ac.uk/- Melbourne, Australia: Air Conditioning and docs/proceedings/ar2012-0033- Mechanical Contractors’ Association of 0042_Ahmad_Demian_Price.pdf Australia. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 339 23. Amirebrahimi, S. (2012). BIM for Facilitation of 32. Armstrong, P. I., Day, S. X., McVay, J. P., & Land Administration Systems in Australia. In A. Rounds, J. (2008). Holland's RIASEC Model as an Rajabifard, I. Williamson & M. Kalantari (Eds.), A Integrative Framework for Individual National Infrastructure for Managing Land Differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Information, a Research Snapshot (pp. 95-99). 55(1), 1. 24. Andersson, N., & Büchmann-Slorup, R. (2010, 33. Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1983). 16-18 November, 2010). BIM-based Scheduling Central perspectives and debates in of Construction: A Comparative Analysis of organization theory. Administrative science Prevailing and BIM-based Scheduling Processes. quarterly, 245-273. Paper presented at the Applications of IT In The 34. Atkinson, D. (2011). Approaches and Strategies AEC Industry: Proceeding Of The 27th of Social Research, Essay for Reasearch International Conference - CIB W78 2010, Cairo, Methods Class, RMIT. Egypt. http://minyos.its.rmit.edu.au/~dwa/Methods.ht 25. Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Theoretical ml frameworks in qualitative research: SAGE 35. Austin, S., Newton, A., Steele, J., & Waskett, P. Publications. (2002). Modelling and managing project 26. Anthony, F. (1992). A software process complexity. International Journal of Project immaturity model. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, Management, 20(3), 191-198. 17(4), 22-23. doi: 36. Autodesk. (2005, 12 June, 2006). Parametric http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/141874.141878 Building Modeling: BIM's Foundation. from 27. ANZRS, (2011), Australian & New Zealand Revit http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/Revit_BI Standards. Version 3 (2012), Available at: M_Parametric_Building_Modeling_Jun05.pdf http://www.anzrs.org/ [last accessed April 10, 37. Ayyaz, M., Ruikar, K., & Emmitt, S. (2012). 2013] Towards Understanding BPR Needs for BIM 28. APEC, (2004). “E-government from a User’s Implementation (pp. 18-28): IGI Global. Perspective”, APEC Telecommunication and 38. Baba, H. D. (2010). Building Information Information Working Group 29th Meeting Modeling in Local Construction Industry. (APEC TEL 29), Hong Kong, China, March 21- 26, (Master's of Science), Universiti Teknologi 2004. Malaysia, Johor Nahru. Retrieved from 29. Aranda-Mena, G., Crawford, J., Chevez, A., & http://eprints.utm.my/15311/1/HammadDaboB Froese, T. (2009). Building information abaMFKA2010.pdf modelling demystified: does it make business 39. Bach, J. (1994). The Immaturity of the CMM. sense to adopt BIM? International Journal of AMERICAN PROGRAMMER, 7, 13-18. Managing Projects in Business, 2(3), 419-434. doi: 10.1108/17538370910971063 40. Baird, L., & Henderson, J. C. (2001). The Knowledge Engine: How to create fast cycles of 30. Arayici, Y., Coates, P., Koskela, L., & Kagioglou, knowledge to performance and performance to M. (2011). Knowledge and Technology Transfer knowledge: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. from Universities to Industries: A Case Study Approach from the Built Environment Field. 41. Ball, L. Z., Gui, L. Y., Peng, L., & Hu, Q. (2012). Paper presented at the International Higher Complex structural model information Education Congress: New Trends and Issues, integration and collaborative computing. Istanbul, Turkey. Industrial Construction, 42(10). http://usir.salford.ac.uk/15876/2/Knowledge_a nd_Technology_Transfer_from_Universities_to _Industries_A_Case_Study_Approach_from_the _Built_Environment_Field.pdf 31. Arif, M., Egbu, C., Alom, O., & Khalfan, M. M. A. (2009). Measuring knowledge retention: a case study of a construction consultancy in the UAE. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(1), 92-108. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 340 42. Bannan-Ritland, B., Dabbagh, N., & Murphy, K. 49. Baumgärtel, K., Katranuschkov, P., & Scherer, R. (2000). Learning object systems as constructivist (2012). Design and Software Architecture of a learning environments: Related assumptions, Cloud-based Virtual Energy Laboratory for theories, and applications. In D. Wiley (Ed.), The Energy-efficient Design and Life Cycle Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Simulation eWork and eBusiness in Version (Vol. 24). Online: Association for Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. Instructional Technology and the Association for 9-16): CRC Press. Educational Communications and Technology. 50. BCA, (2012), Singapore BIM Guide (ver 1.0), Retrieved from Building and Construction Authority, Singapore, http://reusability.org/read/chapters/bannan- 2012. ritland.doc. 51. Beach, T. H., Rana, O. F., Rezgui, Y., Parashar, 43. Barett, S., Treacy, M., O'Reilly, B., Spillane, J., M., & Cardiff, U. (2013). Cloud Computing for Lim, J., von Meding, J., Geary, K., Deary, N., & the Architecture, Engineering & Construction Booth, G. (2013). Early Implementation of BIM Sector: Requirements, Prototype & Experience. into a Cold-Formed Steel Design/ Fabricator and Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems an Architectural/Planning Consultancy. Paper and Applications, 2(1), 8. presented at the 38th Australasian University Building Educators Association (AUBEA) 52. BEIIC, (2010), Productivity In The Buildings Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. Network: Assessing The Impacts Of Building Information Models. Melbourne, Australia: Built 44. Barison, M. B., & Santos, E. T. (2010). An Environment Innovation and Indutry Council overview of BIM specialists. Paper presented at (BEIIC). the Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Proceedings of the International Conference, 53. Benner, P. (1984). From Novice to Expert: Nottingham, UK, Nottingham University Press. Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice. Menlo Park, California: Addison- 45. Barison, M. B., & Santos, E. T. (2011). The Wesley Publishers Company. Competencies of BIM Specialists: A Comparative Analysis of the Literature Review and Job Ad 54. Bentley. (2003, July 12, 2008). Does the Building Descriptions. Paper presented at the Industry Really Need to Start Over - A Response International Workshop on Computing in Civil from Bentley to Autodesk's BIM-Revit Proposal Engineering 2011. for the Future. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41182% http://www.laiserin.com/features/bim/bentley 28416%2973 _bim_whitepaper.pdf 46. Barlish, K. (2011). How to Measure the Benefits 55. Bentley. (2006, 12 June, 2006). Build As One - of BIM, a Case Study Approach. (Master of BIM is a new way of approaching the design and Science), Arizona State University. Retrieved documentation of building projects. from from http://www.bentley.com/en- http://repository.asu.edu/attachments/57013/c US/Promo/Build+As+One/What+is+it/ ontent/Barlish_asu_0010N_10983.pdf 56. Bergmann, B. (2000). Arbeitsimmanente 47. Barlish, K., & Sullivan, K. (2012). How to Kompetenzentwicklung. Kompetenzentwicklung measure the benefits of BIM - A case study und Berufsarbeit, 11, 11-39. approach. Automation in Construction, 24(0), 57. Berio, G., & Harzallah, M. (2005). Knowledge 149-159. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2012.02.008 management for competence management. 48. Barrett, S. A., Spillane, J. P., & Lim, J. B. (2013). Journal of Universal Knowledge Management Early Implementation of Building Information (1), 21-28. Modeling into a Cold-Formed Steel Company: 58. Berlo, L., Dijkmans, T., Hendriks, H, Spekkink, D. Providing Novel Project Management and Pel, W. (2012), BIM Quickscan: Benchmark Techniques and Solutions to Industry. American of BIM Performance in The Netherlands, Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Proceedings of the CIB W78 2012: 29th 1(6), 164-173. International Conference, Beirut, Lebanon, 17- 19 October. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 341 59. Bernstein, P. (2005, October 9, 2008). 72. Bohlouli, M., Ansari, F., & Fathi, M. (2012). Integrated Practice: It’s Not Just About the Design and Realization of Competence Profiling Technology. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from Tool for Effective Selection of Professionals in http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek05/tw0 Maintenance Management. Paper presented at 930/tw0930bp_notjusttech.cfm the Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2012 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, 60. Bertin, J. (2000). Matrix theory ofgraphics. and Cybernetics, Seoul, Korea. Information Design Journal, 10(1), 5-19. 73. Bono, E. D. (1970). Lateral Thinking; Creativity 61. Bew, M., Underwood, J., Wix, J., & Storer, G. Step by Step. New York: Harper & Row. (2008). Going BIM in a Commercial World. Paper presented at the EWork and EBusiness in 74. Broquetas, M. (2011). Using BIM as a Project Architecture, Engineering and Construction: Management Tool - How can BIM improve the European Conferences on Product and Process delivery of Complex Construction Projects? Modeling (ECCPM 2008), Sophia Antipolis, (Master Degree Master's Thesis), HFT Stuttgart, France. Stuttgart, Germany. (x) 62. BIMe, (2013). www.BIMexcellence.net [last 75. Brozova, H., & Subrt, T. (2008). Competency visited May 19, 2013] Mapping and Modelling in System Design. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica, 39(2), 125-131. 63. BIMe. (2013). The BIM Dictionary. Retrieved May 26, 2013, from BIM Excellence (BIMe) 76. Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. The http://www.BIMexcellence.net/dictionary project benefits of Building Information Modelling (BIM). International Journal of 64. BIMScore, (2013). www.BIMScore.com [last Project Management (0). doi: visited May 19, 2013] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.0 65. BIMserver. (2011). Open Source Building 01 Information Modelserver. Retrieved October 77. Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. (2013). 20, 2011, from http://bimserver.org/ The project benefits of Building Information 66. BIPS, (2008), bips værktøjer, available at: Modelling (BIM). International Journal of http://bips.dk/ [last accessed April 11, 2013]. Project Management, 31(7), 971-980. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.0 67. BIPS. (2008). Digital Construction, 3D Working 01 Method: Danish Government. 78. Buchholz, W. (2006). Ontology. In D. G. 68. BIS. (2011). A Report for the Government Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Construction Client Group, Building Information Management (pp. 694-702): Idea Group Modelling (BIM) Working Party Strategy: Reference. Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS). 79. BuildingSMART, (2011a), Public sector demand for BIM, Newsletter n6, November 2011 69. Blaikie, N. W. H. (2000). Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation: Polity Press. 80. BuildingSMART, (2011b), All set for the 2015, the BIM Issue, Build Smart, Issue 09, 2011 70. Bo, X., & Albert, P. C. C. (2012). Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study. 81. buidingSMART (Producer). (2012, January 4, Engineering, Construction and Architectural 2013). Certification of Building Information Management, 19(1), 7-24. Modelling (BIM) Competency for Individuals and Companies, buildingSMART Singapore. 71. Bogen, C., Rashid, M., & East, W. (2011). A Retrieved from Framework for Building Information Fusion. http://www.aces.org.sg/pdf/110- Paper presented at the ICT for a Low Carbon 2012_Certification%20of%20BIM%20Competen Economy, Building Data Models, Proceedings of cy%20for%20Individuals%20and%20Companies the 2nd Workshop organised by the EEB Data _29%20May%202012.pdf Models Community CIB Conference W078- W012, Sophia Antipolis, France. http://2011- cibw078-w102.cstb.fr/papers/Paper-66.pdf PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 342 82. BuildingSMART, (2012), National Building 92. Cerovsek, T. (2011). A review and outlook for a Information Modelling Initiative, A strategy for ‘Building Information Model’(BIM): A multi- the focussed adoption of building information standpoint framework for technological modelling and related digital technologies and development. Advanced Engineering processes for the Australian built environment Informatics, 25(2), 224-244. sector, vol. 1, buidlingSMART Australasia. 93. Cerovsek, T. (2012). BIM cube and systems-of- 83. Burgun, A. and Bodenreider, A., (2001), Aspects systems framework eWork and eBusiness in of the taxonomic relation in the biomedical Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. domain, In Proceedings of the international 421-428): CRC Press. conference on Formal Ontology in Information 94. Cerovšek, T., Zupančič, T., & Kilar, V. (2010). Systems, vol 2001 (FOIS '01), ACM, New York, Framework for model-based competency NY, USA, 222-233. management for design in physical and virtual 84. Byggekostnader, (2010), worlds. ITcon–Journal of Information Byggekostnadsprogrammet for prosjektet Nr. Technology in Construction, 15(1), 1-22. 14292 Bygg Ned Barrierene Rapport fra 95. Chan King, C., Heng, L., & Martin, S. (2012). The dybdeintervju – kvalitativ, available at: use of virtual prototyping for hazard http://www.byggekostnader.no/ [last accessed identification in the early design stage. April 5, 2013]. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, 85. Cabinet Office, (2011), Government Management, 12(1), 29-42. Construction Strategy, - Construction Industry 96. Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J. R., & Council, London, UK, 2011. Benjamins, V. R. (1999). What are ontologies, 86. Cabinet Office, (2012), The Government Soft and why do we need them? Intelligent Systems Landings Policy, available at and Their Applications, IEEE [see also IEEE http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/gsl-policy-2/ Intelligent Systems], 14(1), 20-26. [last accessed April 5, 2013]. 97. Charalambous, G., Demian, P., Yeomans, S., 87. Card, S. K., & Mackinlay, J. (1997). The structure Thorpe, T., Peters, C., & Doughty, N. (2012). BIM of the information visualization design space. and Online Collaboration Platforms–An Paper presented at the IEEE Symposium on investigation into emerging requirements. Information Visualization, Phoenix, AZ, USA. Paper presented at the Engineering, Project and Production Management (EPPM 2012), 3rd 88. Cartlidge, A., Hanna, A., Rudd, C., Macfarlane, I., International Conference, University of Windebank, J., & Rance, S. (2007). An Brighton, UK. Introductory Overview of ITIL® V3, Version 1.0. http://www.ppml.url.tw/EPPM/conferences/20 In A. Cartlidge & M. Lillycrop (Eds.): The UK 12/downioad/SESSON3_A/04%20E147.pdf Chapter of the IT Service Management Forum. 98. Chen, Y., Dib, H. & Cox, R. F. (2012). “A 89. CIBER, (2012), Building Information Modelling Framework for Measuring Building Information (BIM): Australian Perspectives and Adoption Modeling Maturity in Construction Projects”, Trends, prepared for the Tasmanian Building 29th International Conference on Applications and Construction Industry Training Board. In G. of IT in the AEC Industry - CIB W078, Beirut Brewer (Ed.). Tasmania, Australia: Centre for Lebanon. Interdisciplinary Built Environment Research, University of Newcastle. 99. Cheng, C.P., Lau, G.T., Law, K.H., and Pan, J. (2008), Albert Jones Regulation retrieval using 90. CIC, (2013), BIM Protocol: Standard Protocol for industry specific taxonomies, Artificial use in projects using Building Information Intelligence and Law September, vol(16), Issue Models, 1st ed, - Construction Industry Council, 3, pp. 277-303 London, UK, 2013. 100. Cho, Y. S., Lee, S. I., & Bae, J. S. (2013). 91. CEN. (2004). European eConstruction Reinforcement Placement in a Concrete Slab Framework (EeF) - Context and Scope for Object Using Structural Building Information “eConstruction” CEN Workshop Agreement: Modeling. Computer-Aided Civil and European Committee for Standardization. Infrastructure Engineering. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8667.2012.00794.x PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 343 101. Chun, M., Sohn, K., Arling, P., & Granados, N. F. 109. Cottam, H. (1999). Ontologies to Assist Process (2008). Systems Theory and Knowledge Oriented Knowledge Acquisition (Draft): SPEDE, Management Systems: The Case of Pratt- Rolls-Royce plc 1999 covered by SPEDE IPR Whitney Rocketdyne. Paper presented at the agreement. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International 110. CPC, (2011), CPIx BIM assessment form - Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. Construction Project Information, available at 102. Clancey, W. J. (1993). The knowledge level http://www.cpic.org.uk/ [last accessed April 5, reinterpreted: modeling socio-technical 2013]. systems. In K. M. Ford & J. M. Bradshaw (Eds.), 111. Crawford, J. K. (2006). The Project Management Knowledge acquisition as modeling table of Maturity Model. Information Systems contents (pp. 33-49): John Wiley & Sons, New Management, 23(4), 50-58. York. 112. CRC-CI, (2007), National Guidelines and Case 103. Clements, J., & Cachadinha, N. (2012). Building Studies 2007-002-EP, available at: information modeling como ferramenta de http://www.construction- visualização de realidade aumentada em obras innovation.info/index.php?id=1083, [last de reabilitação–um caso de estudo. Paper accessed Apil 8, 2013]. presented at the Building Congress, 2012, Coimbra, Portugal. 113. CRC-CI. (2008, August 14, 2009). National http://hdl.handle.net/10362/10013 Guidelines and Case Studies 2007-002-EP. 2008, from http://bit.ly/AUguide 104. Clemson. (2007, 14 April 2007). Definition of Policy, Clemson University - Office of Research 114. Cristea, A. I. (2004). What can the Semantic Compliance, Definitions of Research Compliance Web do for Adaptive Educational Hypermedia? Terms. Definitions of Research Compliance Educational Technology and Society, 7(4), 40- Terms. Retrieved 14 April 2007, from 58. http://www.clemson.edu/research/orcSite/orcI 115. Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of RB_DefsP.htm making quality certain. New York: New 105. Coates, P., Arayici, Y., & Koskela, L. (2010). Using American Library. the Knowledge Transfer Partnership model as a 116. CWIC. (2004). The Building Technology and method of transferring BIM and Lean process Construction Industry Technology Roadmap. In related knowledge between academia and A. Dawson (Ed.). Melbourne: Collaborative industry: A Case Study Approach. Paper Working In Consortium. presented at the International Conference of Ecobuild America: Sustainable, High 117. CWIC. (2005). Collaborative Working in Performance & Technology Solutions for Built Construction, The Building and Construction Environment, Washington DC, USA. Industry Technology Roadmap. In A. Dawson http://usir.salford.ac.uk/12890/ (Ed.). Melbourne: Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. 106. CONCUR. (2001, July 11, 2008). Concurrent Design and Engineering in Building and Civil 118. Dainty, A. R. J., Cheng, M.-I., & Moore, D. R. Engineering - A project sponsored by the (2005). Competency-based Model for Predicting European Commission under Brite-Euram 3 Construction Project Managers’ Performance. (GROWTH) programme. Retrieved August 14, Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(1), 2- 2009, 2008, from http://bit.ly/CONCUR 9. 107. Cooke, N. M., & McDonald, J. E. (1986). A formal 119. Davenport, T. H. (1992). Process Innovation: methodology for acquiring and representing reengineering work through information expert knowledge. Paper presented at the technology: Harvard Business School Press. Proceedings of the IEEE. 120. Davidson, A. R. (2009). A Study of the 108. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Deployment and Impact of Building Information Qualitative Research: Techniques and Modelling Software in the Construction Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory Industry. E-Engineering: a journal of research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE papers written by undergraduate students in Publications. the Faculty of Engineering, the University of Leeds (1). PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 344 121. Davies, R. (1989). The Creation of New 133. Diane, H. P. (1998). Across the manufacturing- Knowledge by Information Retrieval and marketing interface Classification of significant Classification. Journal of Documentation, 45(4), research. International Journal of Operations & 273-301. Production Management, 18(12), 1205-1222. 122. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, 134. Dib, H., Chen, Y., & Cox, R. (2012, 17-19 October Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of 2012). A Framework for Measuring Building Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), Information Modeling Maturity Based on 319-340. Perception of Practitioners and Academics Outside the USA. Paper presented at the 123. DBIS, (2011), BIM Management for value, cost & Proceedings of the CIB W78 2012: 29th carbon improvement, report number URN International Conference, Beirut, Lebanon. 11/948, Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, London, UK, 2011. 135. DIISR, (2010), Issue Paper: Digital Modelling and the Built Environment, Built Environment Digital 124. De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. Modelling Working Group: Department of (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Educational psychologist, 31(2), 105-113. 136. Dillon, J. T. (1984). The Classification of 125. De Paula, N., Uechi, M. E., & Melhado, S. B. Research Questions. Review of Educational (2013). Novas demandas para as empresas de Research, 54(3), 327-361. projeto de edifícios (New demands for building design firms). Ambiente Construído, 13(3), 137- 137. Do Nascimento, E. L. (2012). Application of 159. Model Supported Collaboration In Information Technology for Construction Projects In The City 126. Det Digitale Byggeri, (2010), Digital Construction Of São José Dos Pinhais (translated title from – a government initiative available at: Portuguese). (Masters in Civil Construction http://www.detdigitalebyggeri.dk/english [last Maters), Universidade Federal do Paraná, accessed April 8, 2013]. Curitiba, Brazil. Retrieved from 127. De Vasconcelos, J. B., Kimble, C., Miranda, H., & http://www.prppg.ufpr.br/ppgcc/sites/www.pr Henriques, V. (2009). A Knowledge-Engine ppg.ufpr.br.ppgcc/files/dissertacoes/d0178.pdf Architecture for a Competence Management 138. Doss, D. A., Chen, I. C. L., & Holland, L. D. (2008). Information System. Paper presented at the UK A proposed variation of the capability maturity Academy for Information Systems Conference model framework among financial management Proceedings 2009. settings. Paper presented at the Allied 128. De Vries, L. (2013). A research towards Academies International Conference, Tunica. completing the asset information life cycle. 139. Dossick, C. S., & Neff, G. (2009). Organizational (Master's of Science in Geographical divisions in BIM-enabled commercial Information Management and Applications), TU construction. Journal of Construction Delft, The Netherlands. Retrieved from Engineering and Management, 136(4), 459-467. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student- theses/2013-0425-200627/Thesis%20report.pdf 140. Downward, P., & Mearman, A. (2007). Retroduction as Mixed-Methods Triangulation 129. Debus, M. (1989). Methodological Review: a In Economic Research: Reorienting Economics Handbook for Excellence in Focus Group Into Social Science. Cambridge Journal of Research: Academy for Educational Economics, 31(1), 77-99. doi: Development, Washington D.C. 10.1093/cje/bel009 130. Denzer, A., & Hedges, K. (2008). From CAD to 141. Draganidis, F., Chamopoulou, P., & Mentzas, G. BIM: Educational strategies for the coming (2006). An Ontology Based Tool for Competency paradigm shift. AEI. Management and Learning Paths. Paper 131. Denzin, N. K. (Ed.). (1978). Sociological presented at the I-KNOW 2006, Graz, Austria. Methods: A Sourcebook (2nd ed.). New York: 142. Draganidis, F., & Mentzas, G. (2006). McGraw-Hill. Competency based management: a review of 132. Derbentseva, N., Safayeni, F., & Cañas, A. J. systems and approaches. Information (2007). Concept maps: Experiments on dynamic Management & Computer Security, 14(1), 51- thinking. Journal of Research in Science 64. Teaching, 44(3), 448-465. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 345 143. Dubin, R. (1978). Theory Building: Free Press 154. Ellström, P.-E. (1997). The many meanings of New York. occupational competence and qualification. Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(6), 144. Dubois, D. D. (1998). The Competency 266-273. doi: 10.1108/03090599710171567 Casebook: Twelve Studies in Competency-based Performance Improvement: Human Resource 155. Eppler, M., & Burkhard, R. A. (2005). Knowledge Development Press. Visualization. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (pp. 145. Duddy, K., & Kiegeland, J. (2011). Beyond MOF 551-560). Covent Garden, London: Idea Group Constraints - Multiple Constraint Set Meta Reference. modelling for Lifecycle Management. Paper presented at the ACM/IEEE 14th International 156. Eppler, M. J., & Platts, K. W. (2009). Visual Conference on Model Driven Engineering Strategizing: The Systematic Use of Visualization Languages and Systems, Wellington, New in the Strategic-Planning Process. Long Range Zealand. Planning, 42(1), 42-74. 146. E-BOUW. (2008, July 10, 2008). Building 157. Ermilova, E., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2006). Information Model(ing) - TNO wiki (no longer Competency and Profiling Management in online). 2008, from http://wiki.e- Virtual Organization Breeding Environments bouw.org/index.php?title=BIM_- Network-Centric Collaboration and Supporting _Building_Information_Model(ing) Frameworks (Vol. 224, pp. 131-142): Springer US. 147. Eadie, R., Browne, M., Odeyinka, H., McKeown, C., & McNiff, S. (2013). BIM implementation 158. Fallon, K. K., & Palmer, M. E. (2007). General throughout the UK construction project Buildings Information Handover Guide: lifecycle: An analysis. Automation in Principles, Methodology and Case Studies (pp. Construction, 36(0), 145-151. doi: 91): NIST. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.09.001 159. Farias, F. (2013). Contemporary Strategies for 148. Eastman, C. (1999). Building Product Models: Sustainable Design. (PhD Doctor of Philosophy), Computer Environments Supporting Design and Texas A&M University, Texas, United States. Construction. Florida, USA: CRC Press LLC. Retrieved from http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/149 149. Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. 379 (2011). BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, 160. Feng, C.-W., Mustaklem, O., & Chen, Y.-J. Designers, Engineers and Contractors (2 ed.): (2011). The BIM-Based Information Integration Wiley. Sphere for Construction Projects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th 150. Edgar, A. (2007, July 12, 2008). NBIMS - International Symposium on Automation and Overview of Building Information Models Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2011), Seoul, presentation. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from Korea. http://www.facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/ http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/S04- docs/BIM_Slide_Show.ppt. 6.pdf 151. EFQM. (2008). European Foundation for Quality 161. Ferber, J., & Gutknecht, O. (1998). A meta- Management. Retrieved December 23, 2008, model for the analysis and design of from http://www.efqm.org/ organizations in multi-agent systems. Paper 152. El-Diraby, T.A., Lima, A. and Feis, B., (2005), presented at the Multi Agent Systems, 1998. Domain taxonomy for construction concepts: Proceedings. International Conference on. toward a formal ontology for construction 162. Ferreira, N. B. T. (2012). A WebGL application knowledge, Journal of Computing in Civil based on BIM IFC. (Master's in Information Engineering ASCE, vol 19 (4), pp. 395–406. Engineering), Universidade Fernando Pessoa. 153. El-Diraby, T. E. (2012). Epistemology of Retrieved from Construction Informatics. Journal of http://bdigital.ufp.pt/bitstream/10284/3712/1/ Construction Engineering and Management, A%20WebGL%20Application%20Based%20on% 138(1), 53-65. 20BIM%20IFC%20- %20Nelson%20Ferreira%2019004.pdf PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 346 163. FIATECH. (2005). Capital Projects Technology 174. Fussel, T., Beazley, S., Aranda-Mena, G., Chevez, Roadmap. (12 June 2006). A., Crawford, J., Succar, B., Drogemuller, R., www.fiatech.org/projects/roadmap/cptri.htm Gard, S., & Nielsen, D. (2009). National Guidelines for Digital Modelling: Case Studies, 164. Filipe, J., & Liu, K. (2000). The EDA model: an Cooperative Research Centre for Construction organizational semiotics perspective to norm- Innovation. Brisbane, QLD. based agent design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Agents' 2000 Workshop on 175. Fuxman, A., Giorgini, P., Kolp, M., & Norms and Institutions in Multi-Agent Systems. Mylopoulos, J. (2001). Information systems as Spain. social structures. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the international conference on 165. Fischer, M. (2001). Introduction to 4D Research. Formal Ontology in Information Systems- 2006. http://www.stanford.edu/group/4D/ Volume 2001. 166. Ford, K. M., Bradshaw, J. M., Adams-Webber, J. 176. Gan, C., & Luo, X. S. (2013). Application of R., & Agnew, N. M. (1993). Knowledge Earthquake Resistance Analysis Technique in acquisition as a constructive modeling activity. the Design of Constructional Engineering. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Advanced Materials Research, 756-759, 4482- 8(1), 9-32. 4486. 167. Forgues, D., Iordanova, I., & Chiocchio, F. 177. Gandhi, S., & Jupp, J. (2013). Characteristics of (2012). A Framework for an Integrated and Green BIM: Process and Information Evolutionary Body of Knowledge. Paper Management Requirements. In A. Bernard, L. presented at the Construction Research Rivest & D. Dutta (Eds.), Product Lifecycle Congress, ASCE 2012, Indiana. USA. Management for Society (Vol. 409, pp. 596- http://rebar.ecn.purdue.edu/crc2012/papers/p 605): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. dfs/-275.pdf 178. Garrett, J. and Teizer, J., (2009), Human Factors 168. Forgues, D., & Lejeune, A. (2013). BIM: In Search Analysis Classification System Relating to of the Organisational Architect. International Human Error Awareness Taxonomy in Journal of Project Organisation and Construction Safety.” Journal of Construction Management, 0(0). Engineering and Management, vol 135(8), pp. 169. Forze, C. and Di Nuzzo, F., (1998), Meta-analysis 754–763. Applied to Operations Management: 179. Garvin, G. J. (2012). Building Information Summarizing the Results of Empirical Research, Modeling (BIM) Performance Assessment International Journal of Production Research, Framework for Organisations in the Singapore vol 36(3), pp. 837-61. Construction Industry. (Bachelor of Science - 170. Fox, S., & Hietanen, J. (2007). Project and Facilities Management Bachelor of Interorganizational use of building information Science), National University of Singapore. models: potential for automational, (U086761Y) informational and transformational effects. 180. Gazendam, H. W., & Jorna, R. J. (1998). Theories Construction Management and Economics, about architecture and performance of multi- 25(3), 289 - 296. agent systems: University of Groningen. 171. Froese, T. (2003a). Future Directions for IFC- 181. GBA, (2013), Rgd BIM Norm 2013, Government Based Interoperability. ITCON, 8(Special Issue Building Agency, The Netherlands, 2013. IFC - Product models for the AEC arena), 231- 246. 182. Gerrard, A., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., & Skitmore, M. (2010). Building Information Modelling in the 172. Froese, T. (2003b). Future Directions for Model- Australian Architecture, Engineering and Based Interoperability. Paper presented at the Construction Industry. In J. Underwood & U. Construction Research 2003. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on 173. Froese, T. M. (2010). The impact of emerging Building Information Modelling and information technology on project management Construction Informatics: Concepts and for construction. Automation in Construction, Technologies (pp. 521-544): Information Science 19(5), 531-538. doi: DOI: Reference, IGI Publishing. 10.1016/j.autcon.2009.11.004 PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 347 183. Ghandi, S., & Jupp, J. R. (2013). Green BIM and 192. Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Green Star certification practices: Case studies Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611- in commercial high-rise office design. Paper 642. presented at the 38th Australasian University 193. Grilo, A., & Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2010). Value Building Educators Association (AUBEA) proposition on interoperability of BIM and Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. collaborative working environments. 184. Giel, B., & Issa, R. R. A. (2012). Quality and Automation in Construction, 19(5), 522-530. Maturity of BIM Implementation within the doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2009.11.003 AECO Industry. Paper presented at the 14th 194. Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to International Conference on Computing in Civil portable ontology specifications. Knowledge and Building Engineering, Moscow. Acquisition, 5(2), 199-220. http://www.icccbe.ru/paper_long/0234paper_l ong.pdf 195. Gruber, T. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge 185. Giel, B., & Issa, R. R. A. (2013). Synthesis of sharing? International journal of human- Existing BIM Maturity Toolsets to Evaluate computer studies, 43(5-6), 907-928. Building Owners’ BIM Competency. Paper presented at the 2013 ASCE International 196. GSA. (2006). The National 3D-4D-BIM Program. Workshop on Computing in Civil Engineering Washington, DC: U.S. General Services (IWCCE), University of Southern California, CA. Administration - Public Buildings Service, Office of the Chief Architect. 186. Gillies, A., & Harris, D. (2009). Performance improvement in a Community Care Setting in 197. GSA, (2007), GSA BIM guides Series, U.S. Canada. Paper presented at the Proceedings of General Services Administration, Washington the 4th European Conference on DC, U.S. Entrepreneurship and Innovation, The 198. Gulliver, S., Grzybek, H., Radosavljevic, M., & University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. Wiafe, I. (2013). Changing building user attitude 187. Gillies, A., & Howard, J. (2003). Managing and organisational policy towards sustainable change in process and people: Combining a resource use in healthcare. Health Policy and maturity model with a competency-based Technology, 0(0). doi: approach. Total Quality Management & http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2013.03.006 Business Excellence, 14(7), 779-787. doi: 199. Gunasekara, K., & Jayasena, H. S. (2013). 10.1080/1478336032000090996 Identification of a Technological Framework for 188. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Implementing Building Information Modelling In discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for Sri Lanka. Paper presented at the The Second qualitative research Retrieved from World Construction Symposium 2013: Socio- http://bit.ly/gfXxgX Economic Sustainability in Construction, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 189. Godager, B. (2011). Analysis of the Information http://www.suranga.net/publications/2013_bi Needs for Existing Buildings for Integration in m_tech_framework.pdf Modern BIM-Based Building Information Management. Paper presented at the 8th 200. Guo, X. F. (2013). Research on Structure Model International Conference on Environmental of Building Information Modeling Technology. Engineering; ICEE-2011 - International Advanced Materials Research, 791, 1704-1709. Conference on Environmental Engineering, 201. Häkkinen, L. (2012). Utilisation of Building Vilnius, Lithuania. Information Models in Production Organisation http://old.vgtu.lt/leidiniai/leidykla/Enviro2011/ of Foundation Engineering. (Master's of Science Articles/4/886_892_Godager_B.pdf Master’s Degree), Tampere University of 190. Gosling, J., Sassi, P., Naim, M., & Lark, R. (2012). Technology, Finland. Adaptable buildings: A systems approach. 202. Halfawy, M. R., & Froese, T. (2002, 12-14 June Sustainable Cities and Society (0). doi: 2002). Modeling and Implementation of Smart 10.1016/j.scs.2012.11.002 AEC Objects: An IFC Perspective. Paper 191. Graphisoft. (2006). Virtual Building concept. presented at the CIB w78 conference - www.graphisoft.com/products/virtual_building/ Distributing Knowledge in Building, Aarhus School of Architecture, Denmark. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 348 203. Hammersley, M. (Ed.). (2006). Sensitizing 213. Harty, J., & Laing, R. (2013, 27-29 June 2013). Concepts. London: SAGE. Facilitating meaningful collaboration in architectural design through the adoption of 204. Hampson, K., & Brandon, P. (2004). BIM (Building Information Modelling). Paper Construction 2020: A Vision of Australia's presented at the Computer Supported Property and Construction Industry. Australia: Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), 2013 IEEE CRC Construction Innovation. 17th International Conference on. 205. Hanlon, B. P. O. (2013). Decision Making and 214. He, G., Wang, G., & Liu, H. (2014). Sustainable Design Cognition in the age of Building Construction Project Life-Cycle Management Information Models. (Bachelor of Science), Based on Building Information Modeling. In J. School of Built Environment, Limerick Institute Wang, Z. Ding, L. Zou & J. Zuo (Eds.), of Technology. Proceedings of the 17th International 206. Hannele, K., Reijo, M., Tarja, M., Sami, P., Jenni, Symposium on Advancement of Construction K., & Teija, R. (2012). Expanding uses of building Management and Real Estate (pp. 31-42): information modeling in life-cycle construction Springer Berlin Heidelberg. projects. Work: A Journal of Prevention, 215. Hedden, H., (2010), The Accidental Taxonomist Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41(0), 114-119. (1st Ed.), Information Today Inc: Medford, U.S. doi: 10.3233/wor-2012-0144-114 216. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). 207. Hardgrave, B. C., & Armstrong, D. J. (2005). Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Software process improvement: it's a journey, Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of not a destination. Commun. ACM, 48(11), 93- Established Firms. Administrative science 96. doi: quarterly, 35(1), 9-30. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1096000.1096028 217. Hetherington, R. (2013). The Integration of 208. Haron, A. T. (2013). Organisational readiness to Architectural Design and Energy Modelling implement building information modelling: A Software. (Doctor of Philosophy PhD), The Open framework for design consultants in Malaysia. University. Retrieved from University of Salford. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/38060/1/ThesisRobinaHe http://usir.salford.ac.uk/29383/1/AHMAD_TAR therington.pdf MIZI_PhD_eThesis_2013_BIM_readiness.pdf 218. Hevey, D. (1997). The UK National (and Scottish) 209. Haron, A. T., Marshall-Ponting, A., & Aouad, G. Vocational Qualification System: State of the Art (2010). Building Information Modelling- or in a State? International Journal of Training Literature Review on Model to Determine the and Development, 1(4), 242-258. doi: Level of Uptake by Organisation. Paper 10.1111/1468-2419.00024 presented at the W078 - Special Track, 18th CIB World Building Congress, Salford, United 219. Hewson, C. (Ed.). (2006). Mixed Methods Kingdom. Research. London: SAGE. 210. Hartmann, T. A semiotic analysis of user 220. Hietanen, J., and Lehtinen, S., (2006), The Useful interfaces of building information model Minimum, Tampere University of Technology, systems. Journal of Computing in Civil Virtual Building Laboratory. Engineering, 0(ja), null. doi: 221. Hijazeh, E. H. M. (2011). Adopting a doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000358 Competency Based Human Resource 211. Hartmann, T., Gao, J., & Fischer, M. (2010). Management System in Palestine Cellular Closure to “Areas of Application for 3D and 4D Communication LTD-JAWWAL. (Master in Models on Construction Projects” by Timo Engineering Management Masters), As-Najah Hartmann, Ju Gao, and Martin Fischer. Journal National University, Nablous, Palestine. of Construction Engineering and Management, Retrieved from http://bit.ly/13lTkeR 136(8), 932-934. 222. Hirata, K., Ikeda, M., & Mizoguchi, R. (2001). 212. Hartmann, T., van Meerveld, H., Vossebeld, N., Total resolution for human resource & Adriaanse, A. (2012). Aligning Building development based on competency ontology. Information Model Tools and Construction ICCE2001. Management Methods. Automation in Construction, 22(0), 605-613. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.12.011 PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 349 223. Ho, S.-P., Tserng, H. P., & Jan, S.-H. (2013). 233. IAI. (2005, 12 June, 2006). Building Smart: Enhancing Knowledge Sharing Management Project Collaboration through Virtual Design Using BIM Approach in Construction. The and Construction. Retrieved 12 June, 2006, Scientifc World Journal, 0(0). from http://buildingsmart.org.au/ 224. Hoffman, R. R., & Lintern, G. (2006). Eliciting 234. Ibrahim, M., & Krawczyk, R. (2003). The Level of and Representing the Knowledge Experts The Knowledge of CAD Objects within the Building Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Information Model. Paper presented at the Performance. New York: Cambridge University ACADIA 2003 Conference, Muncie, IN, USA. Press. 235. Ibrahim, M., Krawczyk, R., & Schipporeit, G. 225. Holsapple, C. W., & Jones, K. (2006). Knowledge (2004). A Web-Based Approach to Transferring Management Strategy Formation. In D. G. Architectural Information to the Construction Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Site Based on the BIM Object Concept. Paper Management (pp. 419-428): Idea Group presented at the CAADRIA 2004 Conference, Reference. Seoul, South Korea. 226. Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2006). 236. Idema, H. J. (2010). Meer begrip voor meer grip. Knowledge Management Ontology. In D. G. (Master in Civil Engineering and Management Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Master Thesis), Universiteit Twente. Management (pp. 397-402): Idea Group 237. IEEE. (1990). IEEE Standard Computer Reference. Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard 227. Homer-Dixon, T. (2001). The Ingenuity Gap. Computer Glossaries Institute of Electrical and Canada: Vintage. Electronics Engineers. New York. 228. Hooper, M. (2012). BIM Anatomy An 238. IEEE. (2008). IEEE Standard for Learning investigation into implementation prerequisites. Technology - Data Model for Reusable (Master's Thesis), Lund University, Lund, Competency Definitions. IEEE Std 1484.20.1- Sweden. Retrieved from 2007, C1-26. doi: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downl 10.1109/ieeestd.2008.4445693 oadFile&recordOId=2972126&fileOId=2972151 239. İLAL, M. E. (2007). The Quest for Integrated 229. Hossain, M. K., Munns, A., & Rahman, M. M. Design System: a Brief Survey of Past and (2013). Enhancing team integration in Building Current Efforts. Middle East Technical University Information Modelling (BIM) projects. Paper Journal of the Faculty of Architecture (METU presented at the ARCOM Doctoral Workshop on JFA), 24(2), 10. BIM Management and Interoperability, 240. Ilozor, B. D., & Kelly, D. J. (2012). Building Birmingham School of the Built Environment, Information Modeling and Integrated Project Birmingham City University, Birmingham, Delivery in the Commercial Construction United Kingdom. http://www.arcom.ac.uk/- Industry: A Conceptual Study. Journal of docs/workshops/2013-06- Engineering, Project, and Production 20_Birmingham.pdf#page=82 Management, 2(1), 23-36. 230. Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence 241. IMS. (2002a). IMS Reusable Definition of of flexible organizational routines: The role of Competency or Educational Objective - Best agency and organizational context. Organization Practice and Implementation Guide IMS Global Science, 16(6), 618-636. Learning Consortium Version 1.0 - Final 231. HR-XML-Consortium. (2003). Competencies. Specification. Lake Mary, FL: IMS Global (Measurable Characteristics). Recommendation. Consortium. Retrieved from HR-XML Consortium website: 242. IMS. (2002b). IMS Reusable Definition of http://ns.hr-xml.org/2_0/HR-XML- Competency or Educational Objective – 2_0/CPO/Competencies.pdf Information Model IMS Global Learning 232. Hutchinson, A., & Finnemore, M. (1999). Consortium Version 1.0 - Final Specification. Standardized process improvement for Lake Mary, FL: IMS Global Consortium. construction enterprises. Total Quality Management, 10, 576-583. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 350 243. INPRO. (2010, 25 October, 2010). Open 251. IU. (2009b). The Indiana University Architect's Information Environment for Knowledge-Based Office - IU BIM Proficiency Matrix (Multi-tab Collaborative Processes throughout the Excel Workbook). 9 tabs. Retrieved from Indiana Lifecycle of a Building - What is InPro, University BIM Standards website: Background and General Project Information. http://www.indiana.edu/~uao/IU%20BIM%20Pr Retrieved June 26, 2013, from oficiency%20Matrix.xls http://www.inpro-project.eu/what.asp 252. Jaafari, A. (1997). Concurrent Construction and 244. Intagliata, J., Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2000). Life Cycle Project Management. Journal of Leveraging leadership competencies to produce Construction Engineering and Management, leadership brand: Creating distinctiveness by 123(4), 427-436. focusing on strategy and results. Human 253. Jaco, R. (2004). Developing an IS/ICT Resource Planning, 23(3), 12-23. management capability maturity framework. 245. Iordanova, I., Forgues, D., & Chiocchio, F. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2004 (2011). Creation of an Evolutive Conceptual annual research conference of the South African Know-how Framework for Integrative Building institute of computer scientists and information Design. Paper presented at the Computer Aided technologists on IT research in developing Architectural Design Futures 2011: Proceedings countries, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South of the 14th International Conference on Africa. Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures, 254. Jacobsson, M., & Linderoth, H. C. J. (2012). User Liege, Belgium. perceptions of ICT impacts in Swedish http://www.architexturez.net/sites/default/file construction companies: ‘it’s fine, just as it is’. s/pdf/cf2011_p108.content.pdf Construction Management and Economics, 246. ISO. (2004). ISO/IEC 15504-4:2004 Information 30(5), 339-357. doi: Technology - Process Assessment Part 4: 10.1080/01446193.2012.672757 Guidance on use for process improvement and 255. Jadhav, M., & Koutamanis, A. (2012). Integrated process capability determination. Retrieved collaborative approach to managing building October 11, 2008, from information modeling projects. Paper presented http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogu at the eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, e_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=37462 Engineering and Construction. 247. ISO. (2008a). ISO 9000 / ISO 14000 Quality http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b12516-83 Management Principles. Retrieved Decemer 256. Jalote, P. (2000). Moving from ISO9000 to the 23, 2008, from http://www.iso.org/iso/qmp Higher Levels of the Capability Maturity Model 248. ISO. (2008b). ISO 9001:2008 Quality (CMM). Paper presented at the The 22nd Management Systems. Retrieved Decemer 23, international conference on Software 2008, from Engineering, Limerick, Ireland. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnu 257. Jansson, G. (2010). Industrialised housing design mber=46486 efficiency. (Master's Master's Thesis), 249. IU, (2009). “The Indiana University Architect's Department of Civil, Mining and Environmental Office - IU BIM Proficiency Matrix (Multi-tab Engineering, Division of Structural Engineering – Excel Workbook)”, 9 tabs, available: Timber Structures, Luleå. http://www.indiana.edu/~uao/IU%20BIM%20Pr 258. Jayasena, H. S., & Weddikkara, C. (2013). oficiency%20Matrix.xls [accessed March 26, Assessing the BIM Maturity in a BIM Infant 2011]. Industry. Paper presented at the The Second 250. IU. (2009a). The Indiana University Architect's World Construction Symposium 2013: Socio- Office - BIM Design & Construction Economic Sustainability in Construction, Requirements, Follow-Up Seminar (PowerPoint Colombo, Sri Lanka. Presentation). 32. Retrieved from Indiana http://www.suranga.net/publications/2013_bi University BIM Standards website: m_maturity.pdf http://www.indiana.edu/~uao/IU%20BIM%20R ollout%20Presentation%209-10-2009.pdf PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 351 259. Ji, J., Zhang, Q., Yang, H., & Chang, Z. (2009). 270. Kalinichuk, S., & Tomek, A. (2013). Construction Research and development of high-rise steel Industry Products Diversification by structural BIM software and its application in Implementation of BIM. International Journal of Shanghai Center Project. Journal of Southeast Engineering and Technology, 3(4), 254-262. University. Natural Science Edition, 39. 271. Kamara, J. M. (2012). Integration in the project 260. Jiao, W., Debenham, J., & Henderson-Sellers, B. development process of a Private Finance (2005). Organizational models and interaction Initiative (PFI) project. Architectural Engineering patterns for use in the analysis and design of and Design Management, 8(4), 228-245. doi: multi-agent systems. Web Intelligence and 10.1080/17452007.2012.666729 Agent Systems, 3(2), 67-83. 272. Kaner, I., Sacks, R., Kassian, W., & Quitt, T. 261. John, G. A., & Ganah, A. (2011). Integrating BIM (2008). Case studies of BIM adoption for precast and Planning Software for Health and Safety concrete design by mid-sized structural Site Induction. Paper presented at the The Royal engineering firms. ITCON, 18, 303-323. Institution of Chartered Surveyors International 273. Kao, D., & Archer, N. P. (1997). Abstraction in Research Conference, COBRA 2011, 12-13 conceptual model design. International journal September 2011, University of Salford, UK. of human-computer studies, 46(1), 125-150. http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/2787/ 274. Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative 262. Johnson, C. E., Hurtubise, L. C., Castrop, J., Research Methods for Evaluating Computer French, G., Groner, J., Ladinsky, M., McLaughlin, Information Systems. In J. Anderson & C. Aydin D., Plachta, L., & Mahan, J. D. (2004). Learning (Eds.), Evaluating the Organizational Impact of management systems: technology to measure Healthcare Information Systems (pp. 30-55). the medical knowledge competency of the New York: Springer. ACGME. Medical Education, 38(6), 599-608. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01792.x 275. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996a). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into 263. Jonassen, D. H. (2005). Tools for Representing Action: Harvard Business School Press. Problems and the Knowledge Required to Solve Them Knowledge and Information Visualization 276. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996b). Using the (pp. 82-94). Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review, 74, 75-87. 264. Jones, C. (1994). Assessment and control of software risks: Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. 277. Kasim, T., LI, H., & Rezgui, Y. (2012). BREEAM Based Dynamic Sustainable Building Design 265. Jung, Y., & Joo, M. (2010). Building information Assessment. Paper presented at the European modelling (BIM) framework for practical Group for Intelligent Computing in Engineering implementation. Automation in Construction, In (EG-ICE), Technische Universität München, Press, Corrected Proof. doi: DOI: Germany, Munich, Germany. 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.010 http://www.cie.bv.tum.de/upload/egice/papers 266. Jupp, J. R. (2013). Incomplete BIM /25.pdf Implementation: Exploring Challenges and the 278. Kassem, M., Iqbal, N., & Dawood, N. (2013). A Role of Product Lifecycle Management Practice oriented BIM framework and Functions. In A. Bernard, L. Rivest & D. Dutta workflows Paper presented at the 2013 ASCE (Eds.), Product Lifecycle Management for International Workshop on Computing in Civil Society (Vol. 409, pp. 630-640): Springer Berlin Engineering (IWCCE), University of Southern Heidelberg. California, CA. 267. Jupp, V. (Ed.). (2006). The Sage dictionary of 279. Kashyap, V. & Sheth, A., (1996), Schematic and social research methods. London: SAGE. semantic similarities between database objects: 268. Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., & Aouad, G. (2001). A context-based approach, VLDB Journal, vol 5 Performance management in construction: a (4). conceptual framework. Construction 280. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The Management and Economics, 19(1), 85-95. Discipline of Teams. Harvard Business Review, 269. Kakabadase, A. P. (1991). The Wealth Creators: 71, 111-120. Top People, Top Teams, Executive Best Practice. London: Kogan Page. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 352 281. Keller, T., Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Garsoffky, 291. Kiviniemi, A., (2007), Finnish ICT Barometer B. (2006). Information visualizations for 2007, Tekes. Available at: knowledge acquisition: The impact of http://cic.vtt.fi/projects/vbe- dimensionality and color coding. Computers in net/data/2007_ICT_barometer.pdf [last Human Behavior, 22(1), 43-65. accessed on 22/04/2013]. 282. Keller, T., & Tergan, S. O. (2005). Visualizing 292. Kiviniemi, A., Tarandi, V., Karlshøj, J., Bell, H., & Knowledge and Information: An Introduction Karud, O. J. (2008). Review of the Development Knowledge and Information Visualization: and Implementation of IFC compatible BIM: Searching for Synergies. Springer-Verlag: Erabuild. Heidelberg (pp. 1-23). 293. Kjartansdóttir, I. B. (2011). BIM Adoption in 283. Khanzode, A., Fischer, M., & Reed, D. (2008). Iceland and Its Relation to Lean Construction. Benefits and Lessons Learned of Implementing (Master of Science in Construction Management Building Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) Masters), Reykjavík University, Reykjavík. Technologies for Coordination of Mechanical, 294. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. Eectrical, and Plumbing (MEP) Systems on a (2000). Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Large Healthcare Project. ITCON, 18, 324-342. Research and New Directions. In R. J. Sternberg 284. Khemlani, L. (2005). Academic Research in & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on Cognitive, Architectural Computing. AECbytes. Learning, and Thinking Styles. New Jersey: http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/Ar Lawrence Erlbaum. chComputingResearch.htm 295. Kong, S. C. W., Li, H., Liang, Y., Hung, T., 285. Khosrowpour, M. (2012). Dictionary of Anumba, C., & Chen, Z. (2005). Web services Information Science and Technology (2nd ed.): enhanced interoperable construction products Idea Group Inc (IGI) Global. catalogue. Automation in Construction, 14(3), 343-352. 286. Khosrowshahi, F., & Arayici, Y. (2012). Roadmap for implementation of BIM in the UK 296. Kosovac, B., Froese, T. M., & Vanier, D. J. (2000, construction industry. Engineering, Construction 28-30 June, 2000.). Integrating Heterogeneous and Architectural Management, 19(6), 610-635. Data Representations In Model-Based AEC-FM doi: 10.1108/09699981211277531 Systems. Paper presented at the CIT 2000 – The CIB-W78, IABSE, EG-SEA-AI International 287. Kim, K. P., & Park, K. S. (2013). BIM Feasibility Conference on Construction Information Study For Housing Refurbishment Projects In Technology, Reykjavik, Iceland. The UK. Organization, Technology & Management In Construction: an International 297. Kotnik, T. (2010). Digital Architectural Design as Journal, 5(Special), 765-774. Exploration of Computable Functions. International Journal of Architectural 288. Kim, T. W., Rajagopal, R., Fischer, M., & Kam, C. Computing, 8(1), 1-16. (2012). A Knowledge-Based Framework for Automated Space-Use Analysis CIFE Technical 298. Kouider, T., & Paterson, G. J. (2013). Report (pp. 1-34). Stanford: Center for Architectural Technology and the BIM acronym: Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), Stanford Critical Perspectives of Evangelical and University. Evolutionary Paradigms for Technical Design. Paper presented at the 4th International 289. Kim, T. W., Rajagopal, R., Fischer, M., & Kam, C. Congress of Architectural Technology, Sheffield, (2013). A knowledge-based framework for UK. automated space-use analysis. Automation in Construction, 32(0), 165-176. doi: 299. Kovacic, I., Filzmoser, M., Faatz, S., & Koeszegi, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.08.002 S. T. (2011). Research Project Cost Benefits of Integrated Planning: First experiment- 290. Kimmance, A. G. (2002). An integrated Product results.pdf. Organization, Technology & and Process Information Modelling System for Management In Construction: an International On-Site Construction. (DX240137). Thesis (Ph. Journal, 3(1), 254-263. D.) - University of Loughborough, UK. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 353 300. Kovacic, I., & Oberwinter, L. (2012). BIM- 309. Kunz, J., & Fischer, M. (2005). Virtual design and Supported Lifecycle-oriented Design for Energy construction: themes, case studies and Efficient Industrial Facility - a Case Study. Paper implementation suggestions. Center for presented at the Creative Construction Integrated Facility Engineering, Working Paper Conference 2012, Budapest, Hungary. (97). http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_209663 310. Kwak, Y. H., & Ibbs, W. C. (2002). Project .pdf Management Process Maturity (PM)2 Model. 301. Kovacic, I., Oberwinter, L., & Müller, C. (2013). ASCE, Journal of Management in Engineering, BIM-supported planning process for sustainable 18(3), 150-155. buildings–Process Simulation and Evaluation 311. Kwasnik, B. (1999). The Role of Classification in through Exploratory Research. Paper presented Knowledge Representation and Discovery. at the CIB 2013 World Congress, Brisbane, Library Trends, 48(1), 22-47. Australia. 312. Laakso, M. (2009, September 2009). Developing 302. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work a Multidisciplinary Process View on IFC Groups and Teams in Organizations. In W. C. Standardization. Paper presented at the Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2009 w78 Conference - Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333-375). Managing IT in Construction / Managing London: Wiley. Construction for Tomorrow, Istanbul, Turkey. 303. KPMJ, (1997). “Electronic Commerce Research 313. Lainhart IV, J. W. (2000). COBIT™: A Report”, London, UK. Methodology for Managing and Controlling 304. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Information and Information Technology Risks Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, and Vulnerabilities. Journal of Information 41(4), 212-218. doi: Systems, 14(s-1), 21-25. 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 314. Landauer, C. (1998). Data, information, 305. Krystallis, I., Demian, P., & Price, A. D. (2012, knowledge, understanding: computing up the September 5-7, 2012). Design of flexible and meaning hierarchy. Paper presented at the IEEE adaptable healthcare buildings of the future-a International Conference Systems, Man, and BIM approach. Paper presented at the First UK Cybernetics, San Diego, California. Conference on BIM, Newcastle, UK. 315. Lave, C. A., & March, J. G. (1993). An 306. Kubba, S., (2012) Handbook of Green Building Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. Design and Construction, Elsevier: Watham, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. USA. 316. Lavikka, R., Smeds, M., & Smeds, R. (2012). 307. Kulasekara, G., Jayasena, H. S., & Ranadewa, K. Towards coordinated BIM based design and A. T. O. (2013). Comparative Effectiveness of construction process eWork and eBusiness in Quantity Surveying in a Building Information Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. Modelling Implementation. Paper presented at 513-520): CRC Press. the The Second World Construction Symposium 317. Lawler, E. E. I. (1994). From job-based to 2013: Socio-Economic Sustainability in competency-based organizations. Journal of Construction, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 3-15. http://www.suranga.net/publications/2013_bi m_qseffectiveness.pdf 318. Le, M. A. T., Mohus, F., Kvarsvik, O. K., & Lie, M. (2006). The HITOS project-A full scale IFC test. 308. Kunz, A. (2012). Challenges to BIM Adoption Paper presented at the Ework and Ebusiness in and why Project-Led Implementations Succeed Architecture, Engineering and Construction: and Office Implementations Fail. American Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Building Today. Retrieved from American Product and Process Modelling, 13-15 Building Today website: September 2006, Valencia, Spain. http://www.americanbuildingtoday.com/challe http://www.fsr.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=18 nges-to-bim-adoption-and-why-project-led- 58 implementations-succeed-and-office- implementations-fail/ PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 354 319. Leca, B., & Naccache, P. (2006). A Critical Realist 330. Levine, L. (2000). Learning: The Engine for Approach To Institutional Entrepreneurship. Technology Change Management - CrossTalk, Organization, 13(5), 627-651. doi: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering. 10.1177/1350508406067007 CrossTalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, (January). 320. Lee, A., Wu, S., Aouad, G., Cooper, R., & Tah, J. http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2000/01/le (2005). nD Modelling Roadmap: A Vision for nD- vine.html Enabled Construction. Salford: University of Salford. 331. Ley, T., & Albert, D. (2003). Identifying employee competencies in dynamic work 321. Lee, A., Wu, S., Marshall-Ponting, A. J., Aouad, domains: methodological considerations and a G., Cooper, R., Koh, I., Fu, C., Betts, M., case study. Journal of Universal Computer Kagioglou, M., & Fischer, M. (2003). Developing Science, 9(12), 1500-1518. a Vision of nD-Enabled Construction. Salford: University of Salford. 332. Liaserin, J. (2002, June 26, 2012). Comparing Pommes and Naranjas. 2002, from 322. Lee, A. S. (1991). Integrating Positivist and http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue15/feat Interpretive Approaches to Organizational ure01.php Research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342-365. 333. Liebich, T. (Ed.). (2002). Standard analysis – 323. Lee, J., & Jeong, Y. (2012). User-centric Current AEC situation – Building Models: knowledge representations based on ontology European network for product and project data for AEC design collaboration. Computer-Aided exchange, e-work and e-business in Design, In Press. doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2012.03.011 Architecture, Engineering and Construction, IST 324. Lee, S., & Ha, M. Customer interactive building – 2001-32035 (January). information modeling for apartment unit 334. Liebich, T., Weise, M., Böhms, M., Bonsma, P., design. Automation in Construction (0). doi: Fies, B., Bordeau, M., Dunwell, S., Pratt, J., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.026 Babič, N. Č., Tibaut, A., & Nour, M. (2008). InPro 325. Leeuwis, A. J. (2012). BIM at Small Architectural - Specifications For An Open ICT Platform (pp. Firms - English Summary. (Master Real Estatae 6): Integrated Project (InPro) co-funded by the & Housing Masters), Delft University of European Commission within the Sixth Technology, Delft, Netherlands. Framework Programme. 326. Lehtinen, T. (2010). Advantages And 335. Lin, Y.-C. (2010). A CAD-Based Interface Disadvantages of Vertical Integration in The Management System using Building Information Implementation of Systemic Process Modelling in Construction. In J. Underwood & U. Innovations: Case studies on implementing Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on building information modelling (BIM) in the Building Information Modelling and Finnish construction industry. (Master’s Thesis Construction Informatics: Concepts and Master’s Thesis), Aalto University. Retrieved Technologies (pp. 170-169): Information Science from http://lib.tkk.fi/Dipl/2010/urn100299.pdf Reference, IGI Publishing. 327. Lehtinen, T. (2012). Boundaries Matter – The 336. Lin, Y.-M. (2012). Extension of Building Pros and Cons of Vertical Integration in BIM Information Model for Disaster Mitigation: Implementation, Advances in Production Using the Revit Platform. (Master's Thesis), Management Systems. Value Networks: National Central University, Chungli City, Innovation, Technologies, and Management. In Taoyuan County. Retrieved from J. Frick & B. Laugen (Eds.), (Vol. 384, pp. 578- http://etd.lib.nctu.edu.tw/cgi- 585): Springer Boston. bin/gs32/ncugsweb.cgi?o=dncucdr&s=id=%22G C993202098%22.#XXXX 328. Leicht, R., & Messner, J. (2008). Moving Toward an ‘Intelligent’ Shop Modelling Process. ITCON, 337. Lin, Y. C., Su, Y. C., & Chen, Y. P. (2012). Mobile 18, 286-302. 2D Barcode/BIM-based Facilities Maintaining Management System. Paper presented at the 329. León, E. A., & Molina, M. R. (Eds.). (2009). New Mobile 2D Barcode/BIM-based Facilities Interfaces, new scenarios. Vroom n. 0: Vroom n. Maintaining Management System, Singapore. 0: The emerging potential of collaborative 3D http://www.ipedr.com/vol43/011-ICFME2012- web platforms. Sao Paulo, Brazil. M00027.pdf PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 355 338. Linderoth, H. C. J. (2010). Understanding 348. Luthra, A. (2010). Implementation of Building adoption and use of BIM as the creation of actor Information Modeling in Architectural Firms in networks. Automation in Construction, 19(1), India. (Master of Science Master's), Purdue 66-72. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2009.09.003 University. 339. Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O., & Schultze, U. 349. Lv, X., Zou, Y., Huang, Y., & Xu, J. (2011). The 3D (2004). Design Principles for Competence Coordinated Building Design Based on Building Management Systems: a Synthesis of an Action Information Modeling. Advanced Materials Rresearch Study. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 435-472. Research, 243 - 249, 6587-6591. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.243-249.6587 340. Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management 350. Macdonald, J. (2011). BIM – Adding Value by process maturity model using the concepts of Assisting Collaboration. Paper presented at the business process orientation. Supply Chain Lightweight Structures Association Australia,, Management: An International Journal, 9(4), Sydney, Australia. http://codebim.com/wp- 272-278. content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Macdonald_LS AA.pdf 341. Lohse, G. L., Biolsi, K., Walker, N., & Rueter, H. H. (1994). A Classification of Visual 351. Macdonald, J. A. (2012). A Framework for Representations. Communications of the ACM, Collaborative BIM Education across the AEC 37(12), 36-49. doi: Disciplines. Paper presented at the AUBEA http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/198366.198376 2012, Sydney, AU. 342. Love, P., Edwards, D., Han, S., & Goh, Y. (2011). 352. Maddocks, A. P., Sher, W. D., & Wilson, A. Design Error Reduction: Toward the Effective (2000). A Web-based personal and professional Utilization of Building Information Modeling. development tool to promote lifelong learning Research in Engineering Design, 1-15. doi: within the construction industry. Educational 10.1007/s00163-011-0105-x Technology and Society, 3(1), 77-83. 343. Love, P. E. D., Simpson, I., Hill, A., & Standing, C. 353. Majcherek, E. (2013). Building Information (2013). From justification to evaluation: Building Modelling in the business of architecture: Case information modeling for asset owners. of Sweden. (Entrepreneurship and Innovation Automation in Construction, 0(0). doi: Management Master's of Science), KTH Royal http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.008 Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.diva- 344. Lu, W., Peng, Y., Shen, Q., & Li, H. (2013). portal.org/smash/get/diva2:634189/FULLTEXT0 Generic Model for Measuring Benefits of BIM as 1.pdf a Learning Tool in Construction Tasks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 354. Mäkeläinen, T., Hyvärinen, J., & Peura, J. (2012). 139(2), 195-203. doi: BIM practices and challenges framed - an doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000585 approach to systemic change management eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, 345. Lucas, J., Bulbul, T., & Thabet, W. (2013). A pilot Engineering and Construction (pp. 497-504): model for a proof of concept healthcare facility CRC Press. information management prototype. Journal of Information Technology in Construction 355. Manning, R., & Messner, J. (2008). Case studies (ITCON), 18. in BIM implementation for programming of healthcare facilities; . ITCON, 13, 246-257. 346. Lucas, J. D. (2012). An Integrated BIM Framework to Support Facility Management in 356. Mansfield, R. S. (1996). Building competency Healthcare Environments. (PhD PhD), Virginia models: Approaches for HR professionals. Polytechnic Institute and State University, Human Resource Management, 35(1), 7-18. Blacksburg, VA. Retrieved from 357. Manzione, L. (2013). Proposition for a http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd- Collaborative Design Process Management 08072012-155247/ (etd-08072012-155247) Conceptual Structure using BIM. (PhD in 347. Luth, G. P., Schorer, A., & Turkan, Y. (2013). Engineering PhD), University of São Paulo, São Lessons From Using BIM to Increase Design- Paulo, Brazil. Construction Integration. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 356 358. Manzione, L., Abaurre, M. W., Melhado, S. B., & 366. McCormack, K. (2001). Supply Chain Maturity Owen, R. (2011). Challenges to implementation Assessment: A Roadmap for Building the of collaborative design process: analysis of Extended Supply Chain. Supply Chain Practice, human factor. Paper presented at the TIC2011, 3, 4-21. Salvador, Bahia, Brasil. 367. McCormack, K., Ladeira, M. B., & Oliveira, M. P. http://www.coordenar.com.br/wp- V. d. (2008). Supply chain maturity and content/uploads/2013/04/2011_projetocolabor performance in Brazil. Supply Chain ativo-tic.pdf Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 359. Marrelli, A. F. (1998). An introduction to 272-282. doi: 10.1108/13598540810882161 competency analysis and modeling. 368. McCuen, T. L. (2007). Author response to Performance Improvement, 37(5), 8-17. comment - "The Interactive Capability Maturity 360. Martin-Dorta, N., Assef, P. G. d. C., Cantero, J. D. Model and 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award Winners" l. T., & Rufino, G. R. (2013, April 17-19, 2013). blog post. AECbytes. http://tinyurl.com/cztsto Implementing BIM techniques for energy 369. McGraw-Hill Construction, (2012). “The analysis: a case study of buildings at university Business value of BIM in North America: Multi- of la Laguna. Paper presented at the Year Trend Analysis and User Ratings (2007- Environmental security, geological hazards and 2012)”, Bedford, U.S. management, Tenerife, UK. 370. Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through 361. Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies - Cooperative conceptual methods. International Journal of Classification and Communication through Operations & Production Management, 13(5), 3. Shared Metadata. Paper presented at the Computer Mediated Communication, 371. Meredith, J. R., Raturi, A., Amoako-Gyampah, K., LIS590CMC (Doctoral Seminar), Graduate School & Kaplan, B. (1989). Alternative research of Library and Information Science, University of paradigms in operations. Journal of Operations Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Management, 8(4), 297-326. doi: Doi: http://www.adammathes.com/academic/comp 10.1016/0272-6963(89)90033-8 uter- 372. Merriam-Webster. (2013). Dictionary. mediatedcommunication/folksonomies.html Retrieved May 36, 2013, from Merriam- 362. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, Webster, Encyclopedia Britanica L. (2008). Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A http://www.merriam- Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse webster.com/dictionary/dictionary Into the Future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 373. Merschbrock, C., & Munkvold, B. (2013, 12-14 410-476. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316061 June 2013). Improving Interorganizational 363. Matipa, W. M., Cunningham, P., & Naik, B. Design Practices in the Wood‐based Building (2010). Assessing the Impact of New Rules of Industry. Paper presented at the 7th Nordic Cost Planning on Building Information Model Conference on Construction Economics and (BIM) Schema Pertinent to Quantity Surveying Organization, Trondheim, Norway. Practice. Paper presented at the Association of 374. Merschbrock, C., & Munkvold, B. E. (2012a). A Researchers in Construction Management Research Review on Building Information (ARCOM) 26th Annual Conference, Reading, Modeling in Construction―An Area Ripe for IS England. http://www.arcom.ac.uk/- Research. Communications of the Association docs/proceedings/ar2010-0625- for Information Systems, 31(10). 0632_Matipa_Cunningham_and_Naik.pdf 375. Merschbrock, C., & Munkvold, B. E. (2012b). A 364. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative Research Research Review on Building Information Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Modeling in Construction - An Area Ripe for IS Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Research. Communications of the Association 365. McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for for Information Systems, 31(1), 10. Competence Rather Than for Intelligence. 376. Michalski, R. S. (1987). Concept Learning. In S. S. American psychologist, 28(1), 1. Shapiro (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 185-194). New York: Wiley. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 357 377. Michalski, R. S., & Stepp, R. E. (1987). Clustering. 389. Mom, M., & Hsieh, S.-H. (2012a). Toward In S. S. Shapiro (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Performance Assessment of BIM Technology Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 103-111). New York: Implementation. Paper presented at the 14th Wiley. International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Moscow. 378. Miettinen, R., Kerosuo, H., Korpela, J., Mäki, T., http://www.icccbe.ru/paper_long/0187paper_l & Paavola, S. (2012). An activity theoretical ong.pdf approach to BIM-research eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction 390. Mom, M., & Hsieh, S.-H. (2012b). Toward (pp. 777-781): CRC Press. performance assessment of BIM technology implementation. Paper presented at the 379. Mihindu, S., & Arayici, Y. (2008, 9-11 July 2008). International Conference on Computing in Civil Digital Construction through BIM Systems will and Building Engineering (ICCBBE2012), Drive the Re-engineering of Construction Moscow, Russia. http://bit.ly/O7KxZD Business Practices. Paper presented at the Visualisation, 2008 International Conference. 391. Mom, M., Tsai, M. H., & Hsieh, S.-H. (2011). On Decision-Making and Technology-Implementing 380. Milgram, P. and Kishino, F., (1994), A Taxonomy Factors for BIM Adoption. Paper presented at of Mixed Reality Visual Displays, IEICE the International Conference on Construction Transactions on Information and Systems E77- Applications of Virtual Reality (CONVR2011), D, vol. 12, pp. 1321-1329. Weimar, Germany. 381. Miller, H. J. (2013). Beyond sharing: cultivating 392. Monteiro, A., & Poças Martins, J. (2013). A cooperative transportation systems through survey on modeling guidelines for quantity geographic information science. Journal of takeoff-oriented BIM-based design (corrected Transport Geography, 31, 296-308. proof). Automation in Construction, 0(0). doi: 382. Miller, R. L., & Brewer, J. D. (2003). The A-Z of http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005 Social REsearch. London: Sage. 393. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization. 383. Milton, N. R. (2007a). Knowledge Acquisition in Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Practice: A Step-by-step Guide: Springer, 394. Morse, J. M. (1995). The Significance of London. Saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 384. Milton, N. R. (2007b). Specification for the 147-149. General Technological Ontology (GTO). 395. Mrkela, A., & Rebolj, D. (2009). Automated http://www.pcpack.co.uk/gto/notes/files/GTO construction schedule creation using project %20Spec%20v4.doc information model. Paper presented at the CIB 385. Minsky, M. (Ed.). (1975). A Framework for W78 Conference - Managing IT in Construction, Representing Knowledge. New York: McGraw- Istanbul, Turkey. Hill. http://itc.scix.net/data/works/att/w78-2009-1- 03.pdf 386. Mirabile, R. J. (1997). Everything You Wanted to Know about Competency Modeling. Training 396. Muehlen, M., & Recker, J. (2008). How Much and development, 51(8), 73-77. Language Is Enough? Theoretical and Practical Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation. 387. Mitroff, I. I., & Mason, R. O. (1982). Business In Z. Bellahsène & M. Léonard (Eds.), Advanced Policy and Metaphysics: Some Philosophical Information Systems Engineering (Vol. 5074, pp. Considerations. The Academy of Management 465-479): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Review, 7(3), 361-371. 397. Mulenga, K., & Han, Z. (2010). Optimizing BIM 388. Mom, M. & Hsieh, S.-H. (2012). “Toward Adoption and Mindset Change - Emphasize on a Performance Assessment of BIM Technology Construction Company. (Master of Science Implementation”, in 14th International Master's), Chalmers University of Technology, Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Göteborg, Sweden. Retrieved from Engineering, Moscow. http://www.kelmatics.com/apps/documents/ http://www.icccbe.ru/paper_long/0187paper_l ong.pdf PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 358 398. Mustière, S., Zucker, J. D., & Saitta, L. (1999). 410. NIST. (2004). Cost Analysis of Inadequate Cartographic generalization as a combination of Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities representing and abstracting knowledge. Industry. In M. P. O. C. Gallaher, A. C.; Dettbarn, Proceedings of the seventh ACM international J. L., Jr.; Gilday, L. T. (Ed.): National Institute of symposium on Advances in geographic Standards and Technology. information systems, 162-164. 411. NIST and FIATECH, (2007), NISTIR 7417 General 399. Mutai, A. (2009). Factors Influencing the Use of Buildings Information Handover Guide: Building Information Modeling (BIM) within Principles, Methodology and Case Studies, Leading Construction Firms in the United States National Institute of Building Sciences, of America. (Doctor of Philosophy Doctor of Washington, DC, U.S. Philosophy), Indiana State University, Terre 412. NIST, (2007). “National building information Haute. modeling standard - version 1.0 - part 1: 400. Myers, M. D. (1997a). Qualitative Research in overview, principles and Methodologies”, Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 241- National Institute of Building Sciences, 242. Washington, DC, U.S. 401. Myers, M. D. (1997b). Qualitative Research in 413. NIST. (2008). Baldrige National Quality Program Information Systems. - Criteria for Performance Excellence. http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/ http://www.quality.nist.gov/PDF_files/2008_Bu siness_Nonprofit_Criteria.pdf 402. Nagy, M. V. (2013). Utilizing Building Information Models with Mobile Augmented 414. Novak, J. D. (2003, 1 April, 2007). CMap Tools - Reality and Location-Based Services. (Master of Concept map about concept maps. Retrieved 1 Science in Informatics), Norwegian University of April, 2007, 2007, from Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://cmapskm.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResour http://www.diva- ceServlet?rid=1064009710027_1483270340_27 portal.org/smash/get/diva2:664085/FULLTEXT0 090&partName=htmltext 1.pdf 415. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The origins of 403. NATSPEC. (2011). Table 4.1 – BIM Roles and the concept mapping tool and the continuing responsibilities. In N. N. B. G. v1.0.pdf (Ed.), PDF evolution of the tool. Information Visualization, (1.0 ed.). Sydney. 5(3), 175-184. 404. NATSPEC, (2011), National BIM Guide and 416. Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology Project BIM Brief template. Sydney, Australia: Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your NATSPEC. First Ontology. http://www.lsi.upc.edu/~bejar/aia/aia- 405. NBS, (2013). “National BIM Report 2013”, NBS web/ontology101.pdf National BIM library, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 417. NPEC. (2002). Defining and Assessing Learning: 406. NHA, (2011), Norwegian Home Builders' BIM Exploring Competency-Based Initiatives, Manual (ver1), Norwegian Homebuilders Prepared for the Council of the National Association, 2011. Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC) 407. NHBC Foundation, (2013), Building Information and its Working Group on Competency-Based Modelling - an introduction for house builders, Initiatives by Elizabeth A. Jones and Richard Publication NF 49, Bucks, UK. A.Voorhees, with Karen Paulson, under the sponsorship of the National Center for 408. NIBS. (2007). National Institute for Building Education Statistics (NCES). Washington, DC: Sciences (NIBS) Facility Information Council (FIC) U.S. Department of Education. – BIM Capability Maturity Model. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from 418. NSCC, (2013), First Steps to BIM Competence: A www.buildingsmartalliance.org/client/assets/fil Guide for Specialist Contractors, The National es/bsa/BIM_CMM_v1.9.xls Specialist Contractor Council, London, UK. 409. Nightingale, D. J., & Mize, J. H. (2002). 419. NYCDDC, (2012), BIM Guidelines, New York City Development of a Lean Enterprise Department of Design & Construction, Long Transformation Maturity Model. Information Island City, NY. Knowledge Systems Management, 3(1), 15-30. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 359 420. Oberwinter, L., Kovacic, I., Müller, C., Kiesel, K., 429. Olatunji, O. A., & Sher, W. (2010b). The Skoruppa, L., & Mahdavi, A. (2013). application of Building Information Modelling in Interdisciplinary, BIM-supported planning Facilities Management. In J. Underwood & U. process. Paper presented at the Creative Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Conference Conference, Budast, Hungary. Building Information Modelling and http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_219839 Construction Informatics: Concepts and .pdf Technologies (pp. 239-253): Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing. 421. OGC. (2008). Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) (pp. 183): 430. Olatunji, O. A., Sher, W., & Gu, N. (2010c). Office of Government Commerce - England. Building Information Modeling and Quantity Surveying Practice. Emirates Journal for 422. OGC. (2009). Information Technology Engineering Research, 15(1), 67-70. Infrastructure Library (ITIL) - Offic eof Government Commerce. Retrieved February 431. Olatunji, O. A., & Sher, W. D. (2009). Building 13, 2009, from http://www.itil- Information Modelling (BIM) System in officialsite.com/home/home.asp Construction in 2020: Opportunities and Implications. Paper presented at the BuHu 9th 423. Ohio DAS, (2010), State of Ohio Building International Postgraduate Research Information Modeling Protocol, Ohio Conference (IPGRC 09), Salford Quays, Greater Department of Administrative Services, Manchester, UK. http://bit.ly/jalW0 Columbus, Ohio, US. 432. Olatunji, O. A., Sher, W. D., & Gu, N. (2010d). 424. Olatunji, O., & Sher, W. (2010a, May 10-13, Modelling Outcomes of Collaboration in 2010). Legal Implications of BIM: Model Building Information Modelling Through Gaming Ownership and Other Matters Arising. Paper Theory Lenses. In I. Wallis, L. Bilan, M. Smith & presented at the W113-Special Track 18th CIB A. S. Kazi (Eds.), Industrialised, Integrated, World Building Congress Salford, United Intelligent Sustainable Construction, I3COn Kingdom. Handbook 2 (pp. 91-108). UK: I3CON and BSRIA. 425. Olatunji, O., Sher, W., Gu, N., & Ogunsemi, D. 433. Ollerenshaw, A., Aidman, E., & Kidd, G. (1997). (2010a). Building Information Modelling Is an illustration always worth ten thousand Processes: Benefits for Construction Industry. words? Effects of prior knowledge, learning Paper presented at the W078 - Special Track, style and multimedia illustrations on text 18th CIB World Building Congress, Salford, comprehension. International Journal of United Kingdom. Instructional Media, 24(3), 227-238. 426. Olatunji, O., Sher, W., & Ogunsemi, D. (2010b, 434. Onuma. (2011). Onuma Model Server. May 10th-13th). The impact of Building Retrieved October 20, 2011, from Information Modelling on Construction Cost http://onuma.com/products/BimDataApi.php estimation. Paper presented at the W055 - Special Track, 18th CIB World Building Congress, 435. Oommen, C. (2010). Enhancing Control of Built Salford, United Kingdom. Assets through Computer Aided Design - Past, Present and Emerging Trends. Paper presented 427. Olatunji, O. A. (2011a). Modelling Organizations’ at the Proceedings of the Tenth International Structural Adjustment to BIM Adoption: a Pilot Conference for Enhanced Building Operations, Study on Estimating Organizations. Electronic Kuwait. Journal of Information Technology in http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1 Construction (ITCON), Special Issue Innovation 969.1/94092/ESL-IC-10-10-45.pdf?sequence=1 in Construction e-Business, 16(38), 687-696. 436. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). 428. Olatunji, O. A. (2011b). A Preliminary Review on Studying Information Technology in the Legal Implications of BIM and Model Organizations: Research Approaches and Ownership. Electronic Journal of Information Assumptions. Information Systems Research, Technology in Construction (ITCON), Special 2(1), 1-28. Issue Innovation in Construction e-Business, 16(40), 687-696. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 360 437. Oti, A. H., & Tizani, W. (2010). Developing 446. Patrick, R., Munir, M., & Jeffrey, H. (2012). incentives for collaboration in the AEC Industry. Building Information Modelling (BIM), Utilised Paper presented at the Proceedings of the During the Design and Construction Phase of a International Conference on Computing in Civil Project has the Potential to Create a Valuable and Building Engineering, Nottingham, UK. Asset in its Own Right (‘BIMASSET’) at Handover that in turn Enhances the Value of The 438. Otter, A. d., Pels, H. J., & Iliescu, I. (2011). BIM Development. Paper presented at the 12th Versus PLM: Risks and Benefits. Paper International Conference for Enhanced Building presented at the Proceedings of the CIB W078 - Operations, Manchester, England. W102 Conference: Computer, Knowledge, http://icebo2012.com/cms/resources/uploads/f Building, Sophia Antipolis, France. iles/papers/19%20BIM%20ASSET%20PAPER%20 http://cibworld.xs4all.nl/dl/publications/W078_ working%20final.pdf W102_pub365.pdf 447. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and 439. Oxford. (2007, 15 April 2007). "Technology" - research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Compact California: Sage. Oxford English Dictionary. from http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/techn 448. Paukkeri, H. (2012). Development of Model- ology?view=uk based Process for Navigation Dredging. (Master's Thesis Master's), AALTO University, 440. Paavola, S., Kerosuo, H., Mäki, T., Korpela, J., & Finland. Retrieved from Miettinen, R. (2012). BIM Technologies and http://civil.aalto.fi/fi/tutkimus/vesi/opinnayttee Collaboration in a Life-cycle Project eWork and t/paukkeri2012.pdf eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (pp. 855-862): CRC Press. 449. Paulk, M. C. (1994). A Comparison of ISO 9001 and the Capability Maturity Model for Software. 441. Padaki, V. (2002). Making the organisation Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Software Engineering learn: Demystification and management action. Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University. Development in Practice, 12(3-4), 321-337. doi: 10.1080/0961450220149708 450. Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Garcia, S. M., Chrissis, M. B., & Bush, M. (1993). Key Practices 442. Pala, M., Edum-Fotwe, F., Ruikar, K., Doughty, of the Capability Maturity Model - Version 1.1 N., & Peters, C. (2014). Contractor practices for (U. S. D. o. C. National Technical Information managing extended supply chain tiers. Supply Service, Trans.) (1.1 ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: Chain Management: An International Journal, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon 19(1), 4-4. University. 443. Panuwatwanich, K., & Peansupap, V. (2013). 451. Peansupap, V., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). Factors affecting the current diffusion of BIM: a Factors Enabling Information and qualitative study of online professional network. Communication Technology Diffusion and Paper presented at the Creative Construction Actual Implementation in Construction Conference, Budapest, Hungary. Organisations. Electronic Journal of Information 444. Paquette, G. (2007). An Ontology and a Technology in Construction, 10, 193-218. Software Framework for Competency Modeling 452. Pederiva, A. (2003). The COBIT® Maturity Model and Management. Journal of Educational in a Vendor Evaluation Case. INFORMATION technology and Society, 10(3), 1-21. SYSTEMS CONTROL JOURNAL, 3, 26-29. 445. Parreira, J. P. d. C. (2013). BIM implementation 453. Pels, H., Beek, J., & Otter, A. (2013). Systems in organizational processes in construction Engineering as a First Step to Effective Use of companies - a case study (Portuguese BIM. In A. Bernard, L. Rivest & D. Dutta (Eds.), Language). (Master's in Civil Engineering), The Product Lifecycle Management for Society (Vol. New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. 409, pp. 651-662): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/9907/1/Parr 454. Penn State, (2010), BIM Project Execution eira_2013.pdf Planning Guide and Templates – Version 2.0 BIM Project Execution Planning, CIC Research Group, Department of Architectural Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 361 455. Penn State, (2012), Planning Guide for Facility 465. PPU. (2012). Universidade Estadul de Owners– Version 1.0, CIC Research Group, Londrina_Masters of Project Management - Department of Architectural Engineering, The Course Outline. http://www.ppu.uem.br/wp- Pennsylvania State University. content/uploads/2012/01/Gest%C3%A3o-de- Processo-de-Projeto.pdf 456. Penttila, H. (2009). Services in Digital Design: new visions for AEC-field collaboration. 466. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The Core International Journal of Architectural Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Computing, 7, 459-478. Business Review, 68(3), 79-91. 457. Penttilä, H. (2006). Describing The Changes In 467. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1987). Cognitive Science. In S. S. Architectural Information Technology To Shapiro (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Understand Design Complexity And Free-Form Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 120-124). New York: Architectural Expression. ITCON, 11(Special Wiley. Issue The Effects of CAD on Building Form and 468. Qian, A. Y. (2012). Benefits and ROI of BIM for Design Quality), 395-408. Multi-Disciplinary Project Management. (Project 458. Per Anker, J., & Elvar Ingi, J. (2013). Building Management), National University of Singapore. information modelling in Denmark and Iceland. Retrieved from http://www.icoste.org/wp- Engineering, Construction and Architectural content/uploads/2011/08/Benefits-and-ROI-of- Management, 20(1), 99-110. doi: BIM-for-Multi-Disciplinary-Project- 10.1108/09699981311288709 Management.pdf 459. Persson, S., Malmgren, L., & Johnsson, H. 469. Qinghua, Haitao, P., Yongkui, L., & Lili, Q. (2012). (2009). Information management in industrial Cloud-based framework for the implementation housing design and manufacture. ITCON (14), of BIM. Construction Economics (translated), 5. 110-122. 470. Reason, P. (Ed.). (1988). Human Inquiry in 460. Pfitzner, M., Bög, M., Neuberg, F., Bögl, M., Jan Action: Development in New Paradigm Tulke, H., Nummelin, O., YIT, Benning, P., & Research - Introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Bouygues. (2007). European Integrated Project Sage. InPro - Overview: A consortium of participants. 471. Reason, P. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of 461. Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The Utility of the Myers- Qualitative Research - Three Approaches to Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Participative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Research, 63(4), 467-488. doi: 472. Reffat, R. M. (2010). Fostering E-Services in 10.3102/00346543063004467 Architecture and Construction Using the 462. Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Building Information Model. Paper presented at Discovery popper Retrieved from the The 5th eServices Symposium of the Eastern http://bit.ly/oKNRUY Province, Comprehensive eServices: Successes and Challenges, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia. 463. Porwal, A. (2013). Construction waste www.eservices- management at source: a Building Information sa.org/Event/UploadFiles/Book5.pdf Modeling based system dynamic approach. (Doctor of Philosophy), Unversity of British 473. Reich, J. R., Brockhausen, P., Lau, h., & Reimer, Columbia, Okanagan, Canada. Retrieved from U. (2002). Ontology-Based Skills Management: https://elk.library.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/242 Goals, Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of 9/45509/ubc_2014_spring_porwal_atul.pdf?seq Universal Computer Science, 8(5), 506-515. uence=1 474. Reinach, S. and Viale, A., (2006), Application of 464. Porwal, A., & Hewage, K. N. (2013). Building the human error framework to conduct train Information Modeling (BIM) partnering accident/incident investigations, Accident framework for public construction projects. Analysis and Prevention, vol 38, pp. 396-406. Automation in Construction, 31(0), 204-214. 475. Reisman, A., (1988), On alternative strategies doi: for doing research in the management and http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.12.004 social sciences. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, vol 35(4), pp. 215-220. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 362 476. Reisman, A. (1994). Creativity in MS/OR: 487. Rowlinson, S., Collins, R., Tuuli, M. M., & Jia, Y. Expanding Knowledge by Consolidating (2010). Implementation of Building Information Knowledge. Interfaces, 24(3), 91-99. Modeling (BIM) in construction: A comparative case study, Hong Kong, Macau. 477. Reisman, A. (2004). How can OR/MS Educators Benefit From Creating and Using Taxonomies? 488. Ruschel, R. C., Andrade, M. L. V. X. d., & Morais, INFORM Transactions on Education, 4(3), 55-65. M. d. (2013). O ensino de BIM no Brasil: onde doi: 10.1287/ited.4.3.55 estamos? Ambiente Construído, 13, 151-165. 478. Reisman, A., (2005), Transfer of technologies: a 489. Russell, S. (2000). ISO 9000: 2000 and the EFQM cross-disciplinary taxonomy, Omega, vol 33(3), Excellence Model: competition or co-operation? pp. 189-202. Total Quality Management, 11(4-6), 657-665. 479. RIBA - Royal Institute of British Architects, 490. Ryan, A., Miller, G., & Wilkinson, S. (2013). (2012) BIM Overlay to the RIBA Outline, RIBA Successfully implementing building information Publishing, London. modelling in New Zealand: maintaining the relevance of contract forms and procurement 480. Rekola, M., Kojima, J., & Mäkeläinen, T. (2010). models. Paper presented at the 38th Towards integrated design and delivery Australasian University Building Educators solutions: pinpointed challenges of process Association (AUBEA) Conference, Auckland, change. Architectural Engineering and Design New Zealand. Management, 6(4), 264-278. 491. Saaty, T. L. (1998). Reflections and Projections 481. Ren, J. (2013). High-Performance Building on Creativity in Operations Research and Design and Decision-Making Support for Management Science: a Pressing Need for a Architects in the Early Design Phases. (Licentiate Shift in Paradigm. Operations Research, 46(1), 9. Thesis), The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from 492. Sackey, E., Tuuli, M., & Dainty, A. (2013). BIM http://www.diva- implementation: from capability maturity portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:664309 models to implementation strategy. Paper presented at the Sustainable Building 482. Ren, Y. (2011). Building Information Modeling Conference 2013, Coventry, UK. Integrated with Electronic Commerce Material http://www.coventry.ac.uk/Global/Faculty%20e Procurement and Supplier Performance vents/SB13/SB13-21-BIM-implementation- Management System. (Master of Science), from-capability-maturity-models-to- University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, implementation-strategy.pdf US. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1903/12349 493. Sahibudin, S., Sharifi, M., & Ayat, M. (2008). Combining ITIL, COBIT and ISO/IEC 27002 in 483. Rezgui, Y., Beach, T., & Rana, O. (2013). A Order to Design a Comprehensive IT Framework Governance Approach for BIM Management in Organizations. Paper presented at the across Lifecycle and Supply Chains Using Mixed- Modeling & Simulation, 2008. AICMS 08. Second Modes of Information Delivery. Journal of Civil Asia International Conference Kuala Lumpur, Engineering & Management, 19(2), 239-258. Malaysia. doi: 10.3846/13923730.2012.760480 494. Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The 484. Ritter, H. (2010). Models as Tools to Aid role of ordinary activities in the evolution of Thinking: Towards a Theory of Thinking. In B. product development processes. Organization Glatzeder, V. Goel & A. Müller (Eds.), (pp. 347- Science, 20(2), 384-409. 374): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 495. Salvato, C., & Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond 485. Robert, S., Delinchant, B., Hilaire, B., & Tanguy, Collective Entities: Multilevel Research on Y. (2013, August 26-28). Plumes: Towards a Organizational Routines and Capabilities. unified approach to building physical modeling. Journal of Management, 37(2), 468-490. doi: Paper presented at the 13th Conference of 10.1177/0149206310371691 IBPSA 2013. 486. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 363 496. Sampson, D., & Fytros, D. (2008). Competence 506. Sebastian, R. (2011). BIM in Different Methods Models in Technology-Enhanced Competence- of Project Delivery. Paper presented at the ICT Based Learning Handbook on Information for a Low Carbon Economy, Building Data Technologies for Education and Training. In H. Models, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop H. Adelsberger, K. Kinshuk, J. M. Pawlowski & D. organised by the EEB Data Models Community G. Sampson (Eds.), (pp. 155-177): Springer CIB Conference W078-W012, Sophia Antipolis, Berlin Heidelberg. France. http://2011-cibw078- w102.cstb.fr/papers/Paper-134.pdf 497. Sanchez, J. I., & Levine, E. L. (2009). What is (or should be) the difference between competency 507. Sebastian, R., & Van Berlo, L. (2010). Tool for modeling and traditional job analysis? Human Benchmarking BIM Performance of Design, Resource Management Review, 19(2), 53-63. Engineering and Construction Firms in the Netherlands. Architectural Engineering and 498. Sanghi, S. (2007). The Handbook of Competency Design Management, Special Issue: Integrated Mapping: Understanding, Designing and Design and Delivery Solutions, 6, 254-263. doi: Implementing Competency Models in 10.3763/aedm.2010.IDDS3 Organizations (Second Edition ed.). New Delhi: Published by Vivek Mehra for Sage Publications. 508. SEI. (2006a). Capability Maturity Model Integration for Development (CMMI-DEV), 499. Santini, S. (2002). Using language more Improving processes for better products (pp. responsibly. Computer, 35(12), 126, 128. 573). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering 500. Sarhan, S., & Fox, A. (2013). Performance Institute / Carnegie Melon. measurement in the UK construction industry 509. SEI. (2006b). Capability Maturity Model and its role in supporting the application of lean Integration Standard (CMMI) Appraisal Method construction concepts (Vol. 13). for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) A, Version 501. Sarshar, M., Haigh, R., Finnemore, M., Aouad, 1.2- Method Definition Document (pp. 246). G., Barrett, P., Baldry, D., & Sexton, M. (2000). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute / SPICE: a business process diagnostics tool for Carnegie Melon. construction projects. Engineering Construction 510. SEI. (2008a). Capability Maturity Model & Architectural Management, 7(3), 241-250. Integration - Software Engineering Institute / 502. Sattineni, A., & Bradford, H. (2012). Building Carnegie Melon. Retrieved October 11, 2008, Information Modeling: Trends in the US 2008, from Construction Industry. Design Principles and http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/index.html Practices, 5(4), 187-203. 511. SEI. (2008b). Capability Maturity Model 503. Sayer, A. (1992). Method in Social Science: A Integration for Services (CMMI-SVC), Partner Realist Approach Retrieved from and Piloting Draft, V0.9c (pp. 504). Pittsburgh, http://bit.ly/gHz6Md PA: Software Engineering Institute / Carnegie Melon. 504. Sebastian, R. (2009). Changing Roles of Architects, Engineers and Builders through BIM 512. SEI. (2008c). CMMI for Services. Retrieved Application in Healthcare Building Projects in December 24, 2008, from the Netherlands. Paper presented at the http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/CMMI- Changing Role, New Roles, New Challenge, Services-status.html 2009, Noordwijk Aan Zee, Netherlands. 513. Senate, (2007a), SENATE Properties BIM http://www.changingroles09.nl/uploads/File/Fi Guidelines, available at: nal.Sebastian.pdf http://www.senaatti.fi/document.asp? [last 505. Sebastian, R. (2010). Breaking through Business accessed April 1, 2013] and Legal Barriers of Open Collaborative 514. Senate, (2007b), Senate Properties: BIM Processes based on Building Information Requirements 2007 Volume 1: General part, Modelling (BIM). Paper presented at the W113- available at: Special Track 18th CIB World Building Congress http://www.senaatti.fi/tiedostot/BIM_2007_Vo May 2010 Salford, United Kingdom. l1_General_Part.pdf, [last accessed April 10, 2013]. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 364 515. Senate. (2008, August 14, 2009). SENATE 524. Shrivasta, S., & Chini, A. (2012). Using Building Properties BIM Guidelines. Retrieved July 10, Information Modeling to assess the initial 2008, 2007, from http://bit.ly/Senaatti embodied energy of a building. The International Journal of Construction 516. Senate, (2012), Senate Properties: BIM Management, 12(1), 51-63. Requirements 2012, available at: http://www.en.buildingsmart.kotisivukone.com 525. Simmons, C., Williams, A., Sher, W., & Levett- /3, [last accessed April 25, 2013]. Jones, T. (Eds.). (2012). Work ready: e-portfolios to support professional placements. Sydney, 517. Senescu, R. R. (2011). Design Process NSW: Office for Learning and Teaching, DIISRTE. Communication Methodology. (Doctor of Philosophy), Stanford University, Stanford. 526. Singh, V., Gu, N., & Wang, X. (2011). A Retrieved from theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi- http://cife.stanford.edu/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php? disciplinary collaboration platform. Automation media=rs:papers:senescu- in Construction, 20(2), 134-144. doi: designprocesscommunicationmethodology.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.011 518. Şenyapılı, B., & Bozdağ, B. G. (2012). A Domain 527. Skandhakumar, N., Reid, J., Dawson, E., Specific Software Model for Interior Drogemuller, R., & Salim, F. (2012a). An Architectural Education and Practice. Authorization Framework using Building Automation in Construction, 21(0), 10-23. doi: Information Models. The Computer Journal. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.05.008 10.1093/comjnl/bxs098 519. Sergi, D. M., & Li, J. (2014). Applications of GIS- 528. Skandhakumar, N., Salim, F., Reid, J., & Dawson, Enhanced Networks of Engineering Information. E. (2012b). Physical Access Control Applied Mechanics and Materials, 444, 1672- Administration Using Building Information 1679. Models. In Y. Xiang, J. Lopez, C. C. J. Kuo & W. Zhou (Eds.), Cyberspace Safety and Security 520. Shahrin, F., Johansen, E., Lockley, S., & Udeaja, (Vol. 7672, pp. 236-250): Springer Berlin C. (2010). Effective Capture, Translating and Heidelberg. Delivering Client Requirements Using Building Information Modelling (BIM) Technology. Paper 529. STAND-INN. (2007, 11 July, 2008). Integration of presented at the ARCOM Research Workshop performance based building standards into on Decision Making Across Levels, Time and business processes using IFC standards to Space: Exploring Theories, Methods and enhance innovation and sustainable Practices, University of Manchester. development. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://bit.ly/STAND-INN 521. Shelden, D. (2009). Information Modelling as a Paradigm Shift. Architectural Design, 79(2), 80- 530. Steel, J., Drogemuller, R., & Toth, B. (2010). 83. doi: 10.1002/ad.857 Model interoperability in building information modelling. Software and Systems Modeling, 1- 522. Shih, S.-Y., & Sher, W. (2014). Development of 11. doi: 10.1007/s10270-010-0178-4 Building Information Modelling Enabled Code Checking Systems for Australia. In J. Wang, Z. 531. Stephens, S. (2001). Supply Chain Operations Ding, L. Zou & J. Zuo (Eds.), Proceedings of the Reference Model Version 5.0: A New Tool to 17th International Symposium on Advancement Improve Supply Chain Efficiency and Achieve of Construction Management and Real Estate Best Practice. Information Systems Frontiers, (pp. 1003-1010): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 3(4), 471-476. 523. Shih, S.-Y., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2012). Using 532. Studer, R., Benjamins, V. R., & Fensel, D. (1998). a BIM maturity matrix to inform the Knowledge engineering: Principles and development of AEC integrated curricula. Paper methods. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 25(1- presented at the 37th Annual International 2), 161-197. Conference, Proceedings of the Australasian Universities Building Educators Association (AUBEA), Sydney. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/933959 PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 365 533. Su, Y. C., Lee, Y. C., & Lin, Y. C. (2011). Enhancing 541. Succar, B., (2013), BIM Knowledge Content Maintenance Management Using Building Taxonomy v1.3. Building Information Modelling: Information Modeling In Facilities Management. conceptual framework and performance Paper presented at the 28th Conference of the improvement models (PhD Thesis - not International Association for Automation and published). School of Architecture and Built Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Seoul, Korea. Environment, University of Newcastle, NSW http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/S22- Australia. 5.pdf 542. Succar, B. (2013). "Building Information 534. Succar, B. (2009). Building information Modelling: conceptual models and a facilitative modelling framework: A research and delivery framework”, PhD Thesis (submitted), School of foundation for industry stakeholders. Architecture and Built Environment, University Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357-375. of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW. 535. Succar, B. (2010). "Building Information 543. Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2013). An Modelling Maturity Matrix, In Jason Underwood integrated approach to BIM competency & Umit Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on acquisition, assessment and application Building Information Modelling and (published online). Automation in Construction, Construction Informatics: Concepts and 35, 174-189. doi: Technologies”, New York: IGI Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.016 536. Succar, B. (2010a). Building Information 544. Suermann, P. C., Issa, R. R. A., & McCuen, T. L. Modelling Maturity Matrix. In J. Underwood & (2008). Validation of the U.S. National Building U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Information Modeling Standard Interactive Building Information Modelling and Capability Maturity Model Paper presented at Construction Informatics: Concepts and the 12th International Conference on Technologies (pp. 65-103): Information Science Computing In Civil and Building Engineering, Reference, IGI Publishing. October 16-18, Beijing, China. 537. Succar, B. (2010b). The Five Components of BIM 545. Sun, M., Meng, X., (2009), Taxonomy for change Performance Measurement. Paper presented at causes and effects in construction projects, the CIB World Congress, Salford, United International Journal of Project Management, Kingdom. vol 27 (6), pp. 560-572. 538. Succar, B., Agar, C., Beazley, S., Berkemeier, P., 546. Suwal, S., Jäväjä, P., Rahman, M. A., & Gonzalez, Choy, R., Giangregorio, R. D., Donaghey, S., V. (2013). Exploring BIM-based education Linning, C., Macdonald, J., Perey, R., & Plume, J. perspectives. Paper presented at the 38th (2012a). BIM in Practice - BIM Education, a Australasian University Building Educators Position Paper by the Australian Institute of Association (AUBEA) Conference, Auckland, Architects and Consult Australia. New Zealand. http://www.bim.architecture.com.au/ 547. Statsbygg, (2007), Statsbygg goes for BIM, 539. Succar, B., Sher, W., & Aranda-Mena, G. (2007). available at A Proposed Framework to Investigate Building http://www.statsbygg.no/Aktuelt/Nyheter/Stat Information Modelling Through Knowledge sbygg-goes-for-BIM/, [last accessed April 2, Elicitation and Visual Models. Paper presented 2013]. at the Australasian Universities Building 548. Statsbygg, (2011), Statsbygg Building Education (AUBEA2007), Melbourne, Australia. Information Modelling Manual - SBM1.2, http://aubea.org.au/ocs/viewpaper.php?id=15 Statsbygg, Oslo, Norway, 2011. &cf=1 549. Szpytko, J. (2009). Transportation System 540. Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2012b). Architecture for Intelligent Management Marine Measuring BIM performance: Five metrics. Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation: Architectural Engineering and Design CRC Press. Management, 8(2), 120-142. doi: 10.1080/17452007.2012.659506 550. Taborda, P. (2012). BIM nas obras públicas em Portugal: Condicionantes para uma implementação com sucesso. Paper presented at the Building Congress, 2012, Coimbra, Portugal. http://hdl.handle.net/10362/10012 PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 366 551. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed 561. Tomo, C. (2011). A Review and Outlook for a Methodology: Combining Qualitative and ‘Building Information Model’ (BIM): A Multi- Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Standpoint Framework for Technological Sage. Development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(2), 224-244. doi: 552. Tatari, M. O. (2009). Empirical Analysis of 10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.003 Construction Enterprise Information Systems: Assessing the Critical Factors and Benefits. 562. Toth, B., Fernando, R., Salim, F., Drogemuller, (PhD), University of Maryland (College Park, R., Burry, J., Burry, M., & Frazer, J. H. (2009). Md.), Maryland. Retrieved from Modelling sustainable and optimal solutions for http://www.lib.umd.edu/drum/bitstream/1903 building services integration in early /9131/1/Tatari_umd_0117E_10220.pdf architectural design: confronting the software and professional interoperability deficit. 553. Tatari, O., & Skibniewski, M. J. (2011). Empirical Proceedings off Cumulus 38 Degrees South, Analysis of Construction Enterprise Information Hemispheric Shifts Across Learning, Teaching Systems: Assessing System Integration, Critical and Research. Factors, and Benefits. Journal of Computing and Civil Engineering, 25(5), 347. 563. Trichet, F., & Leclère, M. (2003). A Framework for Building Competency-Based Systems 554. Taylor, J., & Bernstein, P. (2009). Paradigm Dedicated to Human Resource Management. In Trajectories of Building Information Modeling N. Zhong, Z. Ras, S. Tsumoto & E. Suzuki (Eds.), Practice in Project Networks. Journal of Foundations of Intelligent Systems (Vol. 2871, Management in Engineering, 25(2), 69-76. doi: pp. 633-639). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2009)25:2(69) 564. Tuohy, P. (2009). Simulation and BIM For 555. Taylor, J., & Levitt, R. E. (2005). Inter- Building Design, Commissioning and Operation: organizational Knowledge Flow and Innovation a Comparison with The Microelectronics Diffusion in Project-based Industries. Paper Industry. Paper presented at the Building presented at the 38th International Conference Simulation 2009, Eleventh International IBPSA on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA. Conference, Glasgow, Scotland. 556. Tergan, S. O. (2003). Knowledge with computer- http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2009/BS0 based mapping tools. Paper presented at the 9_1538_1545.pdf ED-Media 2003 World Conference on 565. Tuohy, P. G., & Murphy, G. B. (2012). Why Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & advanced buildings don’t work? Paper Telecommunication Honolulu, HI: University of presented at the Proceedings of 7th Windsor Honolulu. Conference: The changing context of comfort in 557. Thomas, B. (2013). Governance Model for Cloud an unpredictable world, Network for Comfort Computing in Building Information and Energy Use in Buildings, Cumberland Lodge, Management. IEEE Transactions on Services Windsor, UK, 12-15 April 2012. Computing, 99(PrePrints), 1-1. https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/files/19994378 /Tuohy_PG_Pure_Why_advanced_buildings_do 558. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action: nt_work_Apr_2012.pdf Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory (5th ed.): McGraw Hill, New York. 566. UKCO. (2011). Government Construction Strategy. London, UK: United Kingdom Cabinet 559. Timothy R. Athey, M. S. O. (1999). Emerging Office. competency methods for the future. Human Resource Management, 38(3), 215-225. 567. USACE. (2006). US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center - 560. TNO. (2010). BIM QuickScan - a TNO initiative Building Information Modeling: A Road Map for (sample QuickScan Report - PDF). 3. Retrieved Implementation To Support MILCON from QuickScan (www.BIMladder.nl) website: Transformation and Civil Works Projects within http://www.bimladder.nl/wp- the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, content/uploads/2010/01/voorbeeld-quickscan- DC: USACE. pdf.pdf 568. USAF. (2010). BIM/LEAN-Enabled Project Delivery Comparison, US Airforce Presentation, PowerPoint Slide no. 17: FedCon 10. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 367 569. USACE, (2006), Building Information Modeling: 579. Vangimalla, P. R., Olbina, S. J., Issa, R. R., & A Road Map for Implementation To Support Hinze, J. (2011). Validation of Autodesk MILCON Transformation and Civil Works Ecotect™ Accuracy For Thermal And Daylighting Projects within the U.S. Army Corps of Simulations. Paper presented at the WSC 2011 Engineers, US Army Corps of Engineers, Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Engineer Research and Development Center , Conference, Phoenix, Arizona. Washington, DC. http://www.informs- sim.org/wsc11papers/300.pdf 570. USACE, (2011), Building Information Modeling (BIM) Roadmap Supplement 2 – BIM 580. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Implementation Plan for Military Construction Theoretical Extension of the Technology Projects, Bentley Platform, US Army Corps of Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Studies. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 46(2), 186- Center, Washington, DC. 204. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 571. USACE, (2007), Construction Operations 581. Vernikos, V. K., Goodier, C. I., & Gibb, A. G. F. Building Information Exchange (COBIE): (2013). Building Information Modelling and Requirements Definition and Pilot offsite construction In civil engineering. Paper Implementation Standard, US Army Corps of presented at the ARCOM Doctoral Workshop on Engineers, Champaign, IL, U.S. BIM Management and Interoperability, Birmingham School of the Built Environment, 572. USACE, (2012), USACE BIM Minimum Modeling Birmingham City University, Birmingham, Matrix (M3) V1.0 20120913, US Army Corps of United Kingdom. http://www.arcom.ac.uk/- Engineers, Champaign, IL, U.S. docs/workshops/2013-06- 573. USCG. (2005). BIM User Guides - presentation 20_Birmingham.pdf#page=82 from the 2nd Congress on Digital Collaboration 582. Vogel, D. R., & Wetherbe, H. C. (1984). MIS in the Building Industry. Paper presented at the research: a profile of leading journals and AIA Buiding Connections. universities. Data Base, 16(1), 3-14. 574. Uschold, M. (1996). Building Ontologies: 583. Voorhees, R. A. (2001). Competency-Based Towards a Unified Methodology. Paper Learning Models: A Necessary Future. New presented at the Expert Systems '96, the 16th Directions for Institutional Research, 2001(110). Annual Conference of the British Computer doi: 10.1002/ir.7 Society Specialist Group on Expert Systems, Cambridge, UK. 584. Walker, D. H. T., Bourne, L. M., & Shelley, A. (2008). Influence, stakeholder mapping and 575. Vaidyanathan, K., & Howell, G. (2007). visualization. Construction Management and Construction Supply Chain Maturity Model - Economics, 26(6), 645 - 658. Conceptual Framework. Paper presented at the International Group For Lean Construction 585. Walsham, G. (1995). The Emergence of (IGLC-15), Michigan, USA. Interpretivism in IS Research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 376-394. 576. Van der Brugge, R., & De Haan, H. (2005). Complexity and Transition Theory. Paper 586. Wang, X. and Dunston P.S., (2011), a user- presented at the Lof der Verwarring, Engels, centered taxonomy for specifying mixed reality Rotterdam. systems for AC industry, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, vol 16, pp. 493-508. 577. Van der Heijden, K., & Eden, C. (1998). The Theory and Praxis of Reflective Learning in 587. Watson, A. (2010). BIM - A Driver for Change. Strategy Making. In C. Eden & J.-C. Spender Paper presented at the Proceedings of the (Eds.), Managerial and organizational cognition: International Conference of Computing in Civil Theory, methods and research (pp. 58-75). and Building Engineering (icccbe), Nottingham, London: Sage. UK. http://www.engineering.nottingham.ac.uk/iccc 578. Van Heijst, G., Schreiber, A. T., & Wielinga, B. J. be/proceedings/pdf/pf69.pdf (1997). Using explicit ontologies in KBS development. International journal of human- 588. Watson, A. (2011). Digital buildings – Challenges computer studies, 46(2-3), 183-292. and opportunities. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(4), 573-581. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2011.07.003 PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 368 589. Watson, P., & Seng, L. T. (2001). Implementing 599. Winterton, J., Deist, F. D.-L., & Stringfellow, E. the European Foundation for Quality (2006). Typology of knowledge, skills and Management Model in construction. competences: clarification of the concept and Construction Information Quarterly, prototype (Final Draft ed.). Toulouse: Research Construction paper, 130. report elaborated on behalf of Cedefop/Thessaloniki, Centre for European 590. Wegelius-Lehtonen, T. (2001). Performance Research on Employment and Human measurement in construction logistics. Resources, Group ESC Toulouse. International Journal of Production Economics, 69(1), 107-116. 600. Wong, A. K., Wong, F. K., & Nadeem, A. (2011). Government roles in implementing building 591. Wei-zhuo, S., & Guo-qiang, Z. (2010). KPIs: information modelling systems: Comparison Analyzing the impact of Building Information between Hong Kong and the United States. Modeling on construction industry in China. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Paper presented at the Industrial Engineering Management, 11(1), 61-76. and Engineering Management (IE&EM), 2010 IEEE 17Th International Conference on. 601. Wong, A. K. D., Wong, F. K. W., & Nadeem, A. (2010). Attributes of Building Information 592. Weinberg, G. M. (1993). Quality software Modelling Implementations in Various management (Vol. 2): First-order measurement: Countries. Architectural Engineering and Design Dorset House Publishing Co., Inc. New York, NY, Management, Special Issue: Integrated Design USA. and Delivery Solutions, 6, 288-302. 593. White, S. (1997). Beyond Retroduction? — 602. Wong, J., & Yang, J. (2010). Research and Hermeneutics, Reflexivity and Social Work application of Building Information Modelling Practice. British Journal of Social Work, 27(5), (BIM) in the Architecture, Engineering and 739-753. Construction (AEC) industry: a review and 594. White, R. W., Jose, J. M., & Ruthven, I., (2005), direction for future research. Paper presented Using top‐ranking sentences to facilitate at the Proceedings of the 6th International effective information access, Journal of the Conference on Innovation in Architecture, American Society for Information Science and Engineering & Construction (AEC), organized in Technology, vol 56(10), 1113-1125. collaboration with the Centre for Innovative and Collaborative Engineering at Loughborough 595. Widergren, S., Levinson, A., Mater, J., & University, UK, Pennsylvania, US. Drummond, R. (2010, 25-29 July 2010). Smart http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38333/1/38333.pdf grid interoperability maturity model. Paper presented at the Power and Energy Society 603. Wu, W. (2011, June 19-22,). BIM Facilitated General Meeting, 2010 IEEE, Minnesota, USA. Web Service for LEED Automation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2011 ASCE 596. Wikipedia. (2007, April 9, 2007). Wiki. International Workshop on Computing in Civil Retrieved April 9, 2007, from Engineering, Miami, Florida. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki 604. Xiaobo, C. (2013). "BIM & cloud" management 597. Wilkinson, P. (2008, July 12, 2008). SaaS-based system security research. Construction BIM. Extranet Evolution - Construction Economy (7), 93-96. Collaboration Technologies. from http://www.extranetevolution.com/extranet_e 605. Yiye, L. (2010). Application of Building volution/2008/04/saas-based-bim.html Information Model (BIM) in building thermal comfort and energy consumption analysis. 598. Winberg, A., & Dahlqvist, E. (2010). BIM - the (Master's M. Phil), The Hong Kong Polytechnic Next Step in the Construction of Civil Structures. University, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Retrieved from (Master's Thesis), Royal Institute of Technology http://repository.lib.polyu.edu.hk/jspui/bitstrea KTH. (ISSN 1103-4297) m/10397/4301/2/b24415820_ir.pdf 606. Younas, M. Y. (2010). Exploring the challenges for the implementation and adoption of BIM. (International Master of Science in Construction & Real Estate Management Master's), Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 369 607. Young, N., Jones, S., Bernstein, H. M., & Gudgel, J. (2009). The Business Value of BIM-Getting Building Information Modeling to the Bottom Line (pp. 52). MA, Uinted States: McGraw-Hill Construction. 608. Zahrizan, Z., Ali, N. M., Haron, A. T., Marshall- Ponting, A., & Abd, Z. (2013). Exploring the adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Malaysian construction industry: a qualitative approach. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 2(8), 384-395. 609. Zandi, F. (2013). “A Country-Level Decision Support Framework for Self-Assessment of E- Commerce Maturity”,iBusiness, 2013, vol 5, pp. 67-78. 610. Zerjav, V. (2012). Process-and project-level issues of design management in the built environment. (Doctor of Science in Civil Engineering Doctor of Science in Civil Engineering), Vienna University of Technology. 611. Zhang, M., Tan, D., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Analysis of BIM application relationship with integration degree of construction environment. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 11(1), 92-96. doi: 10.1080/10042857.2013.777527 612. Zhou, W., Tah, J., & Heesom, D. (2013). A distributed virtual reality application framework for collaborative construction planning using BIMserver. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality (CONVR), London, UK. 613. Zillante, G. (2008). Building Surveying: A Sustainable Profession or a Passing Fad? Paper presented at the 2008 AIBS South Australian Conference – Climate Change: Engaging the elements. http://www.aibs.com.au/index.php?option=co m_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=147 614. Zuppa, D. and Issa, R., (2008), Aligning interests key to developing trust in deploying collaborative technologies in construction, CIB W78 2008 International Conference on Information Technology in Construction, Santiago, Chile, 15 - 17 July 2008. 615. Zuppa, D. (2009). Model for developing trust in construction management. (PhD Thesis), University of Florida. PART III | APPENDIX F PAGE 370 THANK YOU