bim knowledge assessment: an overview among...

BIM knowledge assessment: an overview amongprofessionals

A survey on the AEC industry in Sao Paulo, Brazil

Aline Valverde Arroteia1, Gustavo Garcia do Amaral2,Simone Zeni Kikuti3, Silvio Burrattino Melhado41,3,4University of Sao Paulo 2Georgia Institute of Technology1,3,4{aline.arroteia|simone.kikuti|silvio.melhado}@usp.br [email protected]

The research goal was to evaluate BIM knowledge among professionals in orderto delineate an overview concerning BIM adoption by the AEC industry of SaoPaulo, Brazil. The research method consisted of the application of a quantitativeand qualitative online survey questionnaire. Results has shown the lack ofadequately BIM trained personnel is still a significant constraint hindering apotentially wider adoption of the technology in the construction industry.

Keywords: Building Information Modeling, BIM knowledge, BIM adoption, BIMprofessional education, AEC industry

INTRODUCTIONBuilding Information Modeling (BIM) has trans-formed the Architecture, Engineering, Construction(AEC) industry and attracted increasing attentionfrom researchers and practitioners (Zhao, 2017). Inrecent years, the field of study has consistently grownwith more than 90% of papers being published un-der peer review in the last five years. In terms of BIMpublications, the early ones were much simpler andmore general (conceptual) than the current studies,which are more specific and focused on the applica-tion of tools and methods using case study method-ology (Santos et al., 2017).

BIM has become a common process and tech-nology used in the management of constructionprojects (Puolitaival and Forsythe, 2016). Consid-ered as an innovative process and efficient technol-ogy, BIM is a collaborative approach, which manages

project information from the early stages of designto construction, operation (facilitymanagement) anddemolition (Donato et al., 2018).

BIM represents a paradigm shift for the AEC in-dustry (Pauwels et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2017). Conse-quently, this paradigm shift represents an increase inthe demand for trained professionals with BIM skills(Suwal and Singh, 2018; Zhang et al., 2018; Ahanand Kim, 2016). Despite the efforts from the AECindustry to implement BIM, the lack of trained pro-fessionals still presents a significant constraint (Bari-son and Santos, 2010; Becerik-Gerber, Gerber & Ku,2011; Kocaturk and Kiviniemi, 2013). Although in thepast decade, there have been significant advances inconstruction-related collaborative technologies, BIMimplementation is a long path and depends onmanyaspects, such as the adequate methodology, trainedpersonnel, the availability of technology and indus-

Data - BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING 2 - Volume 2 - eCAADe 37 / SIGraDi 23 | 315

try policies (Akintola et al., 2017).The AEC industry in developing countries such

as Brazil is still facing challenges in BIM implemen-tation. The main obstacles are related to the needto change work culture and practices, the lack of un-derstanding of the stakeholders ’roles and responsi-bilities, the lack of knowledge about processes andworkflows and the highly investment in training andskills required for BIM (Olawumi, 2018; Mahalingamet al. 2015; Khosrowshahi and Arayici 2012; Singh etal. 2011; Hartmann and Fischer, 2008).

Given the field of study‘s relevance to the devel-opment of construction sector in Brazil, the researchgoal was to evaluate BIM knowledge among profes-sionals in order to delineate an overview concern-ing BIM adoption in the AEC industry of Sao Paulo,Brazil with the purpose to answer the following re-search question: “What is the BIM level of matu-rity among professionals by the AEC industry in SãoPaulo, Brazil? ” As additional contributions, this pa-per brings an understanding of BIM maturity stagein the AEC industry based on a BIM knowledge as-sessment among professionals in the labormarket ofSao Paulo. We surveyed approximately six hundredindividuals from the construction industry aiming toidentify their level of BIM proficiency.

Our paper is structured as follows: Firstly, we in-troduce the research topic, research gaps and pro-pose the research goal followed by the researchquestion. Secondly, we contextualize the theoreti-cal background, divided into three subsections: BIMadoption in the AEC industry, BIM professional edu-cation and BIM maturity levels. Thirdly, we outlineour chosen research method including details of re-search stages and the developed survey question-naire. Fourfly, we present data and sample, resultsand discussion. Finally, we conclude by presentingresearch goal achievements, research limitations andfuture works.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDBIM adoption in the AEC industrySuccar (2009) states that BIM is not just a technology,but also a projectmanagement tool andprocess con-sistedof all aspects, disciplines, and systemsof a facil-ity within a model, with which all stakeholders (own-ers, architects, engineers, contractors, subcontrac-tors and suppliers) can collaborate more accuratelyand efficiently than traditional processes (Azhar et al,2012). BIM promises an integration of information bycombining geometric and non-geometric informa-tion in a comprehensivemodel that accommodate allaspects of construction (Koutamanis (2017).

As stated in BIM Handbook: A Guide to Build-ing Information Modeling for Owners, Managers,Designers, Engineers and Contractors (Eastman etal., 2011), the benefits of BIM are well known: co-ordination and communication improvement, datamanagement, analysis, simulation, construction pro-ductivity and facilities management. Nonetheless,BIM requires new strands of expertise for all disci-plines compared to more traditional projects (Suc-car et al.,2013). Furthermore, there is a reluctance tochange traditional practices and current proceduresby the professionals in order to learn BIM.

Despite the rapid development of BIM, the effec-tiveness in the practice is constrained by the currentcontractual arrangements and traditional practices.In general, projects are more focused on individualbenefits instead of the delivery of integrated projectsolutions (Migilinskas, 2013). BIM requires a signifi-cant change in the way construction businesses op-erate at almost every level within a building process(Arayici et al., 2011).

In summary, as an efficient technology and a dis-ruptive process, BIM has changed not only the AECindustry‘s framework, but also the academic environ-ment. Thus, AEC professional education has beensearching for new alternatives that can improve BIMimplementation in practice due to the considerableimpact of BIM approach in the construction industry(Morton, 2012; Sacks and Pikas, 2013).

316 | eCAADe 37 / SIGraDi 23 - Data - BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING 2 - Volume 2

BIM professional educationThe academic community has been searching formore effective teaching approaches that reflect theneed for strong collaborative practices, as requiredby the increased level of design complexity, inte-grated delivery methods, and information modelingadoption in the construction industry. Although theissue of BIM in AEC education has attracted much at-tention in academic literature, little is known aboutwhat the current statusof BIM inacademia is (Becerik-Gerber, Gerber & Ku, 2011).

Several authors have proposed that BIM shouldbe advertised through education or mandated bygovernments (Turk, 2016). To provide students withBIM skills as required by the current construction in-dustry, many construction education institutions areintroducing the concept in their coursework and hir-ing new faculty based on their expertise in BIM (Joan-nides, Olbina & Issa, 2012). Also, many schools nowrealize the potential of BIM applications as powerfulteaching tools that help instructors to engage stu-dents with the class content, improving their learn-ing experiences. Adopting and teaching BIM fromthe early stages of undergraduate education canpro-vide future professionals with more experience withthe technology (Irizarry et al., 2013).

However, the success of BIM adoption dependson a collaborative learning environment (Lindkvist,2015). As stated by Mathews (2013), when experi-enced in a dynamic and collaborative learning envi-ronment, BIM brings better conditions to prepare thestudents to solve problems commonly experiencedin the labor market. This teaching proposal conductssignificant gains to the students‘ education, since itincreases the level of cognition, learning and under-standing of the design process.

Although many researchers suggest a pressingneed on new alternatives based on collaborativepractices, the adoption of BIM in a collaborativeworkenvironment has been little developed by institu-tions (Macdonald, 2012). Based on that, there is acontinuous demand for professionals with BIM skillsin virtue of the traditional and fragmented teaching

practice. As a result, AEC schools have been lookingfor the development of integrated solutions for BIMin academia (Macdonald and Mills, 2011).

BIMmaturity levelsBIM maturity denotes the basic abilities to performBIM-related tasks efficiently rather than the actual at-tainment of the objectives expected from BIM de-ployment (Mahamadu et al., 2017). According to theBIM framework developed by Succar (2009), BIMma-turity levels are: Pre BIM: Status of AEC industry be-fore BIM implementation; BIM stage 1: object-based(modeling); BIM stage 2: model-based (collabora-tion); BIM stage 3: network-based (integration) andIPD: Integrated Project Delivery (the long-term goalof BIM implementation).

The usage of BIM is growing as technology ma-tures (Turk, 2016). A study developed by Cao etal. (2015), has shown an overview of BIM practicethrough a decade in China and confirmed that BIMadoption has been clearly extended from the archi-tectural design stage to the construction stage. Eventhough BIM has been continually expanding its func-tionality in the AEC industry since its inception in the1970s, the implementation of BIM has not been fullyexploited even in leading contexts. Mostly, there isa higher level of awareness of BIM in the UK, Canada,FinlandandNewZealand then compared todevelop-ing countries (Ghaffarianhoseini et al., 2017).

RESEARCHMETHODThe research method consisted of the applicationof a quantitative and qualitative online survey ques-tionnaire. According to Fink (2003), survey is a sys-tem of data collection with the purpose to describe,compare and explain knowledge, attitude and be-haviour of a specific group of individuals. In otherwords, survey is understood as a research methodwhich aims to collect data from a significant samplethrough a quantitative and statistical analysis of in-formation from dozens or thousands of people (GIL,2010). As reported by Forza (2002), a survey can beclassified as exploratory, confirmatory or descriptive.


Figure 1Research stages

This study is an exploratory survey, statistically anal-ysed in order to obtain anoverviewabout BIMknowl-edge among professionals in the AEC industry in SaoPaulo, Brazil

Research stagesBased on The Survey Handbook by Fink (2003), wedeveloped our survey in sixmain stages as illustratedin Figure 1. First, we established the survey‘s goal.Second, we planned the study by conducting lit-erature review about BIM adoption in the AEC in-dustry, BIM professional education and BIM matu-rity levels. After the bibliographical research, thethird stage (datamanagement) focused on the ques-tionnaire development, critical analysis and valida-tion. The fourth stage concentrated on data collec-tion by selecting an adequate platform for data col-lection, the definition of possible respondents and,lastly, sending the questionnaire to the respondentslist. The fifth stage consisted of data analysis and re-sults discussion. Finally, the last stage presented theresearch‘s final conclusions, research gaps and limita-tions and future works.

Survey questionnaireThe survey questionnaire consisted of 21 questionsdeveloped through a web-based platform. Thequestionnaire was designed to evaluate the levelof BIM proficiency among professionals. The infor-mation requested from the participants was educa-tional attainment, professional major, years of ex-perience, previous BIM knowledge, the participant‘sself-evaluation of BIM level and their opinion aboutthe role of academia on BIM teaching in professional

education. The survey questionnaire used multiple-choice openquestionswhichwasbasedon fourmaincategories: (1) BIMknowledge, (2) organization/com-pany general information, (3) BIM adoption by theorganization/company and (4) participant‘s educa-tional attainment. The process of questionnaire de-signing was divided into three steps. First, we sentan initial version tobe validatedbyprofessionalswithexpertise in BIM. Second, we updated the question-naire and, finally, we defined the final version for thestudy.

DATA ANALYSIS ANDDISCUSSIONSample and dataBased on our research goal, we surveyed individualsfrom several professions related to the AEC industryin themarket of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Data collectionwascompleted under the condition of anonymity. Thus,it was not possible to determine if each completedsurvey represented a different organization. For dataanalysis, the sample was calculated by the softwareR 3.3.0 (R Core Team, 2017) considering the level ofstatistical significance (α) at 5%.

We collected 591 (≈15% response rate) answersin a sample of approximately four thousand individu-als. The sample is non probabilistic and composed ofprofessionals who have responded to the question-naire on behalf of their companies. The participantswere taken from a list of an online professional web-based platform. Data analysis showed a variance re-garding the number of responses in each differentquestion. Consequently, results‘ response rate variedaccording to each question. The sum of relative fre-


quencies of the answers might not add up to 100 %,once more than one response was possible.

ResultsParticipants profile indicated that 49,5% of the re-spondents were architects, 45,6% engineers, 10,1 %professors, 5,2%consultants and4,3%other position.In regard to years of professional experience in thefield, one-third of the respondents (31,3%) declaredhavingbetween10and25years of experience; 29,5%between 5 and 10 years, 18,3% more than 25 years,17,7%between 1 and 5 years and only 3,2%with lessthan one year of experience. Mostly, the participantsare involved in the design phases, such as design de-velopment, management and coordination, insteadof the construction and facility management phases.

While (38%) of the respondents mentioned thatBIM has been adopted by the firm that they rep-resent, 62% answered negatively for BIM imple-mentation. The main difficulties chosen related toBIM implementation from the given options were:(45,1%) high cost of training, infrastructure andcompany‘s organizational structure; (38,2%) lack oftrained professionals; (31,9%) low reward from theclient; (27,1%) software incompatibility and unde-fined cost of implementation; and (27,1%) long pathfor BIM implementation.

RegardingBIM skills for professional recruitment,43,3% of the participants answered that BIM is not arequired skill, 34,8% confirmed that BIM is a demand-ing qualification and 21,9% said it may be a previousprerequisite. Fifty-five point three (55,3%) of the re-spondents said that their companies were planningto implement BIM in a near future, while 26,6% werein doubt and 18,1% answered negatively.

BIM knowledge among professionals. Figure 2shows the concept of BIM by the participants (pro-fessionals from the AEC industry in Sao Paulo). Only586 of 591 answers were valid, since five partici-pants did not answer the question. Participants wereable to choose more than one answer. Therefore,all answers were added to the total of each cho-sen option. Sixty-eight point four per cent (68,4%)

indicated BIM as a construction data managementprocess; ( 52 %) a “project data management soft-ware”; (45,6%) a “project representation technol-ogy”; (45,4%) a “project datamanagement software”;(34,3%) “all previous answers”, (3,1%) “others”, and(2%) “none” for the given options, as illustrated bel-low.

Figure 2The concept of BIMunderstood by theparticipants

Figure 3Participants‘opinion about theadvantages of BIM

Figure 4Participants‘opinion about thedisadvantages ofBIM

Participants were questioned about their opinion onthe advantages anddisadvantages of BIM implemen-tation. The number of valid answers were 585 of591. Firstly, Figure 3 illustrates the advantages ofBIM chosen by the professionals. Eight-nine pointnine per cent (89,9%) affirmed that BIM improvesproject data management and (89,2%) chose clash


detection. The other benefits pointed by them werein sequence: (80,5%) improved precision on mate-rial take-off; (80%) enhancement of collaboration be-tween stakeholders; (76,4%) improvement 3D visu-alization; (69,2%) facility management; (67%) reduc-tion in construction cost and time; (59,5%) environ-mental performance simulation; (48,4%) choose allanswers and (0,9%) none.

Secondly, Figure 4 illustrates the disadvantageslisted by the professionals: (72,3%) indicated cul-tural resistance to the adoption of new technology;(58,1%) high costs in infrastructure, training and or-ganization; (43,1%) lack of collaboration betweenstakeholders; (38,1%) lack of interest from suppli-ers; (34,9%) software incompatibility; (33,8%) un-estimated implementation costs; (32,3%) softwarelack of defined methodologies and responsibilitiesrelated to the development of BIM model; (22,6%)lack of legal definition to support BIM adoption, and(11,1%) chose all given options.

BIM professional education among profession-als. In consonance with the research goal, partici-pants were invited to answer questions related totheir professional education. First, (71,9%) partic-ipants considered their level of BIM knowledge atthe end of their undergraduate program insufficient,(14,7%) intermediate, (8,9%) good and (4,4%) ad-vanced, as illustrated in Figure 5.

Second, participants were asked about the roleof academia in the professional education concern-ing the usage of BIM in the AEC industry. The major-ity of the respondents (78,5%) admitted that the AECacademia has an important representation in BIM ed-ucation; (11,2%) of them were in doubt; (7,3%) donot believe that the AEC institutions are responsiblefor introducing BIM into their professional educationand (3%) said that theydonot have knowledgeaboutit, as shown in Figure 6 below.

Third, Figure 7 shows from where the partici-pants have acquired BIM knowledge. The number ofvalid answers were 462 of 591. Thirty-six point eightper cent (36,8%) answered that they had learned BIMin a graduate program; (29,2%) in an undergradu-

ate program; (19%) from practice; (3,5%) from train-ing courses; (3%) from self-learning; (5%) had contactwith BIM from academic events and (3,5%) from spe-cialized media.

Figure 5Participants‘opinion about theirlevel of BIMknowledge at theend ofundergraduateprogram

Figure 6Participants‘opinion about therole of academia inthe professionaleducation

Figure 7From where theparticipants haveacquired BIMknowledge

DISCUSSIONFindings have shown an overview of BIM knowledgeamong approximately six hundred professionals inthe AEC industry of São Paulo in Brazil. Most of themclassified their level of BIM proficiency as insufficientat the conclusion of their undergraduate education.Consequently, participants answered that their BIMknowledge where obtained predominantly from a


graduate program (36,8%) instead of (29,2%) of thethem said that they have learned BIM while enrolledin an undergraduate program. Professional educa-tion was indicated as a relevant reason for the lackof BIMknowledge amongpractitioners. According tothe participants, academia has an important role onBIM education.

For Ghaffarianhoseini et al. (2017) the lack of BIMskill and experience is a major concern. Many BIMusers attribute the low return on investment to theusers‘ level of experience and BIM engagement. Ac-cordingly, the most significant reason for not adopt-ing BIM pointed out by the participants was culturalresistance to theadoptionof new technology (almost73% of the answers). The other ones were high costsin training and software; lack of demand and stake-holders’ collaboration; lack of defined methodolo-gies and responsibilities related to the developmentof BIM model and interoperability issues.

On other side, the survey suggests that the no-tion of BIM as a data management technology pre-vails among the respondents. Participants have rec-ognized that the main improvement brought by BIMis the increment on project datamanagement capac-ity and clash detection. Furthermore, when asked topick a more accurate definition of BIM, most of re-spondents indicated that BIM is a construction man-agement process.

Additionally, participants were asked about theiropinion on alternatives to expand the implementa-tion of BIM in the AEC industry in Brazil. From thegiven options the most selected were the ones re-lated to the need to implement measures that in-crement the value of BIM adoption for final client;also the need to include BIM into curricula in the AECschools; reduction of cost implementation and reg-ulation of normative and laws from the government.Turk (2016) suggests that the lack of tools and knowl-edge and culture reasons should be studied fromthe perspective of economics and organizational sci-ence.

Concerning BIM adoption among professionals,we observed that BIM has been more used by ar-

chitects than engineers among those that answeredthe survey. Which may be a consequence of theadoptionof BIMas amodeling tool amongarchitects.Also, there was no evidence that firms with more ex-perience were prone to the implementation of BIM.Moreover, BIM has been adopted by firms related tothe design‘s development and management. How-ever, we noticed that three-dimensional (3D) mod-eling has been the main implementation of BIM (ap-proximately 90%) when compared to other types ofmodelling such as 4D (cost), 5D (time), 6D (facilitymanagement and 7D (sustainability).

CONCLUSIONSThis research has achieved the purpose of creatingan overview of the level of BIM knowledge amongprofessionals in the AEC industry in Sao Paulo, Brazil.Based on the survey‘s results, we conclude that thereis a need for strong collaborative practices, as re-quired by the increased level of design complexity,integrated delivery methods, and BIM adoption inthe AEC industry. Due to the increase of design com-plexity, professionals must be able to deal with morecollaborative and multidisciplinary solutions. BIMadoption requires a significant change by the AECfirms such as software, hardware, training, process,and business investments for developing future BIMcapabilities.

The demand for BIM education is high (Ahn andKim, 2016). In the Brazilian context this reality is notdifferent. However, besides the implementation ofBIM disciplines in undergraduate and graduate pro-grams, education institutions must have a closer re-lation with the AEC industry to understand the de-mands of design and construction firms. This way,education institutions can propose new learning andresearch opportunities to the AEC community, in-crementally introducing as a fundamental conceptduring the design, construction and managementphases.

The adoptionof BIMby theAEC industry requiresa broader framework of laws and regulations to struc-ture the use of the technology throughout the chain


of services and professionals involved in the buildingprocess. The participation of academic institutions isa fundamental phase not only offering the necessaryknowledge during professional education but also asa research hub, functioning as a resource to AEC in-dustry in general. On the other end of this spectrum,laws and regulations are important mechanisms thatneed to be implemented fostering a business envi-ronment in which the incremental management ofbuildingdatabecomesavaluable condition through-out the construction industry.

Another important aspect to be observed is howBIM is seen by the survey respondents when it com-pared to the way BIM has been used as a technol-ogy in the industry. As discussed earlier, most of therespondents understand that the biggest improve-ment brought to the industry by BIM as a data man-agement technology. However, to a larger groupof respondents, BIM tools are used as 3D modelingtool which is a limited interpretation of this technol-ogy not contributing for the structuring of the indus-try. Also, the interpretation of BIM as a 3D Modelingtool do not bring any advancement for AEC industry,keeping the technology isolated as a design tool andfar away from the notion of building data manage-ment.

Finally, it is also important to mention that thisstudy has some limitations. First, data analysis wasbased on respondents’ perceptions which can beimpacted by some bias. Second, we apply non-probabilistic sample, and hence, the results are notgeneralizable. Third, the sample was not stratifiedby different profession, sector, firm size and coun-try; thus, these variables could not be investigated.These limitations can lead to future works that in-cludes the understanding of BIM knowledge amongdifferent professionals, sector, country and firm size.At last we end this paper addressing the researchquestion which has driven of this study. Based onthe notion of BIM maturity level proposed by Suc-car (2009), we suggest from our findings that the BIMlevel of maturity is between Pre BIM and BIM stage 1(object-based modeling) in the AEC industry in Sao

Paulo, Brazil.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis study was financed in part by the Coordenaçãode Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior -Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001”.

REFERENCESAhan, E and Kim, M 2016, ’BIM Awareness and Accep-

tance by Architecture Students in Asia’, Journal ofAsian Architecture and Building Engineering, 15(3), p.419–424

Akintola, A, Venkatachalam, S and Root, D 2017, ’NewBIM Roles’ Legitimacy and Changing Power Dynam-ics on BIM-Enabled Projects’, Journal of ConstructionEngineering andManagement, 143(9), pp. 1-11

Arayici, Y, Coates, P, Koskela, L, Kagioglou, M, Usher, Cand O’Reily, K 2011, ’Technology adoption in BIMimplementation for lean architectural practice’, Au-tomation in Construction, 20, pp. 189-195

Azhar, S, Khalfan, M and Maqsood, T 2012, ’Building In-formation Modeling (BIM): now and beyond’, Con-struction Economics and Building, 12(4), p. 15–28

Barison, MB and Santos, ET 2010a ’An overview of BIMspecialists.’, Proccedings of International Conferenceon Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, SaoPaulo, pp. 141-146

Barison, MB and Santos, ET 2010b ’BIM teaching strate-gies: an overview of the current approaches’, Proc-cedings of International Conference on Computing inCivil and Building Engineering, Sao Paulo, pp. 577-583

Becerik-Geber, B, Jazizadeh, F, Li, N and Calis, G 2012,’Application areas and data requirements for BIM-enable facilities management’, Journal of Construc-tion Engineering andManagement, 138, pp. 431-442

Becerik-Gerber, B, Gerber, DJ andKu, K 2011, ’Thepace oftechnological innovation in architecture, engineer-ing, and construction education: integrating recenttrends into the curricula’, Journalof InformationTech-nology in Construction, 16, pp. 411-432

Cao, D, Wang, G, Li, H, Skitmore, M, Huang, T andZhang,W2015, ’Practices and effectiveness of build-ing information modelling in construction projectsin China’, Automation in Construction, 49, pp. 113-122

Donato, V, Lo Turco, M and Bocconcino, MM 2018, ’BIM-QA/QC in the architectural design process’, Architec-tural Engineering andDesignManagement, 14(3), pp.


239-254Eastman, CM, Teicholz, P, Sacks, R and Liston, K (eds)

2011, BIMHandbook: A guide to Building InformationModeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineersand Contractors, Wiley, New Jersey

Fink, A (eds) 2003, The survey handbook, Sage, ThousandOaks

Forza, C 2002, ’Survey Research in Operations Man-agement: A process-based Perspective’, Interna-tional Journal of Operations & Production Manage-ment, 22(2), pp. 152-194

Ghaffarianhoseini, A, Tookey, J, Ghaffarianhoseini, A, Nai-smith, N, Azhar, S, Efimova, O and Raahemifar, K2017, ’Building InformationModelling (BIM) uptake:Clear benefits, understanding its implementation,risks and challenges’, Renewable and Sustainable En-ergy Reviews, 15, pp. 1046-1053

Gil, AC (eds) 2010, ComoElaborar Projetos dePesquisa, At-las, Sao Paulo

Gu, N and London, K 2010, ’Understanding and facilitat-ing BIM adoption in the AEC industry’, Automation inConstruction, 19, pp. 988-999

Hartmann, T and Fischer, M 2008 ’Applications ofBIM and hurdles for widespread adoption ofBIM’, Proceedings of 2007 AISC-ACCL eConstructionRoundtable Event Report, Palo Alto, pp. 1-20

Irizary, J, Gheisari, M, Zolfagharian, S and Meadati, P2013, ’Human computer interaction modes for con-struction education applications: experimentingwith small format interactive displays’, InternationalJournal of Construction Education and Research, 9(2),p. 83–101

Joannides, MM, Olbina, S and Issa, RRA 2012, ’Imple-mentation of Building Information Modeling intoAccredited Programs in Architecture and Construc-tion Education’, International Journal of ConstructionEducation and Research, 8(2), p. 632809

Khosrowshahi, F and Arayici, Y 2012, ’Roadmap for im-plementation of BIM in the U.K. construction indus-try’, Journal of Engineering Construction andArchitec-tural Management, 19(6), p. 610–635

Kiviniemi, A and Codinhoto, R 2014 ’Challenges in theimplementation of BIM for FM – Case Manchestertownhall complex’, Proceedingsof 2014 InternationalConference of Computing in Civil and Building Engi-neering, Orlando, pp. 83-100

Kokaturk, T and Kiviniemi, A 2013 ’Challenges of inte-grating BIM in Architectural Education’, Proceedingsof eCAADe 2013, Liverpool, pp. 465-474

Koutamanis, A 2017, ’Briefing and Building InformationModelling: Potential for integration’, International

JournalofArchitecturalComputing, 15(2), p. 119–133Lindkvist, C 2015, ’Contextualizing learning approaches

which shapeBIM formaintenance’, Built EnvironmentProject and Asset Management, 5(3), pp. 318-330

Love, PED, Matthews, J, Simpson, IS, Hill, A and Olatunji,OA 2014, ’A benefits realization management build-ing informationmodeling framework for asset own-ers’, Automation in Construction, 37, pp. 1-10

Lu, Y, Wu, Z, Changa, R and Li, Y 2017, ’Building Informa-tionModeling (BIM) for greenbuildings: A critical re-view and future directions’, Automation in Construc-tion, 83, pp. 134-148

Macdonald, JA 2012 ’A framework for collaborative BIMeducation across the AEC disciplines’, Proceedingsof 37th Annual Conference of Australasian UniversityBuilding Educators Association, Sidney, pp. 223-230

Macdonald, JA andMills, JE 2011 ’The potential of BIM tofacilitate collaborative AEC Education’, Proceedingsof 118th ASEE ANNUAL CONFERENCE, Vancouver, pp.1-7

Mahalingam, A, Yadav, AK and Varaprasad, J 2015, ’In-vestigating the role of leanpractices in enabling BIMadoption: Evidence from two Indian cases’, Jour-nal of Construction Engineering and Management,,141(7), p. 05015006

Mahamadu, AM, Mahdjoubi, L and Booth, CA 2017, ’Crit-ical BIM qualification criteria for construction pre-qualification and selection’,Architectural Engineeringand DesignManagement, 13(5), pp. 326-343

Mathews, M 2013, ’BIM collaboration in student archi-tectural technologist learning’, Journal of Engineer-ing Design and Technology, 11(2), pp. 190-206

Migilinskasa, D, Popov, V, Juocevicius, V and Usti-novichius, L 2013 ’The Benefits, Obstacles and Prob-lems of Practical BIM Implementation’, Proceedingsof MBMST 2013, Vilnius, pp. 767-774

Morton, DE 2012, ’BIM: A transformative technologywithin the architecture curriculum in schools of ar-chitecture (Pedagogic stages of architectural educa-tion and the transformative effect of BIM’, Interna-tional Journal of 3D Information Modeling, 1(4), pp.50-68

Olawumi, TO, Chan, DWM, Wong, JKW and Chan, APC2018, ’Barriers to the integration of BIM and sustain-ability practices in construction projects: A Delphisurvey of international experts’, Journal of BuildingEngineering, 20, pp. 60-71

Pauwels, P, Zhang, S and Le, YC 2017, ’Semantic webtechnologies in AEC industry: A literature review’,Automation in Construction, 73, p. 145–165


Puolitaival, T and Forsythe, P 2016, ’Practical challengesof BIM education’, Structural Survey, 34(4), pp. 351-366

Santos, R, Costa, AA and Grilo, A 2017, ’Bibliometric anal-ysis and review of Building Information Modellingliterature published between 2005 and 2015’, Au-tomation in Construction, 80, pp. 118-136

Singh, V, Gu, N and Wang, X 2011, ’A theoretical frame-work of a BIM-based multi-disciplinary collabora-tion platform’, Automation in Construction, 20(2), p.134–144

Succar, B 2009, ’Building information modelling frame-work: A research and delivery foundation for indus-try stakeholders’, Automation in Construction, 18, pp.357-375

Succar, B, Sher, W and Williams, A 2013, ’An integratedapproach to BIM competency assessment, acquisi-tion and application’, Automation inConstruction, 35,pp. 174-189

Suwal, S and Singh, V 2018, ’Assessing students ‘sen-timents towards the use of a building informationmodelling (BIM) learning platform in a constructionproject management course’, European Journal ofEngineering Education, 43(1-15), p. 492

R Core Team, X 2017, R: A Language and Environmentfor Statistical Computing, R Foundation for StatisticalComputing, Viena

Turk, Z 2016, ’Ten questions concerning Building Infor-mation Modeling’, Building and Environment, 107,pp. 274-284

Zhang, S, Pan, F, Wang, C and Sun, Y 2017, ’BIM-BasedCollaboration Platform for the Management of EPCProjects in Hydropower Engineering’, Journal of Con-struction Engineering and Management, 143(12), pp.04017087-1-15

Zhang, J, Wu, W and Li, H 2018, ’Enhancing buildinginformation modeling competency among civil en-gineering and management students with team-based learning’, Journal of Professional Issues in Engi-neering Education and Practice, 144(2), p. 0000356

Zhao, X 2017, ’A scientometric review of global BIM re-search: Analysis and visualization’, Automation inConstruction, 80, pp. 37-47


bim knowledge assessment: an overview among...

Documents