BE1268_Dissertation_Clarke_Ricky_W13032289

A STUDY OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING
THE QUALITY OF PRODUCTION
INFORMATION USING BIM BASED DESIGN
CLARKE
RICKY
13032289
19 SEPTEMBER 2014
MSC BUILDING DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND BIM

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHUMBRIA AT
NEWCASTLE
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT
A Study of the Factors Affecting the Quality of
Production Information Using BIM Based Design
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MSc Building Design Management and Building
Information Modelling
Ricky Clarke
13032289
September 2014

i
Declaration Form
I declare the following:
1. That the material contained in my dissertation/thesis is the end result of my own
work and that due acknowledgement has been given in the bibliography and
references to ALL sources, be they printed, electronic or personal, using the
Northumbria Harvard referencing system.
2. The word count of my dissertation/thesis is 20,620 words.
3. That unless my dissertation/thesis has been confirmed as confidential, I agree to an
entire electronic copy or sections of my dissertation/thesis being placed on the
eLearning portal and shared hard drive, if deemed appropriate, to allow future
students and staff the opportunity to see examples of past students’
dissertations/theses.
4. I agree to my dissertation/thesis being submitted to a plagiarism detection service
where it will be stored in a database and compared against work submitted from this
or any other programme within Northumbria University and from other UK, EU and
international institutions using the service.
In the event of the service detecting a high degree of similarity between the content
of my dissertation/thesis and the documents contained within the database, this will
be reported back to my supervisor and examiners, who may decide to undertake
further investigation that may ultimately lead to disciplinary action (according to
ARNA), should instances of plagiarism be detected.
5. I have read the Northumbria University policy statements on Ethics in Research
and Consultancy and confirm that ethical issues have been considered, evaluated and
appropriately addressed during my research and during the production of my
dissertation/thesis.
6. I agree to the module tutor and/or programme leader nominating my
dissertation/thesis on my behalf for appropriate academic/research awards, such as
the CIOB, RICS and APM annual master’s dissertation awards.
Date ................................................................................................................................
Sign ................................................................................................................................

ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Mr Eric Johansen, my supervisor at the University of
Northumbria, for his straightforward guidance and timely feedback in response to all
my requests.
I would also like to express my thanks to the research participants who helped me
with the data collection and were generous with their time and forthcoming with
useful insights.
Lastly, I’d like to thank my family, who have encouraged and supported me
throughout my studies, with special thanks to my mum for proof reading this for me.

iii
Contents
Declaration Form .......................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... ii
Contents ...................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables............................................................................................................. viii
Preface ......................................................................................................................... ix
List of Abbreviations.................................................................................................... x
Glossary ...................................................................................................................... xi
Structured Abstract.................................................................................................... xiii
1.0 Chapter One - Introduction ............................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background – Industry Wide Problems ........................................................ 3
1.3 Rationale for Study ........................................................................................ 4
1.4 Research Aim and Objectives ....................................................................... 6
1.5 Research Scope .............................................................................................. 6
1.6 Research Design ............................................................................................ 7
1.7 Research Structure ......................................................................................... 7
2.0 Chapter Two - Literature review ....................................................................... 8
2.2 Part A -The problem of Production Information Quality................................... 8
2.2.1 Design Documentation Quality .............................................................. 8
2.2.2 The Extent of the Problem ..................................................................... 8
2.2.3 General Causes of Poor Quality Production Information ...................... 9
2.2.4 Fragmentation ...................................................................................... 11
2.2.5 Problems with Information Management............................................. 13

iv
Problems with the 2.2.6 Existing 2D Drawing-based Design Documentation
14
2.2.7 Rework ................................................................................................. 16
2.3 Part B – Solutions ........................................................................................ 17
2.3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 17
2.3.2 Drivers for BIM - Government Intervention ........................................ 17
2.3.3 The BIM based Design Paradigm - What is BIM? .............................. 19
2.3.4 The BIM based design paradigm ......................................................... 20
2.3.5 Inherent Characteristics of the BIM Based Design Paradigm ............. 21
2.3.6 General Benefits of BIM ....................................................................... 23
2.3.7 BIM maturity Level 2........................................................................... 24
2.3.8 PAS 1192-2 .......................................................................................... 27
2.3.9 The Information delivery cycle ............................................................ 28
2.3.10 Collaborative Working within the context of PAS1192-2. .................. 29
2.3.11 BIM Model Federation ......................................................................... 30
2.3.12 Specific benefits of federated BIM models .......................................... 30
2.3.13 Improved Visualisation and 3D Design Review .................................. 31
2.3.14 Design coordination and Model Checking ........................................... 31
2.3.15 Multi-disciplinary Integration and Simultaneous working .................. 33
3.0 Chapter Three - Theoretical Framework ......................................................... 34
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 34
3.2 Theoretical Framework for the Study ......................................................... 35
3.3 Principal Factors Affecting the Quality of Production Information ............ 36
3.4 Strategic countermeasures under PAS1192-2 ............................................. 38
4.0 Chapter Four - Research design ...................................................................... 41
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 41
4.2 Rationale for Research Paradigm ................................................................ 42

v
4.3 Rationale for Inductive research approach .................................................. 43
4.4 Rationale for Qualitative Research Method ................................................ 44
4.5 The Research Sample .................................................................................. 46
4.6 Data Collection Method .............................................................................. 48
4.7 Interview Schedule, Pilot Interview and Interview Process ........................ 49
4.8 Data analysis and synthesis ......................................................................... 50
4.9 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................. 51
4.10 Issues of trustworthiness ......................................................................... 52
5.0 Chapter Five - Data Analysis and Discussion ................................................. 53
5.1 Data Analysis and Discussion ..................................................................... 53
5.2 Factor 1: Virtual prototyping ....................................................................... 55
5.3 Factor 2: Visualisation and Understanding ................................................. 56
5.4 Factor 3: Upfront Investment Driving Downstream Value ......................... 57
5.5 Factor 4: Process Rigour and Transparency ................................................ 59
5.6 Factor 5: Information Cohesion, Integrity & Automation .......................... 61
5.8 Factor 6 - User capability and organisational BIM maturity ....................... 62
5.9 Factor 7 - Harnessing the Potential of Innovative BIM technologies ......... 63
5.10 Factor 8: Balancing Risk and Reward ......................................................... 64
5.11 Factor 9: Integration Barriers ....................................................................... 67
5.12 Summary of Findings................................................................................... 70
6.0 Chapter Six – Conclusions .............................................................................. 73
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 73
6.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 73
6.3 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 77
6.4 Limitations of the Study .............................................................................. 79
6.5 Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................... 80
References .................................................................................................................. 81

vi
Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 87
Appendices ................................................................................................................. 89
Appendix A: The seven core components of Level 2 BIM ................................... 90
Appendix B: Fundamental principles of Maturity Level 2 BIM. .......................... 92
Appendix C: Summary of Research Design .......................................................... 94
Appendix D: Interview protocol and Semi-Structured Interview questions. ........ 95
Appendix F: Extract from Thematic Analysis of research data ............................. 97

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1 2012 UK Industry report based on Key Performance Indicators .................. 3
Figure 2: The Over the wall approach.......................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Cause and effect separated by time and location. ......................................... 8
Figure 4 Some common connotations of multiple BIM terms ................................... 19
Figure 5 Illustration of data integrity across 2D CAD and BIM design paradigms. . 21
Figure 6 Short and long term benefits of BIM. .......................................................... 24
Figure 7 BIM Maturity Levels. ................................................................................. 25
Figure 8 The central relationship between PAS1192:2 and the Government Strategy
documents .................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 9 The Information delivery cycle in PAS1192-2 ............................................ 29
Figure 10 Functions of an integrated virtual BIM model ......................................... 30
Figure 11 The ‘Mcleamey Curve. .............................................................................. 33
Figure 12 Theoretical Framework for the study. ...................................................... 35
Figure 13 Root cause Analysis. .................................................................................. 37
Figure 14 The Interrelationship of Factors affecting the quality of Production
Information ................................................................................................................. 54

viii
List of Tables
Table 1 Inherent Characteristics of BIM associated with production information .... 22
Table 2 Bew-Richards maturity levels explained ...................................................... 25
Table 3 Revised Requirements for Level 2 BIM ....................................................... 26
Table 4 Summary of Categories and concepts contained within the Theoretical
framework .................................................................................................................. 40
Table 5 Rationale and selection of Qualitative research method for the Study ......... 45
Table 6 Research Sample Information and Demographic ........................................ 47

ix
Preface
The motivation for carrying out this study into the impact of BIM based design on
the quality of Production Information stems for the author’s prior working
experience of the challenges, inefficiencies and responsibilities faced when
attempting to deliver high quality contract documentation documents in sub-optimum
project environments. Within this context, this can be taken to mean using traditional
2DCAD based tools and processes with uncollaborative standard forms of contract
and unrealistic design programmes. These arguably typical conditions have been
found to be unconducive to success and a major source of inefficiency in a
substantial body of literature.
Fortunately for many, the long term aspiration for fundamental change to industry
practices has coincided with the advent of functional BIM technologies with a
progressive and ambitious Government Construction Strategy. The momentum this
has generated offers great potential to counteract many of the factors leading to poor
project performance. There are long standing cultural and institutional challenges
that must be also be addressed as part of any solution, however despite the lack of
holistic solutions many are experiencing for themselves the benefits of barriers
brought about by what represents a significant opportunity for industry improvement.
The purpose and scope of this research is therefore to investigate the relationship
between the theory of BIM based design and the practice as experienced by industry
practitioners who have experience of both 2DCAD and BIM based design
paradigms. It is the primary intention to identify the main factors that impact upon
the successful application of BIM. The secondary intention is to make practical
recommendations for organisations considering adopting BIM or for those who may
have already started their transition.

x
List of Abbreviations
BEP BIM Execution Plan
BIM Building Information Modelling
BIMM Building Information Modelling and Management
2DCAD Computer-aided design (Two Dimensional)
COBie Construction Operations Building Information Exchange
DBB Design Bid Build
D&B Design & Build
DFMa Design for manufacture and assembly
FM Facility Management
gbXML Green Building XML
IFC Industry Foundation Classes
IPD Integrated Project Delivery
M&E Mechanical & Electrical
NBS National Building Specification
PAS Publically Available Specification
PoW Plan of Work
RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects

xi
Glossary
Computer-aided design (CAD): is the use of computer systems to assist in the
creation, modification, analysis, or optimisation of a design. CAD software is used to
increase the productivity of the designer, improve the quality of design, improve
communications through documentation, and to create a database for manufacturing
(Narayan, K. Lalit, 2008).
Collaborative BIM: Collaborative BIM is the converse of Lonely BIM and can be
construed as being when all designing parties are utilising BIM. There is, however,
no agreement as to whether level 2 BIM is truly ‘collaborative’, although if all
parties are producing 3D models and working collaboratively then there is no reason
for this not to be the case. (Sincalir, 2013)
Common Data Environment (CDE): A single location (typically a server or
extranet) for storing information that can then be collated, managed and disseminated
amongst multi-disciplinary teams working collaboratively (BSI, 2013).
Federated Model: means a Model consisting of connected but distinct individual
Models.
Information Model: all documentation, non-graphical information and graphical
information which the Project Team is required to provide into the Information
Model by the Scope of Services for the Project Team and which is provided for the
purpose of delivering Project Outputs (BSI, 2013).
PAS1192: Specification for information management for the capital/delivery phase
of construction projects using Building Information Modelling.
Project BIM Protocol: The Project Specific BIM Protocol setting out the
obligations of the principal members of the Project Team in respect of the use of
BIM on the Project.
Project Information Plan: the plan for the structure and management and exchange
of information from the Project Team in the Information Model and the related
processes and procedures.

xii
Production Information: Construction project Information Committee (CPIC)
defines production information as ‘the information prepared by designers that is
passed to a construction team to enable a project to be constructed’ (BSI, 2007).
4D (time) BIM: The intelligent linking of individual 3D CAD components or
assemblies with time- or schedule-related information. The use of the term 4D is
intended to refer to the fourth dimension: time, i.e. 4D is 3D plus schedule (time).
5D (cost) BIM: The ability of BIM models to contain cost information and quantity
schedules.
6D (FM) BIM: The intelligent linking of individual 3D CAD components or
assemblies with all aspects of project life-cycle management information. The
principal means of achieving this is by adding data to the model as the project
develops.

xiii
Structured Abstract
Background: Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a core enabler of digitally
enabled design and construction practices. It offers the potential for
significant improvements in the quality of Production Information
and overall project performance. As such it represents a major
opportunity for change and improved project delivery.
Aim: The aim of the study was to identify and explain the factors associated
with the delivery of improved Production Information quality using
BIM enabled design practices.
Research
Design:
This study used existing theoretical sources to identify the factors
leading to poor quality Production Information. Additionally, the
requirements of PAS1192-2 were introduced to contextualise the
mandated use of BIM based design solutions.
Primary research was carried out using an inductive/qualitative
approach via in-depth semi-structured interviews with seven
experienced project professionals primarily from the Architectural
industry.
Findings:
Nine core factors were identified via a Thematic analysis of the data.
User capability was found to be the most important positive factor in
the delivery of quality Production Information, irrespective of the
design platform used. Uncollaborative procurement practices
incompatible with the workflow required by BIM enabled design
were found to be the most important negative factor, which prevents
discipline integration and erodes the potential presented by BIM
enabled working practices.
Conclusions:
BIM based design presents significant opportunities at both a
business and project level for organisations willing and able balance
the risks and rewards of investment in innovative technology and
development of a capable project team. The study concluded with
twelve recommendations for practice.
Keywords: BIM, Production Information, Quality, PAS1192-2, Rework.

1
1.0 Chapter One - Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The body of evidence supporting the case for a change to the way in design
information is produced and managed has led many, including the UK Government
to embrace the uncertainty of adopting Building Information Modelling, as the
mechanism to instigate wide ranging process changes with the intention of making a
fundamental improvement in the construction project design and delivery process.
In understanding the context of this phenomenon it is necessary understand the
background to the problem and to briefly explain the relationships between three
concepts underpinning the context of the discussion; Building Design, Quality and
Production Information.
Firstly, by defining building design one is able to see how the process of constructing
a building is dependent on the translation of knowledge and information into
something physical that can be used to understand the creative intentions of the
designer, hence building design can be defined as;
‘…a process which maps an explicit set of client and end-user requirements
to produce, based on knowledge and experience, a set of documents that
describe and justify a project which would satisfy these requirements plus
other statutory and implicit requirements imposed by the domain and/or the
environment’ (Hassan,1996).
The provision of graphical and written representations, traditionally in the form of
drawings and specifications allow contractors and subcontractors to transform
concepts and ideas into physical reality. How effectively and efficiently this
transformation occurs, depends largely on the quality of the design and
documentation provided (Tilley and Barton 1997). The assessment of design and
documentation quality can be highly subjective and open to interpretation, when
considering design quality, McGeorge (1988), stated that:
“…a good design will be effective (i.e. serve the purpose for which it was
intended) and constructible with the best possible economy and safety.”

2
But whilst the design itself needs to be ‘effective’, it also needs to be communicated
effectively through the documentation (i.e. drawings, specifications, etc.). When
documentation quality is considered, a number of criteria determine the level of
quality and it is these which form the basis of understanding quality in the context of
this research; (Tilley, 2005).
• Timeliness - being supplied when required, so as to avoid delays;
• Accuracy - free of errors, conflicts and inconsistencies;
• Completeness - providing all the information required;
• Coordination - thorough coordination between design disciplines; and
• Conformance - meeting the requirements of performance standards
and statutory regulations.
Therefore, the quality of the design and documentation process can simply be
defined as:
‘The ability to provide the contractor with all the information needed to
enable construction to be carried out as required, efficiently and without
hindrance’ (Tilley, 2005).
For the purposes of this research the information needed to enable construction will
be referred to as Production Information and is defined as ‘the information prepared
by designers that is passed to a construction team to enable a project to be
constructed.’ In a BIM working environment the delivery may take the form of
three-dimensional models with associated information attached by direct attribution
or population from a database (BSi, 2007). For the purposes of this research the term
is also taken to be used interchangeably with the terms, ‘Contract Documentation’,
‘Working drawings’ and ‘Design Documentation.’
The quality of Production Information remains a major concern to many parties
within the construction industry as it has a major influence on the overall
performance and efficiency of construction projects (Burati et al 1992).

3
1.2 Background – Industry Wide Problems
The need for the Construction industry to improve performance is well recognised. In
the UK, Construction is a significant economic activity which contributes some 7%
of GDP and is worth about £110 billion per annum - more if the whole-life
contribution through planning, design, construction, maintenance, decommissioning
and reuse, is taken into account (Cabinet office, 2011). Yet performance remains
poor against a wide range of benchmarks (See Figure 1 below) and consistently fails
in its capacity to deliver value to industry stakeholders.
Figure 1 2012 UK Industry report based on Key Performance Indicators (Adapted from
Constructing Excellence, Author)
The defining characteristics of the UK construction industry are its inability to
complete projects predictably and its chronically low levels of profitability (Crotty
2012). Thus the need for improvements in the construction industry has long been
recognised. Two major reports from the nineties began reform and mapped the
process to change the construction industry. 'Constructing the Team' by Latham,
condemned existing industry practices as being'...ineffective, adversarial,
fragmented, and incapable of delivering for its customers.’ Latham wished to delight
clients by promoting;
‘Openness, co-operation, trust, honesty, commitment and mutual
understanding among team members,’ calling for industry ‘to increase
efficiency and to replace the bureaucratic, wasteful, adversarial atmosphere
prevalent in most construction projects at the time' (Latham 1994).

4
Of the recommendations in the report, the most notable with reference to this
research included the following;
'The use of co-ordinated project information should be a contractual
requirement.'
However in the last two decades while most other industries have managed to
improve considerably in most aspects of their performance, construction has failed to
show any such improvement (Crotty, 2012). Latham’s aspirations have remained on
the agenda right up until and including today.
1.3 Rationale for Study
With the advent of widespread adoption of Building Information Modelling, the
potential to significantly realise the benefits of improved collaboration and digital
design and fabrication are promising developments in the industry. Over time it is
hoped that BIM will help to reduce the prevailing failure and achieve a higher level
of quality and performance. Capitalising on the opportunity for change, the UK
government has embarked on an ambitious programme of 'mobilisation and
implementation,' (Cabinet Office, 2011) that in order to exploit BIM technology and
design, create and maintain assets more efficiently (BIS, 2011). This premise is
supported a growing body of research which suggests BIM can enable a number of
benefits including time and cost reductions throughout the project life cycle (Bryde
et al, 2013).
In 2014 the UK government has published the results of the Ministry of Justice
Cookham Wood trial project. This appears to have realised an overall cost saving of
20 per cent and a host of other benefits, however these results were achieved not only
through BIM, but also a synthesis of other new procurement initiatives that promote
collaborative working. These included Lean Principles, BIM, Soft Landings, Two
Stage Tendering with early Contractor Engagement and Project Bank Accounts
(BIM Task Group, 2014). While this case study appears to demonstrate success, it
does acknowledge a number of challenges that remain to be overcome. The
challenges for other less high profile projects are likely to be more significant.

5
Examples from the literature include Erodogan, Anumba, Bouchlaghem and Neilson,
(2008) who suggest that companies adopting BIM technologies often fail to achieve
the full benefits of their implementations. The reasons for this were found to be
focusing too much on the technical factors and ignoring or underestimating the
factors related to change, implementation, human and organisational factors and the
roles of management and end users. Similarly, a study by Neff, Fiore-Silvast and
Dossick, (2010) found that most architects were using BIM primarily for
visualisation and analysis instead of increased collaboration and that deeply
embedded disciplinary thinking is not easily overcome by digital representations of
knowledge.
Lu, Zhang and Rowlinson, (2013) suggest BIM adoption in isolation does not change
the fragmented nature of the construction sector and that an understanding of how to
realise a more holistic and collaborative approach in BIM projects is crucial to realise
its full potential. This view is supported by Bouchlaghem, (2011) who suggests that
effective collaboration cannot result only from the implementation of information
systems or approaches that focus exclusively on sociological, organisational or
cultural issues. In order to extract the best possible, any effective implementation of
BIM has to involve a fundamental change in the working procedures in the project
delivery process; a cultural shift the key challenge. (Philp; 2012; Eastman et al,
2011).
The mandated BIM protocols aim to harness the benefits of best practice and
navigate the industry towards greater efficiency. However, as discussed above
organisations will encounter a number of Technology, Process and People (TPP)
related issues during their transition to collaborative BIM working. The rationale for
this study is therefore to identify what factors are currently being experienced by
industry professionals, which factors are the most important and what factors are
preventing project organisations from realising further value for themselves and
other stakeholders. Similarly the research intendeds validate the benefits reported in
the literature with those experienced in practice in order to understand how greater
BIM can be used to greatest effect.

6
1.4 Research Aim and Objectives
In consideration of the preceding paragraphs, the aim of the study is to investigate the
factors associated with the delivery of improved Production Information quality using
BIM enabled design practices.
In support of this aim the research has the following objectives which must be
achieved;
1. To review the literature and identify core the factors resulting in poor quality
2. To review the core principles of PAS1192-2 in conjunction with the literature
to establish how BIM based design impacts upon the process of delivering
3. To interview a sample of industry practitioners to explore their experiences of
BIM enabled working practices when compared to the traditional (2D CAD)
design paradigm.
4. To analyse the research data, to identify and explore the emergent factors
affecting the quality of Production Information using BIM enabled design
processes.
5. To conclude the study with a series of recommendations that can assist design
organisations in maximising the potential of BIM enabled design processes.
1.5 Research Scope
The scope of this primary research is focused upon the views of architects and the
buildings they design. This is because architects often act in the role of Lead
Designer and as such are more likely to have a holistic view of the changes brought
about by BIM. The delivery of Production Information is the area of work in which
particular focus is paid and factors concerning pre-planning and post occupancy
project stages are generally excluded from the scope. Similarly the framework within
which BIM functionality and the research questions are discussed is PAS1192-2,
however owing the time restrictions of the dissertation and the wide ranging
implications contained within this document, the study focuses only on selected
relevant aspects of this document.

7
1.6 Research Design
In consideration of the nature of the aims and objectives for this study, an approach
was taken which would enlist beliefs, opinions and views to gather data, which was
rich in content and scope and open to interpretation (Fellows and Liu, 2003). A
qualitative approach to the research was therefore selected. The primary data was
obtained by conducting semi-structured interview interviews. The secondary data
was obtained from academic journals and government publications. Data analysis
was conducted using a Thematic analysis approach using descriptive and interpretive
coding process. Refer to Chapter four for full details of the Research Design.
1.7 Research Structure
This study is organised as follows;
Chapter 2 presents the Literature review which is broken into 2 parts:
 Part A explores the problem of poor quality Production Information.
 Part B explores proposed solutions at strategic and functional levels.
Chapter 3 – Concludes the findings form the literature review and presents the
theoretical model for the study.
Chapter four discusses the Research Design, the rationale for the methodology
selected, research ethics and data analysis, and specifies key characteristics of the
research participants.
Chapter five encompasses data analysis, discussion and summary of findings.
Chapter six presents the conclusion, the recommendations, the limitations and
opportunities for future research.

8
2.0 Chapter Two - Literature review
2.2 Part A -The problem of Production Information Quality
2.2.1 Design Documentation Quality
The importance of a new paradigm for managing the design and documentation
process and improve quality is now widely recognised as low quality Production
Information has been identified as a major factor in leading to a reduction in the
overall performance and efficiency of construction projects. As such it can be
directly attributed to variations, delays, disputes, cost overruns and rework (Love &
Li 2000; Tilley, 2005).
The literature reveals a common theme of deficient practice leading to poor quality.
The major issues are indicated below (Swelinger, 1996; Koskela, 1997; Tilley et al.
2002);
1. Poor communication of brief
2. Lack of adequate documentation
3. Deficient or missing input information
4. Poor information management
5. Deficient planning and unbalanced resource allocation
6. Lack of coordination between disciplines
7. Erratic decision making
8. Client changes
2.2.2 The Extent of the Problem
The extent of the substandard, incomplete, conflicting and erroneous design and
documentation information is not only widespread but continues to get worse despite
the negative impact on the industry (Tilley et al.2002). According to Barrett and
Barrett (2004) ‘…projects that run over time and budget are often underpinned by
faulty documentation that looks professional, but in fact does not properly specify or
describe the built solution.’

9
A report by NEDC showed that more than 50% of problems on building sites were
related to poor design information (NEDC, 1987). While according to Hibberd
(1980), 60% of variations were directly design documentation related. Similarly
during a study of defects in construction performed during the period 1986–1990 and
a deeper study performed during 1994–1996, it was found upon analysis that, on
average, 32% of the defect costs originated in the early phases, i.e., in relation to the
client and the design. (Josephson and Hammarlund, 1998). According to Love et al
(1997) a large proportion of rework cost were not only attributable to deficiencies in
design and documentation but also to the transfer of information during the design
process.
2.2.3 General Causes of Poor Quality Production Information
The causes of poor documentation can in part be attributed to the complex and
challenging nature of the design process as it involves thousands of decisions,
sometimes over a period of years, with numerous interdependencies, under a highly
uncertain environment (Tzortzopoulos & Formoso, 1999). In addition, many of the
traditional project management approaches are inappropriate for managing the design
process. For example, the design planning process is typically unstructured which
leads to insufficient understanding of the design process between parties and is a
barrier to people working effectively together (Taylor, 1993), while, Alarcón and
Mardones ,(1998) found that there is a lack of standards and a lack of constructability
of the designs.
Additionally, DeFraites (1989) suggests that overall project quality is greatly
determined by the level of professional services provided and that the quality of these
services is generally determined by how the services are selected and how the fees
are negotiated. Clients that select designers with the misunderstanding that low fees
or ‘cheapness’ can equate to value have been found to experience a limited level of
quality of service and expertise which generally translates into additional project
costs to the owner (Tilley, 2005).

10
Known factors which are the result of low fees include the use of inexperienced staff
that lack technical knowledge (Coles, 1990), as well as ‘time boxing’ which is where
design tasks are allocated to a specific duration, irrespective of whether the
documentation or each individual task is complete or not (Love et al., 2000).
Furthermore Tilley, (2005) suggests that while insufficient design fees are considered
to be the main problem by a large proportion of the industry, insufficient time to
properly carry out the design process, runs a very close second with unrealistic client
demands for earlier completion of projects being a major contributing factor to the
production of incomplete and erroneous contract documentation (Tilley and
McFallen, 2000).
In a survey by Tilley et al. (2002), it was found that the availability of design time
had declined by 37% over the previous 12–15 year period, but in contrast designers
generally spend around 20% more time on a project than was initially budgeted for.
Notably the survey also reported an industry perception that if more time was
allowed for the design and documentation process, then quality would improve.

11
2.2.4 Fragmentation
The integration of design process and all of all key players into a multi-disciplinary
team at both project management and design implementation levels is vital to project
success (Kagioglou et al, 1998).However, the design process is marred by
inefficiencies from fragmentation (Gallaher, O'Connor, Dettbarn, & Gilday, 2004).
The increasing complexity of building design has tended to lead to the specialisation
of professionals with many disciplines having their own distinct body of knowledge,
culture and commercial objectives which fosters competition based on values
associated with each party’s specialty (Ballard, 1999). This un-integrated and
sometimes adversarial working methodology of focusing on one’s own process with
little attention on the development of the whole project process exacerbates the
problem and is generally known as ‘working in silo’s.’ This is where disciplines
work independently of one another while making decisions that inevitably affect the
outcome of what is intended to be a coordinated design product (Karhu and
Lahdenpera, 1999).
This way of working is also characterised by Evbuomwana & Anumba, (1998) as the
‘over the wall approach,’ (See Figure 2 below) where based on the clients brief, the
architect produces an architectural design, which is the given to the structural
engineer, who the passes the project on to the quantity surveyor and so on until the
project documentation is passed onto the contractor who takes responsibility for the
construction.
Figure 2 The Over the wall approach (Evbuomwana, Anumba, 1997)

12
As a result, fragmentation leads to poor communication between the architects,
engineers, contractors and owners leading to a number of detrimental consequences,
including:
 Inadequate capturing translating, transforming and delivering (CTTD) client
needs (Shahrin and Johansen, 2013)
 Data loss caused by the fragmentation of design, resulting in inefficiencies
due to the inability to reuse information; data generated at one stage are not
readily re-used downstream;

 Development of pseudo-optimal design solutions;
 The lack of integration, co-ordination and collaboration between the various
functional disciplines involved in the life-cycle-issues of the project;
 The fragmentation of design and construction data, leading to
misunderstandings, misconceptions, clashes , omissions and errors
 The lack of true life-cycle analysis of projects (including costing,
maintenance, etc.);
 and poor communication of design intent and rationale which leads to
unwarranted design
 Changes, unnecessary liability claims, increase in design time and cost, and
inadequate pre- and post-design specifications.
 Elimination of viable design alternatives due to pressure of time;
 Prevalence of costly engineering changes and design iterations;
 Characterization of the design process with a rigid sequence of activities;

13
2.2.5 Problems with Information Management
A number of studies have highlighted both the extent (Hendrickson and Au, 2003)
and importance (Howell, 1999) of information management activities in
construction. Owen et al. (2010) neatly sums up the current situation;
“In general, silo mentalities and cultures prevail and document-based
information exchange across professions and throughout supply chains
ensures that information and, particularly, any associated intelligence,
coordination and agility is either corrupted or even lost. Thus decisions are
frequently made autonomously without multidisciplinary participation, and in
the absence of holistic or comprehensive and accurate knowledge. The use of
an iteratively and incrementally developed design, pulled from an end user or
client perspective, is virtually impossible within current structures, or at least
rarely achieved.”
The principal design activity of any project is the processing of information (Baldwin
et al, 1994) yet as described above this is poorly performed (Latham, 1994).
Jacobsson and Linderoth (2010), found that owing to the transient nature of project
teams the drive to deploy better information management technologies is limited.
Similarly, research suggest that information management and exchange within
construction typically still take place manually, predominantly through the use of
schedules which individuals or organizations reformat and manually distribute
normally on a document level (Dawood et al., 2002;Anumba et al., 2008). The
seemingly archaic delivery of information results in wasted time and money when in
data is lost through information exchange, the wasted time taken to identify the
useful information in a document or searching through incomplete, uncoordinated
information which leads to inefficiencies of rework (Anumba et al., 2008). When
Information Management suffers from multiple problems of this kind, this can lead
to the abandonment of design planning (Koskela et al, 1997), perpetuating a cycle
likely to create further difficulties. In addition, the fragmented nature of the
construction industry frequently leads to incompatibilities in semantics, process and
software between collaborating organizations amplifying the waste mentioned above
(Abukhder and Munns, 2003; Anumba et al., 2008).

14
2.2.6 Problems with the Existing 2D Drawing-based Design Documentation
Modern construction projects and the organisational structures which support their
delivery can be extremely complex and communications intensive. On a
conventional 2D CAD/paper based project of modest size this may give rise to a
huge body of 'unintelligent ' information. For example, in 1995 a European
construction IT R&D project found that up to 400 individual documents, or
documents about documents, are generated for every million pounds worth of project
value (CICC 1998). It was also found that there may be up to 60 consulting and
contracting firms in a typical £50m project. The problem therefore appears to be not
a lack of information in itself, but rather ‘…a problem in the lack of information
made for decision-making’ (Winch, 2010).
Crotty, (2012) has suggested conventional drawing-based design documentation,
suffers from four main deficiencies:
1. The use of arbitrary lines and symbols lead to ambiguity and
misunderstanding.
2. It can be difficult to ensure that individual document sets are properly and
internally consistent.
3. It can be difficult to ensure that related document sets are correctly
coordinated.
4. It can be difficult to ensure that the documentation is fully complete.
These deficiencies then lead to 2 main problems;
Firstly, owing to these inherent flaws, the output of the design production process is
essentially of low quality and untrustworthy. Secondly, the information is basically
incomputable and anybody wishing to reuse it has to reconstruct the data, either via
computer if the data is to be reused, or intellectually in one's mind if one attempts to
visualise the 3D form of a design conventionally delivered in 2D on paper.

15
The fundamental problem with this process is explained by Barker (2011), who
suggests;
‘2D CAD essentially replicates the single line graphical processes of the
drawing board and, with a few exceptions, involves the use of unintelligent
unrelated objects. This method of working has been unable to keep up with
the demands of a very risk averse industry which demands greater certainty
in design, cost and programme whilst accommodating increasing levels of
complexity and depth in the information to be delivered.’
It appears that drawing-based design is flawed and a root cause 3 major problems;
Firstly, the clients inability to accurately visualise the design; secondly, the difficulty
of integrating and coordinating cross-disciplinary design information and; thirdly, the
limited ability of contractors to accurately visualise in detail the designer's intentions
(Crotty, 2012).
In general, any piece of discipline specific design or technical information that needs
to be interpreted or coordinated manually requires skill and judgement on the part of
the recipient. It may therefore give rise to errors in understanding and
communication, particularly on complex cross-referenced documentation that is
typical in most construction projects.

16
2.2.7 Rework
Rework is a recognised as a significant factor contributing to poor project
performance. It is defined by Love, (2002) as ‘the unnecessary effort of redoing a
process or activity that was incorrectly implemented the first time.’ Rework
contributes towards delays and cost increases which Barber et al, (2000) found can
be as much as 23% of contract value when taking into account indirect costs which
are the cost of man hours to redesign and manage the deficient documents. This is
separate to the actual (direct) cost of the rectification, such as additional hiring of
resources (including labour and plant), schedule slippage, and reductions in project
scope or quality (Li et al., 2000). Rework is characterised by Eden et al., (2000) as
being hidden within the design documentation as a latent defect, giving the illusion
that the project is progressing smoothly until the latter phases of the project when the
errors are discovered resulting in rework and delay at a time when the impact of
design changes are at their highest. The cause and effect by time and location of
errors in a project is illustrated in Figure 3 below. This shows a (typical) example of
a dimensional error as found in a case study by Love, (2004). The source of the error
resides in the processes and interfaces of the design consultants but is hidden by time
and location, identified and resolved only during construction phase. Ackermann et
al., (1997) (cited in Love 2004) found that adverse consequences of these problems
include higher overall costs and profit loss, delay, reputational damage and costly
litigation over responsibility ultimately leading to risk avoidance among the design
consultants which may transpire as reluctance to sanction the approval of each
other’s work resulting in poor coordination and integration of design team members,
perpetuating the cycle of low productivity and quality.
Figure 3 Cause and effect separated by time and location. (Love, 2004)

17
2.3 Part B – Solutions
2.3.1 Introduction
In Part B of the literature review the intervention that the UK government has taken
to improve the performance of the industry is introduced. This is followed by a brief
introduction to BIM and the requirements for BIM level 2 compliance. Specific
aspects of PAS1192-2 are then discussed in terms of the functionality they enable.
2.3.2 Drivers for BIM - Government Intervention
In 2011, the most recent Government Construction Strategy was launched with the
aim of promoting the public sector as a better client, ‘more informed and better co-ordinated.’
It also aims to modernise the current business model to reduce overall
costs of Government construction projects by 15-20% (Cabinet Office 2012). Setting
out a range of activities to reform industry practice, reduce waste and drive better
value from its procurement of construction, the hypothesis was that ‘…the
Government as a client can derive significant improvements in cost, value and
carbon performance through the use of open sharable asset information’(HMG Task
Group, 2011).
The fundamental characteristic of the strategy was the recognition and inclusion of
Building Information Modelling; ‘…Government will require fully collaborative 3D
BIM (with all project and asset information, documentation and data being
electronic) as a minimum by 2016’ (Cabinet Office, 2011, p. 14).
By doing so the UK Government aims to strengthen the public sector’s client
capability in BIM implementation so that all central government department projects
will be adopting at least Level 2 BIM by 2016 (Cabinet Office, 2012, p. 6).
In support of these objectives the BIM Strategy Paper (2011), recommended giving a
‘push’ to the supply side of industry to enable all players to reach a minimum
performance level in the area of BIM use within 5 years (BIS, 2011). Similarly, the
report advocated a ‘pull’ from the client side to specify, collect and use the all the
derived information in a value adding way.

18
Moreover, and in support of the strategic objective, the Cabinet Office began to
develop standards enabling all members to work collaboratively because in its
opinion the;
‘…lack of compatible systems, standards and protocols, and the differing
requirements of the clients and lead designers, have inhibited widespread
adoption of a technology which has the capacity to ensure that all team
members are working from the same data’ (Cabinet Office, 2011, p. 13).

19
2.3.3 The BIM based Design Paradigm - What is BIM?
A review of the literature on BIM reveals a plethora of definitions and descriptions
of BIM. Much of the confusion surrounding BIM can be attributed to its potential to
affect many aspects and actors of the Construction delivery cycle. Figure 4 below
gives an overview of some common connotations associated with BIM;
Figure 4 Some common connotations of multiple BIM terms (Succar, 2009, p. 359).
Without being actively involved in BIM related activities it may be difficult for
individuals or organisations to grasp the holistic nature of BIM. The term and
concept of ‘BIM’ is multifaceted and unsurprisingly there is no definitive or agreed
upon definition. It is therefore important to understand each of the main aspects that
BIM represents. It firstly be thought of ‘a technological entity;’ the Building
Information Model itself; (which is essentially a database)
‘…a data-rich, object-oriented, intelligent and parametric digital
representation of the facility, from which views and data appropriate to
various user’s needs can be extracted and analysed to generate information
that can be used to make decisions and improve the process of delivering the
facility’ (Azhar, Hein and Sketo, 2008).
Secondly, it can be thought of as Building Information Modelling, ‘a process’ which
involves; ‘… the structured creation, sharing, use and re-use of digital information
about a building or built asset throughout its entire lifecycle, from design through
procurement and construction and beyond, into its operation and management. This
involves the use of coordinated 3D design models enriched with data which are

20
created and managed using a range of interoperable technologies.’ (BIM Academy,
2012).
Thirdly, the view of BIM as ‘a way of working’ which encompasses both Building
Information Management and Modelling. This last view of BIM (or BIMM) is
described as;
‘…an interoperable process for project delivery, defining how individual
teams work and how many teams work together to conceive, design, build
and operate a facility.’ (buildingSMART alliance, 2012)
If organisations use BIM in a way in which each of the three aspects is not
overlapped or integrated the potential of BIM is diminishes. Hence the terms ‘lonely
BIM’, ‘partial BIM’ and ‘collaborative BIM’ also arise.
For the purposes of this research the term ‘BIM’ can be taken to mean the resultant
change effected by a synergy between each of these aspects; From the technological
perspective the BIM database becomes the central repository of digital design data
enabling value generating processes to efficiently control and manipulate aspects
virtual prototype while also facilitating a collaborative and open methodology of data
exchange for the mutual benefit of all project stakeholders which opens new
possibilities towards improving procurement practices with better communication
and co-ordination across the whole building-sector.
2.3.4 The BIM based design paradigm
As explained in section 2.10, BIM is a methodology to manage the essential building
design and project data in digital format throughout the building's life-cycle
(Eastman 2008; Penttilä 2006, cited in Succar 2009;) and as such has been termed the
‘new paradigm’ in building design technology (Ibrahim, Krawczyk, Schipporeit,
2004). The principal difference between BIM and 2D CAD is that the latter describes
a building by independent 2D views such as plans, sections and elevations composed
of lines, arcs and circles etc. While the former is made up of intelligent contextual
data, where objects are defined in terms of building elements and systems such as
spaces, walls, beams and columns (CRC Construction Innovation, 2007).

21
As discussed in Part A, efficiency losses caused by the flawed drawing based
paradigm are significant. BIM processes inherently counteract the data loss
experienced using paper based processes by storing all information digitally while
also making it easily readable to every person involved. Similarly, while drawing
based design fails in recapturing all information after each stage, BIM assists in
maintaining data integrity (Harty, 2012). A visual comparison of the information
integrity across the two platforms is illustrated in Figure 5 below;
Figure 5 Illustration of data integrity across 2D CAD and BIM design paradigms (BIM Task
Group, 2014).
2.3.5 Inherent Characteristics of the BIM Based Design Paradigm
In essence, Building Information Modelling is a digital representation of physical
and functional characteristics of a facility that create a shared knowledge resource for
information about it forming a reliable basis for decisions during its lifecycle (BIM
Industry Working Group 2011). The corollary of this is the reliability of the data.
Stemming from this is the validity and the trustworthiness of what is distributed or
available. Through a review of the literature the following Table 1 below describes
the inherent characteristics of BIM which positively impact upon the quality of
production information;

22
Inherent Characteristics
of BIM associated with
production information
Description
Maintenance of
Information and
Design Model Integrity
BIM models store each piece of information once and displayed the data
according to the output required by the user. In contrast the 2D paradigm
requires repetition of common information in multiple files and drawings
increasing the coordination effort required and to maintain consistency
between multiple representations of data which increases the work load and
risk of error.
Earlier and More
Accurate Visualisations
of a Design
The 3D BIM model is geometrically consistent and viewable in any
combination of real-time views and perspectives. It can be used to view any
number of design modifications giving an instant and real time update of the
effect of design changes to corresponding elements. This saves time and
effort and streamlines the process
Automatic Low-Level
Corrections When
Changes Are Made to
Design
The rules and relationships between model based parameters have an
inherent intelligence that automatically adjust geometrically to database
driven modifications which allow auto adjustment of corresponding
elements reducing the coordination and document management effort and
assisting to eliminate spatial coordination errors.
Generation of Accurate
and Consistent 2D
Drawings at Any Stage
of the Design
Accurate and consistent drawings can be extracted for any set of objects or
specified view of the project. This significantly reduces the amount of time
and number of errors associated with generating construction drawings for
all design disciplines. When changes to the design are required, fully
consistent drawings can be generated as soon as the design modifications are
entered.
Earlier Collaboration
of Multiple Design
Disciplines
By subdividing the BIM database simultaneous working is possible my
multiple design disciplines. Design issues are identified earlier and can be
resolved in innovative ways at a time when design changes cost less. It also
shortens the design time and leads to less errors and omissions.
Information
consistency and
reliability
As a ‘single source of the truth’ BIM models can be distributed to project
team members with confidence that the model contains the information as it
is intended to be viewed in a complete three dimensional form. This requires
less ‘reconstruction’ of information on the part of the receiver and enhances
communication, understanding and reliability of the information without
having to produce a series of drawings to adequately ‘frame’ the
information.
Table 1 Inherent Characteristics of BIM associated with production information (Adapted from
Sacks, Koskela, Dave and Owen 2010; Eastman el al. 2011)

23
2.3.6 General Benefits of BIM on the associated with Production of
Information
Research by McGraw Hill Construction, (2012) shows that generally the benefits of
BIM increase as teams get more collaborative. Of the short term benefits observed,
reduced documents errors and omissions as well as reduced rework were both in the
top 3 benefits as can be seen in Figure 6 overleaf. Similarly, in a case-study research
study by Barlish and Sullivan, (2012) reduced rework and improved coordination
and visualisation were included in the top 4 benefits reported. While according to
Azhar, (2011) the key benefit of BIM is its accurate geometrical representation of the
parts of a building in an integrated data environment. Other related benefits are;
 Faster and more effective processes – information is more easily shared, can
be value-added and reused.
 Better production quality – documentation output is flexible and exploits
automation.
 Better customer service – proposals are better understood through accurate
visualisation. (CRC Construction Innovation, 2007).
Bryde, Broquetas, & Volm (2012) discussed the benefits of BIM based on their case
study and found the main benefits be to reduced cost and time, improved
communication, coordination and work quality. While according to Jernigan (2008)
and Love et al. (2011), use of BIM technology could reduce the chance of having
design changes, design errors, and improve the quality of design documentations.
Finally, Hansford, (2014) outlined a number of operational improvements that have
been found as a result of BIM Maturity Level 2 including Design visualisation, clash
detection and Constructability.

24
Figure 6 Short and long term benefits of BIM (McGraw-Hill, 2012).
2.3.7 BIM maturity Level 2
As part of the mandate for ‘fully collaborative 3D BIM’ the government published
what is known as the Bew–Richards maturity ramp (as illustrated in Figure 7
overleaf). The purpose of defining the levels from 0 to 3 was to in essence an
attempt to take the ambiguity out of the term BIM and;
‘…categorise the types of technical and collaborative working to enable a
concise description and understanding of the processes, tools and techniques
to be used’ (BIS, 2011).
However, despite being useful to as an aid to visualising the scale of BIM maturity
levels, much debate and ambiguity has remained. Table 2 Overleaf gives a brief
explanation of the requirements necessary for both information and modeling
management for each of the levels of the maturity ramp.

25
Figure 7 BIM Maturity Levels (Department of Business, Innovations and Skills, 2011, p. 16).
BIM Maturity
Level
Explanation/Details Information
management
Information
Modelling
0
2DCAD
Unmanaged CAD. Paper-based and it is characterised
by 2D CAD drawings.
No project wide common
standards for flow and
production of information
2D CAD and
paper issue
1
‘Lonely BIM’
Introduces the adoption of the 3D format, in addition
to 2D data, following the
British Standard BS1192:2007,
However, the model is created only for visualisation
purpose and information is not shared.
A project wide consistent
approach to information
flow (Common data
environment CDE)
2D/3D CAD
Produced
independently
by members of
the team
2
‘Collaborative
BIM’
A series of domain specific models (e.g. architectural,
structural, services etc.) with the provision of a single
environment to store shared data and information in
our case (COBie UK 2012). (BIM Task Group, 2014)
Possible 4D and 5D models are adopted in the
process.
A project wide consistent
approach to flow and
production of information
3Dmodels
produced by all
team members
to common
levels of detail
using common
tools
3
‘iBIM’
Level 3 is the higher level of the index and it is
characterised by an Integrated BIM
process where openBIM data are shared during the
overall lifecycle of the facility via web services. This
is a Vision and undefined.
As BIM level 2 Single project
model
Table 2 Bew-Richards maturity levels explained (By Author)

26
The original accompanying definition of Level 2 was as a ‘Managed 3D environment
held in separate discipline “BIM” tools with attached data. The approach may utilise
4D programme data and 5D cost elements as well as feed operational systems’ (BIS,
2011). However, in 2014 and in line with the ongoing development of the processes
and tools available, as well as with feedback from early adopter projects and other
industry experience, the UK Government refined its definition of level 2 BIM to
include the components as detailed in Table 3 below:
For a detailed description of each of the major components of BIM level 2 as listed
below, refer to Appendix A.
Government Construction Strategy Requirement Level
0
Level
1
Level
2
Data
2D Drawings (PDF) x x x
Discipline Specific 3D (native) x x
Non-Graphical Data (COBie-UK-2012) x
Documents
PAS91:2013 Construction Prequalification Questionnaires (Table 8) x
BIM Employer’s Information Requirements x
Pre-Contract BIM Execution Plan x
Post-Contract BIM Execution Plan x
BIM Protocol x
Collaboration
PAS 1192-2:2013 Specification for information management for the
capital/delivery phase of construction projects using Building Information
Modelling
x
BS1192:2007 Collaborative Information Production x
File-Based Collaboration & Library Management x
Model Federation x
Single Common Data Environment (CDE) x
Information Manager Role
PAS 1192-3:2014 Specification for information management for the
x
operational phase of construction projects using BIM
Government Soft Landings x
In development
Digital plan of works (dPOW) x
BS 1192-4:2014 Collaborative production of architectural, engineering and
x
construction information – Client information requirements
Classification System (UNICLASS2 ) x
Table 3 Revised Requirements for Level 2 BIM (adapted from BIM Task Group, 2014).

27
2.3.8 PAS 1192-2
Publically Available Specification (PAS)1192:2 ‘Specification for information
management for the capital/delivery phase of construction projects using Building
Information Modelling’ is a core publication of the Governments suite of documents
for delivering BIM level 2 compliance as illustrated in Figure 8 below. It is intended
that the use of the PAS is of equal value to small as well a multi-national practices as
the impact of poor information management and waste is potentially equal on all
projects (BSI, 2013). It is also intended to be adopted for both public and private
procurement firstly in the UK by becoming a British standard and then
internationally by becoming an ISO standard.
Figure 8 The central relationship between PAS1192:2 and the Government Strategy documents (BIM
Task Group, 2014)

28
2.3.9 The Information delivery cycle
Focusing specifically on the ‘delivery’ phase of projects (from strategic identification
of need through to handover of asset), PAS1192-2 communicates the explicit set of
requirements for working at BIM Level 2 by setting set out the framework for
collaborative working and providing specific guidance for the information
management requirements and structuring of design data associated with projects
delivered using BIM. The information delivery cycle contained in PAS describes the
process of accumulating of both ‘graphical’ and ‘non-graphical’ project data which
allows for the fact that all information on a project will be originated, exchanged or
managed in BIM format. By doing so PAS mandates all project information to be
managed in a consistent and structured way to enable efficient and accurate
information exchange. The mechanism used to regulate this process is BS119:2007
which is the existing code of practice for the collaborative production of
architectural, engineering and construction information.
Central to the information delivery cycle is the shared use of individually authored
models within the common data environment (CDE) which being a single source of
both BIM and conventional information for any given project, is used to collect,
manage and disseminate all relevant approved project documents for multi-disciplinary
teams (BSI, 2013;BIM task Group, 2014). Refer to Figure 9 overleaf for
a representation of the Information delivery cycle contained in PAS.
Refer also to Appendix B for further details on fundamental principles of Level 2
Building information modeling.

29
Figure 9 The Information delivery cycle in PAS1192-2 (Note the both information and management
processes) (BSI, 2013).
2.3.10 Collaborative Working within the context of PAS1192-2.
Collaboration is a highly complex and challenging activity in which a shared task is
achievable only when the collective resources of a team are assembled. Contributions
to the work are coordinated through communications and the sharing of knowledge
(Bouchlaghem, 2011). Collaboration can therefore said to be the alignment of
individuals, working towards the attainment of a common goal within a common
environment, where knowledge and other resources are shared, outcomes and
decision making is by consensus and communication, respect and trust is present
among the parties. Collaborative working can be taken to mean the coalition of
multi-disciplinary groups and teams temporarily formed to work together as a project
team to deliver greater benefits than they would otherwise be able to achieve
separately. PAS1192-2 makes explicit reference to ‘Collaborative working’, stating
that ‘In a collaborative working environment, teams are asked to produce
information using standardised processes and agreed standards and methods, to
ensure the same form and quality, enabling information to be used and reused
without change or interpretation’ (BSI, 2013).

30
2.3.11 BIM Model Federation
A key enabler of collaborative working practices using PAS is the requirement to
federate models for interdisciplinary working. A Federated Model is defined in the
CIC BIM protocol as ‘…a Model consisting of connected but distinct individual
Models’ (CIC, 2013). In practice discipline specific models will be combined to form
an integrated building model which in effect becomes a virtual building which can be
clearly observed, audited and subjected to a number of value adding analyses. Figure
10 below gives an illustration of a number of functions that the Virtual building
model can perform;
Figure 10 Functions of an integrated virtual BIM model (BIPS, 2008).
2.3.12 Specific benefits of federated BIM models on Production Information
The benefits of federated BIM models on Production Information can be generally
grouped under the following 3 categories;
 Improved visualisation and 3D design review
 Design coordination and model checking,
 Multi-disciplinary integration

31
2.3.13 Improved Visualisation and 3D Design Review
One of the single biggest benefits of BIM is the ability to generate a dimensionally
consistent 3D model that can be used to visualise the design at any stage of the
process (Eastman, 2011). This 'what you see is what you get' functionality resolves
the problem of understanding and interpretation highlighted in Part A of the literature
review. It enables a consistent baseline for communication and understanding,
reducing the room for ambiguity and enabling design problems to be solved
innovatively and collaboratively, ultimately leading to better decisions.
Similarly, the real-time geometrically consistent visualisation benefits inter-disciplinary
coordination, as BIM models can be shared amongst multiple
geographically diverse project design team members, using agreed project protocols
to determine exchange methods. Use of 3D models in design meetings allows a
multidisciplinary review of design enables the team to focus and visualise the issues
quickly and accurately leading to efficient early resolution. Comments from design
reviews can also be recorded directly in the models enabling the team to track issues,
keeps all disciplines up to date avoiding the risk of receiving a large batch of changes
late in the process. Hence, this whole-project view enabled by BIM is a platform that
positively impacts on multi-disciplinary collaboration, improving design quality,
preventing designers from “making do” (Koskela 2004a) and reducing rework in the
field as a result of incomplete design.
2.3.14 Design coordination and Model Checking
On complex projects, conflict identification and resolution is an extremely expensive
and difficult task. In many instances, designers do not have the time or budget to
sufficiently resolve conflict issues. Finding coordination issues or contradictory
dimensions inevitably found within hundreds of traditionally drawn 2D drawings is a
time consuming and particular skill performed manually using traditional 2D CAD
tools to overlay CAD layers to visually identify potential conflicts. These manual
approaches are slow, costly, prone to error, and depend on the use of up-to-date
drawing which are not always available because specialist trade packages such as
HVAC may not be let at the design stage. Complex coordination and clash resolution
using coloured two dimensional overlays is inherently subject to error and omissions

32
(Ashcraft, 2009). As a result some clashes may not be identified only be discovered
on-site. In 3D BIM based design this risk is significantly reduced because the virtual
3D building model is the source for all 2D and 3D drawings, making the
identification of issues and early mitigation easier and reducing design errors caused
by inconsistent 2D drawings, speeding up the construction process, reducing costs
and minimising the likelihood of legal disputes and generally enabling a smoother
process for the entire project team (Eastman, 2011; Hardin 2012).

33
2.3.15 Multi-disciplinary Integration and Simultaneous working
The literature suggests that model based collaboration enables the simultaneous
working or overlapping of design phases by multiple design disciplines (Succar,
2009). It is facilitated through the interchange of models either via propriety or non-propriety
file formats and through network/server technology, allowing early two-way
access to project stakeholders and their information within a common data
environment. As a consequence more design effort and integration is required at the
front-end of the process as illustrated in the widely cited Mcleamey curve shown in
Figure 11 below. A major benefit of simultaneous working on the quality of
production information is to shorten the design time and significantly reduce design
errors and omissions. It also gives earlier insight into design problems and presents
opportunities for a design to be continually improved. This is much more cost
effective than waiting until a design and nearly complete and then applying value
engineering only after the major design decisions have been made.
Figure 11 The ‘Mcleamey Curve’ describes how the preferred design process should evolve
compared to the traditional design process. In the early phases abilities are bigger to impact on cost
and functionality where the cost of change is lower. (Tommasson, 2011).

34
3.0 Chapter Three - Theoretical Framework
3.1 Introduction
A theoretical framework is essentially bridge between paradigms that explain the
research issue and the actual practice of investigating that issue. As a ‘working tool,’
it enables reasoned defensible choices, the matching of research questions with those
choices and it guides data collection, analysis and interpretation (Bloomberg and
Volpe, 2012). In fulfilment of this function this chapter provides detail of the key
constructs for the framework that have emerged from the review of the literature,
combined with the researchers own experiences to inform the design and conduct of
this study.
Figure 12 overleaf shows a diagrammatic overview of the key constructs of the
model, the framework is also discussed in narrative form. The model is broadly into
two sections that reflect the issues identified in the literature;
Part A; Problems and the factors associated the quality of Production Information
and Part B; Solutions and the attributes associated with using BIM based design.

35
3.2 Theoretical Framework for the Study
PROBLEMS (Part A) SOLUTIONS (Part B)
Industry wide
performance
problems
Problems with low quality and
untrustworthy Production
Information
Failure to deliver quality
across a number of
indicators;
- Timeliness
- Accuracy
- Completeness
- Coordination
- Conformance
Factors;
- Fragmentation/Silo’s = lack
of integration, co-ordination
and collaboration between
disciplines ,misunderstandings
and misconceptions
- Poor Information
management =wasted time
spent identifying useful
information, incomplete,
uncoordinated and/or
inappropriate exchange of
information
- Flawed 2D drawing-based
design paradigm
Government
Construction Strategy.
BIM Level 2 mandate
Information
Management
Building Information
Modelling (BIM)
Discipline Specific 3D models
Model federation
File based collaboration
Inherent functionalities via
BIM based processes;
- Maintenance of Information
and Design Model Integrity
- Earlier and More Accurate
Visualisations of a Design
- Automatic Low-Level
Corrections When Changes
Are Made to Design
- Generation of Accurate and
Consistent 2D Drawings at
Any Stage of the Design
- Earlier Collaboration of
Multiple Design Disciplines
- Information consistency and
reliability
using
PAS1192-2
Improvements via
PAS1192-2;
- Improved
Visualisation and 3D
design review
- Design coordination
and model checking
- Multi-disciplinary
Integration and
Simultaneous working
- Better information
flow
Improved quality of
Production
Information
Other
components
of BIM
Level 2
Reduced
incidence of
Rework
Strategic intervention
of BIM based design
into existing 2D CAD
paradigm
Factors affecting
successful
implementation
Other short/
long term
benefits
Other
components
PAS1192-
(Outside scope
of research)
Figure 12 Theoretical Framework for the study (Author).

36
3.3 Principal Factors Affecting the Quality of Production Information
The findings from Part A of the literature review suggests that the many factors
affecting the incidence of rework are not only well known but also that there has
been a systematic failure to successfully implement workable and lasting solutions
that can adequately address the shortcomings of the 2D design management
paradigm. The complex nature of the construction process is such that piecemeal
solutions have been unable to adequately address the problem. Based on the literature
reviewed for this study the principal categories identified as leading to poor quality
production information are;
1. Poor briefing and communication
2. Fragmentation of design disciplines
3. Flawed design documentation and delivery paradigm
4. Flawed drawing based design paradigm
5. Poor information management practices.
Sub factors relating to each are shown diagrammatically on Figure 13 overleaf which
shows a Root Cause Analysis of the problem.

37
POOR BRIEFING AND
COMMUNICATION
LOW QUALITY
PRODUCTION
INFORMATION
REQUIRING
REWORK
Uncoordinated
project information
FRAGMENTATION
OF DESIGN
DICIPLINES
FLAWED DESIGN &
DOCUMENTATION
DELIVERY
PARADIGM
POOR
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
Linear process
Untrustworthy
Information
FLAWED DRAWING
BASED DESIGN
Inability to adequately
visualise the design
Client
changes
Costly redesign
& iteration
Unitegrated
working (Silos’s)
Poor Coordination
between disciplines
Inadequate CTTD
of user needs,
missing project
information
Unstandardised
processes
Insufficient
fees, time &
expertise
2D CAD not fit
for purpose
Unconstructable
designs
Unstructured project
information management
systems
Lines & symbols, ambiguous
& Low quality Information
Lack of agreed
standards
Unstructured & low
understanding of process
Missing, unavailable,
undistributed information
Erratic delivery of
information
Abandonment of
design planning
Figure 13 Root cause Analysis; The factors leading to low quality production information (Author).
Note the causes considered to be the most important in the context of this study are shown in Red.

38
3.4 Strategic countermeasures under PAS1192-2
While it not possible to definitively attribute the occurrence of rework only to those
factors identified in the literature review in this study, it is clear that a number of the
identified flaws of the current drawing based paradigm result inaccurate, incomplete
and uncoordinated production information which in turn directly affect the incidence
of rework. Within this context and according to the theory, BIM based design as
specified in PAS1192-2 contains a number of specific countermeasures which if
implemented may result a range of potential qualitative and quantitative benefits for
project organisations adopting BIM.
Through the process of analysis and reflection conducted during the literature review
each counter measure is in effect a Category that will be used for the purpose of
structuring the questions to be asked to the research participants in support of
Objective 3; To interview a sample of industry practitioners to explore their
experiences of BIM enabled working practices when compared to the traditional (2D
CAD) design paradigm.
The intention of subdividing the research problem into core categories is to construct
a holistic picture of the issues and influences, via the primary data collection.
The principal countermeasure can be taken to be working in BIM itself. In the
context of this study this is categorised as ‘Production Information Processes.’ By
mandating the use of ‘…fully collaborative 3D BIM’ a strategic intervention is made
which adds a ‘third dimension’ to the existing design paradigm. By doing so a
fundamental shift in the process of generating Production Information is enabled via
the inherent functionality of working using 3DBIM. This offers the potential to
resolve a number of the inefficiencies and flaws associated with unintelligent design
information detailed in Part A of the literature review and as summarised in the Root
Cause Analysis.

39
The actual intervention can be considered to be a change to the working practices
experienced by the project team that is enabled by the functionality of new software
and the associated changes to behaviour and the processes involved in delivering of
Production Information in a BIM based environment. The core inherent
characteristics enabled by BIM were explored in detail in Part B of the literature, for
clarity they are repeated here as being;
The maintenance of information and design model integrity, earlier and more
accurate visualisations of a design, automatic low-level corrections when
changes are made to design, generation of accurate and consistent 2D
drawings at any stage of the design, earlier collaboration of multiple design
disciplines and information consistency and reliability.
‘Design review and coordination processes’ is a core category which contains the
concept of ‘Visualisation’. The benefits of enhanced visualisation offered by a virtual
building comprised of intelligent and data rich elements is a direct countermeasure to
the basic problem of understanding of what is to be built, through the process of
modelling each geometric interface and design element. Similarly a federated and
integrated BIM model enables a rigour of coordination and clash detection not
possible in drawing based design, as such this functionality can be considered to be
an intervention which reduces misunderstanding as well as incomplete and
uncoordinated information which leads to poor quality information and rework.
The category ‘Simultaneous working’ is a function of the integration of discipline
specific BIM models which potentially improves the quality of final product by
counteracting the problem of ‘Over the wall’ and unintegrated information
exchanges and working practices among design disciplines. As previously discussed,
it is characterised via the Mcleamey curve which will be used in the primary research
phase as a visual prop that can be used to determine the level of the research
participants understanding of BIM processes as well as visual aid for reflection on
how the adoption of BIM based design has impacted upon the workflow of
consultant teams.
Similarly, ‘Collaborative working’ in the context of PAS1192-2 requires teams to
work together to produce information using standardised processes and agreed

40
standards to ensure the same form and quality of information. Working in this way
requires mutual understanding and trust which is a risk management related
countermeasure that can avoid wasteful practices and reduce disputes.
The final category is ‘Information Management’ which is a function not only of BIM
as a database or repository of data, but also via collaborative procedures contained in
BS1192:2007 used to ensure a standardised and proven quality control mechanism
for ensuring information is consistently produced and authorised for its intended
purpose. In parallel to this is the Common Data Environment through which project
participants can effectively distribute and access current information. Each of these
concepts can be specifically related as countermeasures to the problems of
unstructured project information systems, erratic delivery of information, missing,
unavailable or undistributed information resulting from a lack of agreed standards
and poor Information Management generally.
Based on the theoretical relationships between the categories and concepts of both
the problems and the intervening solutions delivered via PAS1192-2, the Theoretical
model will be tested within the context of the real world project environment. Table
4 below tabulates a summary of categories and concepts used in the development of
the interview questions conducted during the primary research phase of the
dissertation.
Category Concepts
Production information
processes
Better Information integrity, Exploitation of automation, inherent
consistency, facilitation of collaboration.
Design review and
coordination processes
Three dimensional visualisation leading to enhanced understanding,
collaborative 3D design review, Design coordination and element based
model checking.
Simultaneous working Multidisciplinary integration, compression of design programme.
Collaborative working Trust, Win/Win Solutions, Mutual Understanding, better Communication,
facilitated Problem Solving, Innovation, better Decision making.
Information management Standardisation and proven quality procedures for information exchange
Rework Latent errors and omissions, RFI’s/variations, Wasted time, Reputation.
Quality Timeliness, Accuracy, Completeness, Coordination, Conformance.
Table 4 Summary of Categories and concepts contained within the Theoretical framework (Author).

41
4.0 Chapter Four - Research design
4.1 Introduction
The aim of this dissertation was to investigate the factors associated with the delivery
of improved Production Information quality using BIM enabled design practices.
This was explored primarily through the gathering and analysis of secondary data via
the literature review, as well as primary data collection via a sample of industry
practitioner’s reflections and experiences of BIM based processes when compared to
the 2D drawing based paradigm. It was considered that although the benefits of
adoption BIM are becoming clearer as more BIM projects and research are
completed, the specific benefits on the quality of Production Information and the
identification of the critical factors impacting upon quality were relatively
unexplored and worthy of study.
This chapter describes the study’s research methodology and includes discussions
around the following areas;
1. Rationale for research approach
2. Description of research sample
3. Methods of data collection
4. Analysis and synthesis of data
5. Ethical considerations
6. Issues of trustworthiness
The limitations of the study are addressed in Chapter 5.

42
4.2 Rationale for Research Paradigm
A Social Constructivist approach was selected for this study in the form of an
inductive/grounded theory investigation conducted via 7 in depth interviews. The
following paragraphs clarify the rationale for this approach;
Bryman, (2102) suggests that while practical considerations may seem uninteresting
compared to philosophical debates surrounding discussions on epistemology and
ontology, they are nonetheless important ones. Clough and Nutbrown, (2012) suggest
social research is the coming together of the ideal and the feasible;
‘…a characteristic purpose of a methodology is to show not such and such
appeared to be the best method for the given purposes of the study, but how
and why this way of doing it was unavoidable - was required by - the context
and purpose of this particular enquiry.'
Based on this, the circumstances of this study featured strongly in the decision
making process. Most modern construction design projects typically involve a
number of specialist disciplines interacting through a variety of conventional and
digital media where information is shared and converted into design drawings and
documentation. A fundamental principle of BIM based design as specified using
PAS1192-2 is the requirement for project teams to increase and improve their
collaborative working practices for the mutual benefit of the project and ultimately
themselves. The project organisation was therefore the social context within which
this study was conducted and as such the essence of the research data was the
reflections and experiences of what is a socially constructed process. Based on this,
the Social Constructivism approach was the preferred theoretical perspective.
The basic tenet of the constructivism paradigm is that that reality is socially
constructed, that individuals develop subjective meanings of their own personal
experience, and that this gives way to multiple meanings (Lincoln and Guba, 2000).
It therefore challenges the scientific-realist assumption of post positivism that reality
can be reduced to its component parts. (Creswell, 2009). Constructivist research
attempts to understand social phenomenon from a context-specific perspective and it
is the researcher’s role to understand the multiple realities from the perspective of the
participants.

43
4.3 Rationale for Inductive research approach
BIM based design procedures as specified by PAS1192-2 are a relatively recent
development in construction and subject to a large number of factors which the
research aimed to discover, the aim of the research was to develop and explain the
phenomenon inductively via the findings rather than test a preconceived theory
deductively (as in post positivism). Bryman, (2012) suggests that a deductive
approach is associated with quantitative research approach, while an inductive
strategy of linking data and theory is typically associated with a qualitative research
approach.
The 5 main qualitative research traditions suggested by Creswell, (2007) are: Case
study, Ethnography, Phenomenology, Grounded Theory and narrative research. Of
these, a case study was considered relevant for this study, however this was rejected
as the researcher considered being too dependent on accessing information from a
single source within a constrained research period to be a risk to the timely
completion of the dissertation.
Although not strictly as intended by Glaser and Strauss, (1967) the grounded theory
approach was considered to be the closest approach appropriate to the researchers
study as a core component is that the theory development is generated or ‘grounded’
in ‘context-rich data’ from the field. (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
The goal of grounded theory is to move beyond description and to have the
researcher generate or discover a theory of a process, an action, or an interaction
grounded in the views of the research participants (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Study
participants would all have experienced the process, and the development of theory
might explain practice, or provide a framework for further research.
Two primary characteristics of grounded theory are the constant comparative method
of data analysis (i.e. the on-going comparison of data with emerging categories) and
theoretical sampling of different groups to maximise the similarities and differences
between of information. However it is noted that the former of these characteristics is
somewhat limited by the timescale and scope of the study and to a large extent the
study can be thought of as having inductive/grounded theory tendencies rather than
as a hard and fast distinction.

44
4.4 Rationale for Qualitative Research Method
The overall perspective to this research was more one of enquiry rather than
hypothesis testing. This suggested a qualitative approach to the research since one of
the chief reasons for taking such an approach is if the subject is relatively unexplored
in which the research seeks to listen to the participants and build an understanding
based on their ideas (Creswell 2008). There is an increasing amount of quantitative
research on the benefits of BIM (Coates, Arayici, Koskela, Kagioglou, Usher and
O’Reilly, 2010; Azhar, 2011; Barlish and Sullivan, 2012; Succar, Sher and Williams,
2012). However, the development of robust metrics that can be used to measure the
benefits of BIM would require a study beyond the scale and scope of this research
and present ethical issues regarding access to commercially sensitive information. In
addition, at the time of writing there is currently little or no available research into
the experiences of UK practitioners with specific regard to the benefits of BIM on
the quality of Production Information using processes as specified in PAS1192-2,
with the exception of the Ministry of Justice Cookham Wood project results (BIM
Task Group, 2014).
An approach was therefore taken which would enlist beliefs, opinions and views to
gather data, which was rich in content and scope and open to interpretation (Fellows
and Liu 2003) while also 'tolerating ambiguity and contradictions which lead to the
prospect of alternative explanations during the process of analysis' (Denscombe
2007).
It was acknowledged that by selecting a qualitative study in lieu of a Quantitative or
mixed methods approach that the research conclusions would have lower validity,
the data may be less representative and the interpretation may be ‘bound up with the
self of the researcher,' however it was considered that due to the scope and time
constraints imposed by dissertation framework that a only qualitative could be
justified.
Table 5 overleaf surmises the considerations and selection of characteristics for both
Quantitative and Qualitative approaches to the study.
For a summary of the Research Design for the study refer to Appendix C.

45
Quantitative Qualitative
Deductive: Hypothesis or theory is
generated and through data collection it is
either rejected or selected (testing of
theory).
Inductive: Starts with data collection and
concludes with hypothesis or theory (theory
emerges from data).

Epistemological position:
Natural science model, in particular
positivism
Epistemological position:
Interpretivism

Ontological orientation: Objectivism Ontological orientation: Constructivism 
Some common contrasts between
Some common contrasts between
quantitative and qualitative:
quantitative and qualitative:
Numbers Words 
Point of view of researcher Point of view of participants 
Researcher distant Researcher close 
Theory testing Theory emergent 
Static Process 
Structured Unstructured 
Generalisation Contextual understanding 
Hard reliable data Rich, deep data 
Macro Micro 
Behaviour Meaning 
Artificial settings Natural settings 
Table 5 Rationale and selection of Qualitative research method for the Study (Adapted from Bryman,
2012)

46
4.5 The Research Sample
A criterion based sampling strategy was selected for this study with the intention of
targeting specific research participants who have experienced the processes involved
with the delivery of Production Information in both 2DCAD and BIM environments.
A primary consideration in the sampling strategy was obtain views from individuals
representing two broad classifications of BIM maturity, in order to identify
distinctions between the factors and benefits affecting organisations operating at
different maturity levels. Architects were identified as the principle research group as
generally they perform the Lead designer role on a project and as such could be
expected to have a holistic view of Production Information processes. The Criterion
for selection was therefore as detailed below;
Criterion 1; Participants must be senior Architectural practitioners at Associate level
or above with a minimum of 15 years total industry experience and have delivered
production information in both CAD and BIM environments. This was achieved by
contacting the authors pre-existing contacts and by identifying participants from a
delegate list from the 2014 BIM Show Live conference. This is justified because
according to the NBS, (2014) only 54% of industry was ‘using BIM’ as of 2013 and
of that potential pool, the diversity of the practices using BIM is considerable and the
definition ‘using BIM’ is itself open to wide interpretation. By using the delegate list
research participants were identified that could reasonably be expected to be using
BIM and in a manner which met the criteria for inclusion in study which was;
Criterion 3; Participants were selected to fall within the category of ‘Early adopter’
with between 4 and 10 years BIM experience, or the ‘Early majority’ category with
between 2 and 4 years’ experience. The rationale for this was that it was considered
to be important to obtain views on the factors and benefits associated with BIM
adoption from both the perspectives of both industry leaders and those recently
commencing BIM adoption to see how the potential benefits of BIM may be
influenced by an organisation’s relative experience in using it. This also
corresponded with the scale of the organization which was generally classified as
falling in the categories of local, national and international.
Refer to Table 6 overleaf for a summary of the sample demographics and data.

BE1268_Dissertation_Clarke_Ricky_W13032289

BE1268_Dissertation_Clarke_Ricky_W13032289

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to BE1268_Dissertation_Clarke_Ricky_W13032289

Similar to BE1268_Dissertation_Clarke_Ricky_W13032289 (20)

BE1268_Dissertation_Clarke_Ricky_W13032289