-
AbstractBuilding information modelling (BIM) is becoming more and more important to manage complex communicationand information sharing processes in collaborative building projects. A growing number of design, engineeringand construction firms have made attempts to adopt BIM to enhance their services and products. However,there remain many uncertainties in the implementation strategies and actual performance. Neither thesuccess nor the bottleneck can be justified objectively since there is no common benchmarking for firms thatare applying BIM. This article describes applied research to generate an instrument for benchmarking BIMperformance. The instrument aims to provide insight into the current BIM performance level of design,engineering and construction firms. The purpose is to justify the qualification of the parties to becommissioned for projects, as well as to raise awareness and establish a common strategy for innovationthrough BIM. The benchmarking instrument is based on a quick scan method.49004
- 上一篇：燃气涡轮机英文文献和中文翻译
- 下一篇：PCBN刀具高速切削加工英文文献和中文翻译
It combines quantitative andqualitative assessments of the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ aspects of BIM. The use of this instrument by BIM consultantsin the Netherlands has taken place since early 2010.B Keywords – Benchmarking; BIM; maturity; performance; tool developmentINTRODUCTIONComplex communication processes betweennumerous project participants involving largeamounts of information often cause errors andomissions during design and construction (Eastmanet al., 2008). Building information modelling (BIM)has, therefore, become more and more important forcollaborative building projects. BIM comprisescollaboration frameworks and technologies forintegrating process- and object-oriented informationthroughout the life cycle of the building in amulti-dimensional model. BIM information sharingamong project participants from different disciplinescan be centralized and coordinated effectively(Sebastian, 2010). Both in theory and in practice, theadded value of BIM for collaborative processes hasbeen acknowledged, including more effectiveness,higher efficiency, reduced time and errors, andimproved quality.A growing number of design, engineering andconstruction firms have made attempts to adoptBIM to enhance their services and products.However, there remain many uncertainties in theimplementation strategies and actual performance.In several countries, such as in the Netherlands, theUSA, Finland and Australia, there have beenattempts to provide an overview of all relevantdefinitions and initiatives related to BIM, as well asnational standards or guidelines for BIMimplementation (NIBS, 2007; Senate Properties,2007; CRC Construction Innovation, 2009; TeamBouwICT, 2010). Despite these attempts, there remain various techniques to use BIM andheterogeneous definitions of BIM performance.Many firms have made quick claims on their BIMqualification. On the other hand, others showreluctance to use BIM due to the difficulties indeciding the most appropriate organizational andtechnical approaches. Also, firms attempting togenerate new or to enhance existing BIMdeliverables can find little guidance towardsidentifying and prioritizing their respectiverequirements. This mismatch between expectedBIM deliverables and unforeseen BIM requirementsincreases the risks, costs and difficulties associatedwith BIM implementation, allows the proliferation of‘BIM wash’
– falsely professing the ability to deliverBIM services or products – and prevents industryplayers from achieving their full BIM potential(Succar, 2010).Until now, neither success claims nor adoptionreluctance can be justified objectively since there isno common benchmarking system for firms that useBIM in their processes and projects. The abundanceof industry discussions and academic literatureprofessing the ability of BIM methodologies toincrease productivity has not yet been coupled withthe availability of a widely acknowledged tool toreliably measure this productivity.In response to the needs of clients, designers,engineers and contractors in the Netherlands, anassessment tool has recently been jointly developedby a research institute and a number of BIMconsulting firms. The tool aims to serve as astandard benchmarking instrument. For clients, sucha benchmarking tool is needed to select firms withadequate BIM knowhow to carry out projects witha certain level of complexity, and to organize themost effective knowledge-based collaboration. Fordesigners, engineers and contractors, the tool isneeded to reflect on their current capabilities, to planfurther improvements and to obtain strategicpositions in the competitive building sector, basedon state-of-the-art knowhow.This article describes to applied research developa BIM benchmarking tool in the Netherlands basedon a quick-scan method (TNO, 2009). In the nextsection, the literature survey and critical reviews ofthe existing assessment tools are discussed. Thetool development process and tentative results arethen presented. Subsequently, verification andvalidation are explained, based on expert opinionsand pilot cases. Finally, recommendations are givenon future scientific research and the plan to applythe tool in practice.CRITICAL REVIEW OF EXISTINGASSESSMENT TOOLSRecently, various working concepts and technologiesfor BIMhave been developed worldwide. A number ofBIM capability and maturity evaluation tools havebeen introduced in order to get a clearer insight intothe performance of the fast growing and largepersity of BIM developments and applications. Thedevelopment of BIM performance metrics is apre-requisite for BIM performance improvement.Succar (2009) distinguishes BIM capability from BIMmaturity. BIM capability is the ability to generateBIM deliverables and services. BIM maturityaddresses the extent, depth, quality, predictabilityand repeatability of these BIM deliverables andservices.During the literature survey, three well-knownassessment tools developed in the USA were found,namely the BIM capability stages, the BIM maturityindex (BIMMI), the national BIM standard (NBIMS)which contains the Capability Maturity Model (CMM).In the Netherlands, several BIM consulting firms haveindependently developed assessment tools, such asBIM Meetlat (BIM measure indicator) by BouwnD,BIM Succespredictor (BIM success predictor) byDeBIMspecialist, and BIM Succesvoorspellers (BIMsuccess forecasters) by Gobar. Below, these toolsare described and critically reviewed based on theirpractical effectiveness to evaluate the mostimportant BIM uses by designers, engineers andcontractors, as envisaged by Eastman et al. (2008).The BIM capability stages define the minimumBIM requirements that need to be reached by ateam or an organization as it implements BIMconcepts and technologies (Succar, 2009).