Dissertation - FINAL

A Dissertation submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the award of
BSc Architectural Engineering & Design Management
of Loughborough University
April 2015
Supervisor: Dr Kirti Ruikar EngD, MSc, BArch, FHEA
© Jamie Crockett and Dr Kirti Ruikar, 2015
BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING (BIM), AN INVESTIGATION
INTO THE IMPACT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S 2016 BIM MANDATE ON
PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSEBUILDING.
By
Jamie Crockett
B117544

ii
DISSERTATION SUBMISSION CHECKLIST
Items that need to be included Tick to
show that
they are
included
Coursework submission CASPA Sheet available from
http://caspa.lboro.ac.uk/
Word count - please state the final word count here: 17,496
A full list of correctly formatted references
Include the following in the appendices to the dissertation:
• Signed Project Definition Document
• A Health &Safety Risk Assessment Form (if applicable)
Ethical Clearance Information (if applicable)
• A print out of an email from Dr Thomson stating that the
work has received ethical approval (if applicable)
• Participant Information Sheet(s) adapted from the
University template (if required by your research design)
• Blank Informed Consent Form(s) adapted from the
University template (if required by your research design)

iii
ABSTRACT
Building Information Modelling (BIM) has been heralded by a number of researchers and
industry professionals as providing the answer to address the inefficiencies that currently
plague the UK Architectural, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry. Consequently, in
2011, the UK government included BIM as one of the pillars of the Government Construction
Strategy by mandating the use of BIM Level 2 on all publicly-funded projects by 2016.
Subsequently, this has prompted an increase in adoption of BIM within firms in the AEC
industry, however, very little has been reported regarding BIM adoption within the private
housebuilding sector.
Therefore, the purpose of this research was to investigate the level of awareness and usage
of BIM and its potential use within the private housebuilding sector. In order to achieve the
objectives, this research explores the benefits and barriers of BIM use within private
housebuilding organisations through a critical review of the literature and the use of
qualitative research methods in the form of an online questionnaire survey and a semi-
structured interview with a Construction Director of a small private housebuilding company.
Fifteen responses were received from the questionnaire survey, which were then analysed
and presented using the descriptive statistics method and an ‘interpretive-descriptive’
approach was then used to present the analysis of the qualitative data from the interview.
The survey indicated everyone surveyed was aware of BIM and 20% of those surveyed were
currently using BIM within their organisations. Of those not using BIM, the significant barriers
of adoption are ‘cost’, ‘reluctance to change’ and ‘a lack of understanding of BIM’.
Finally, the culmination of this research, from the literature and primary data collection, has
developed a BIM implementation strategy for Higgins Homes; a privately-owned small
housebuilding organisation.
KEYWORDS: Building Information Modelling, BIM, BIM drivers, BIM barriers, BIM and
housebuilding, private sector housebuilding, BIM implementation.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank my supervisor, Dr Kirti Ruikar for her advice and guidance throughout the
course of this research.
I’d also like to thank the many participants involved in assisting with my data collection.
Special thanks also go to Higgins Homes for being of great assistance during my data
collection.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . iv
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . viii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . xi
CHAPTER ONE . . . . . . . . . 1
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Background to study. . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Problem statement . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Aim and objectives of the research . . . . . . 2
1.3.1 Aim . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Justification of the study . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Scope and boundary of the study . . . . . . 3
1.6 Organisation of the study . . . . . . . 3
CHAPTER TWO . . . . . . . . . 4
LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 UK housebuilding industry . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Understanding Building Information Modelling (BIM) . . . 5
2.3.1 Defining BIM . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2 BIM tools, capabilities and uses . . . . . 7
2.3.3 BIM design platforms . . . . . . . 9
2.4 BIM evolution from CAD technology . . . . . 12
2.5 Government 2016 Level 2 BIM mandate . . . . . 12
2.6 Perception of BIM usage in the housebuilding sector . . . 16
2.7 How BIM relates to current housebuilding processes . . . 17
2.8 Key factors in BIM implementation . . . . . . 20
2.9 Drivers of BIM adoption . . . . . . . 24
2.10 Barriers to BIM adoption . . . . . . . 28
2.11 Research boundary and focal point . . . . . . 30
CHAPTER THREE . . . . . . . . . 31
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . 31
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2 Purpose of the study. . . . . . . . 31

vi
3.2.1 Aim of research . . . . . . . 31
3.2.2 Objectives of research . . . . . . 31
3.3 Research methods . . . . . . . . 31
3.4 Chosen methodology . . . . . . . . 33
3.5 Data collection. . . . . . . . . 33
3.5.1 Approaches to data collection. . . . . . 33
3.5.2 Data collection methods . . . . . . 33
3.5.2.1 Online questionnaire . . . . . . 33
3.5.2.2 Personal interview . . . . . . 34
3.6 Questionnaire construction . . . . . . . 34
3.6.1 General details . . . . . . . 34
3.6.2 BIM use and awareness . . . . . . 35
3.6.3 Industry professionals not aware of BIM . . . . 36
3.6.4 BIM users . . . . . . . . 36
3.6.5 Non-BIM users . . . . . . . 37
3.6.6 Survey logic . . . . . . . . 38
3.7 Sampling method . . . . . . . . 40
3.7.1 Sample size . . . . . . . . 40
3.7.2 Limitations of questionnaire research. . . . . 40
3.8 Distribution of the questionnaire . . . . . . 41
3.9 Semi-structured interview . . . . . . . 41
3.9.1 Existing practices . . . . . . . 41
3.9.2 BIM awareness and understanding . . . . . 42
3.9.3 Barriers to BIM adoption . . . . . . 42
3.9.4 BIM implementation . . . . . . . 42
3.9.5 Administration of the interview . . . . . 42
3.10 Method for data analysis . . . . . . . 43
CHAPTER FOUR . . . . . . . . . 46
RESULTS AND FINDINGS . . . . . . . . 46
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 46
4.2 Key findings . . . . . . . . . 47
4.2.1 BIM awareness . . . . . . . 47
4.2.2 BIM usage . . . . . . . . 49
4.2.3 BIM users . . . . . . . . 50
4.2.3.1 Effect of the government’s BIM strategy . . . . 50
4.2.3.2 Drivers and benefits of BIM adoption . . . . 50
4.2.3.3 Organisational changes through BIM implementation . . 51

vii
4.2.3.4 Challenges of BIM adoption . . . . . 52
4.2.4 Non-BIM users . . . . . . . 52
4.2.4.1 Existing document management processes . . . 52
4.2.4.2 Challenges with existing practices . . . . 53
4.2.4.3 Barriers to BIM adoption . . . . . . 53
4.2.4.4 Role of government and industry in increasing BIM understanding 54
4.2.4.5 Future prospects for BIM implementation . . . 56
4.2.5 Supply chain participation . . . . . . 57
4.3 Semi-structured interview . . . . . . . 57
4.3.1 Challenges with existing practices . . . . . 57
4.3.2 Barriers to BIM adoption . . . . . . 58
4.3.3 Role of government and industry in increasing BIM understanding . 58
CHAPTER FIVE . . . . . . . . . 60
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . 60
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 60
5.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . 60
5.3 Acheivement of research objectives . . . . . . 60
5.4 Acheivement of research aim. . . . . . . 62
5.5 BIM implementation strategy . . . . . . . 62
5.5.1 Brainstorming stage . . . . . . . 64
5.5.2 Concept building . . . . . . . 64
5.5.3 Realisation stage . . . . . . . 64
5.5.4 Manifestation stage . . . . . . . 65
5.6 Limitations to research . . . . . . . 65
5.7 Recommendations for future research . . . . . 65
5.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 66
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . 67
APPENDIX 1 – PROJECT DEFINITION DOCUMENT . . . . 72
APPENDIX 2 – ETHICAL CLEARANCE APPROVAL . . . . 73
APPENDIX 3 – QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS . . . . . 74
APPENDIX 4 – ADULT PARTICIPATION INFORMATION SHEET . . . 86
APPENDIX 5 – INFORMED CONSENT FORM . . . . . 88
APPENDIX 6 – INTERVIEW SCHEDULE . . . . . . 89
APPENDIX 7 – INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT . . . . . . 93

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Housebuilding output (£ billions), 2007-2014 . . . . 5
Figure 2: Primary and secondary uses of BIM . . . . . 8
Figure 3: Construction project software map . . . . . 11
Figure 4: BIM Task Group work streams . . . . . . 13
Figure 5: BIM Task Group organisation . . . . . . 14
Figure 6: Bew – Richards BIM Maturity Model . . . . . 15
Figure 7: Current work environment in the housebuilding industry . . . 18
Figure 8: Housebuilding work environment on a BIM enabled project . . 18
Figure 9: Common Data Environment . . . . . . 19
Figure 10: Interlocking Fields of BIM activity. . . . . . 21
Figure 11: BIM implementation framework . . . . . . 23
Figure 12: Conceptual diagram of a BIM quantity takeoff and estimating process . 26
Figure 13: BIM survey map . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 14: Data analysis in qualitative research . . . . . 44
Figure 15: Distribution of housebuilding organisations surveyed according to size. 46
Figure 16: Distribution of surveyed participants according to job role . . 47
Figure 17: Frequency of terms mentioned to describe BIM within the surveyed answers 48
Figure 18: Percentage distribution of respondents aware of the government’s 2016
BIM mandate . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 19: Percentage distribution of respondents who understand what BIM level 2
implies . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 20: BIM use among housebuilding organisations of those surveyed . 50
Figure 21: Comparison of the drivers for BIM adoption and the apparent benefits attained
since implementation . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 22: Challenges encountered during BIM implementation . . . 52
Figure 23: Existing systems to manage project documents and communicate both internally
and externally . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 24: Barriers to BIM adoption . . . . . . . 54

ix
Figure 25: Confidence of non-BIM users in their BIM skills and knowledge . 55
Figure 26: Requirements to increase BIM understanding amongst housebuilding
professionals . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 27: Future prospects for BIM implementation within the surveyed participant’s
organisations who are not currently using BIM . . . . . 57
Figure 28: Higgins Homes BIM implementation framework . . . . 63

x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Quantitative vs. qualitative research . . . . . 32

xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AEC – Architecture, Engineering and Construction industry
BIM – Building Information Modelling
BOS – Bristol Online Surveys
CAD – Computer-Aided Drafting
CDE – Common Data Environment
CIOB – Chartered Institute of Building
HCA – Homes and Communities Agency
ICT – Information Communication Technology
KPI – Key Performance Indicators
NHBC – National House Building Council
RICS – Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
ROI – Return on Investment
SME – Small and Medium Enterprises

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to study
It has been widely documented (Wolstenholme et al., 2009; Egan, 1998; Latham, 1994) that
the construction industry is highly fragmented, inefficient and suffers from a lack of
integration within the industry. For example, Egan (1998) identified that only 40-60% of
potential labour efficiencies are ever achieved, and 30% of the cost of construction is due to
rework. Additionally, the 2014 UK Industry Performance Report (Davis et al., 2014) based on
the construction industry Key Performance Indicators (KPI) recently revealed that 55% of
projects are completed late and 30% of projects are completed over budget. Consequently,
this has placed the construction industry under great pressure to become more efficient in
terms of project delivery, whilst providing energy efficient, high quality built assets for clients
within the required time and budget.
This pressure has prompted the UK government to respond by publishing the Government
Construction Strategy (HM Cabinet Office [HMCO], 2011) and Construction 2025 (HM
Government, 2013), outlining specific industry targets aimed at challenging the sector to
improve efficiency and reduce costs associated with the construction of built assets. The
Government Construction Strategy outlines its aim of reducing public sector construction
costs by 20% by the end of 2015. Similarly, Construction 2025 also sets out a number of
ambitious targets to be met by 2025. In particular, these include a 50% reduction in project
duration for new-build and refurbished assets, a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
in the construction industry, as well as a 33% reduction in the capital cost of construction and
the whole-life costs of a built asset (HM Government, 2013, p. 19).
These targets place increasing pressure on the construction industry to not only construct
more efficiently at reduced costs, but also adopt sustainable construction solutions and
reduce construction waste and carbon emissions. Therefore, it is clear that better design will
play a pivotal role in achieving the government’s targets, and in order to do this, the industry
needs to adopt innovative technologies (HM Government, 2013). Subsequently, this has led
to an increasing adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) within the construction
industry (Azhar, 2011). Eastman et al. (2011, p.1) indicates that “BIM facilitates a more
integrated design and construction process that results in better quality buildings at lower
cost and reduced project duration”. Therefore, through the adoption of BIM, inefficiencies
across the construction industry will be significantly minimised.

2
Hence, as a result of the need to improve inefficiency, there have been several reports of
projects where BIM has been implemented with various benefits realised (Bryde et al., 2012;
Azhar, 2011; Eastman et al., 2011). In particular, cost savings and time savings have been
the most reported benefits (Bryde et al., 2012). Other widely reported project benefits have
been an improvement in the built output quality, improved communication and increased
collaboration between project team members (Bryde et al., 2012). These benefits suggest
that the application of BIM on construction projects has the ability to aid in improving the
productivity and efficiency of the construction industry in order to realise the aforementioned
government targets.
Furthemore, a major sector within the UK construction industry is the housebuilding sector,
which is worth £42billion per annum, equating to approximately 38% of the UK construction
industry (HMCO, 2011). Undoubtedly, housebuilding has a major role in the improvement of
productivity and efficiency of the UK construction industry in order to meet the
aforementioned industry-wide targets. Therefore, the focus of this research study is on the
adoption and implementation of BIM within the housebuilding sector.
1.2 Problem statement
Despite the reported benefits and potentials of adopting BIM within the construction industry
as a whole, very little has been reported with regards to the adoption of BIM on private sector
housebuilding projects within the UK. Hence, there is a need to establish the awareness and
apparent barriers and drivers of successful BIM adoption within UK private sector
housebuilding companies, to meet the current demands of the construction industry and to
ensure industry-wide government targets are met.
1.3 Aim and objectives of the research
1.3.1 Aim
To explore the potentials, barriers and drivers to successful BIM based workflow adoption
within private sector housebuilding companies in the UK.
1.3.2 Objectives
1. To develop an understanding of BIM.
2. To review the current methods of construction used by housebuilding companies.
3. To establish the level of BIM usage and apparent barriers and drivers faced by
private housebuilders for the adoption and implementation of BIM.
4. To develop a conceptual BIM implementation strategy for a private housebuilding
organisation.

3
1.4 Justification of study
In 2011, as part of the Government Construction Strategy (HMCO, 2011), the government
mandated the use of Level 2 BIM on all publicly funded construction projects by 2016.
Consequently, Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) companies have found
themselves under increasing pressure to implement BIM within their organisations, which
has subsequently, seen an increasing adoption and awareness of BIM across the industry.
Furthermore, Sebastian et al. (2009), Arayici et al. (2009) and Bryde et al. (2013) have all
identified that BIM has been used on several large-scale construction projects, predominantly
in commercial and infrastructure projects with multiple benefits reported.
In contrast, this increasing awareness and adoption of BIM has not yet reached the private
housebuilding sector with many not aware of the potential benefits of utilising BIM within their
sector (NHBC Foundation, 2013). With the housebuilding sector accounting for 38% of
output of the UK construction industry (HMCO, 2011) and in particular, private sector
housebuilding accounting for 67% of overall housebuilding output (HMCO, 2011), it is evident
that private sector housebuilders are a major contributor to the UK construction industry.
Thus, innovation and the adoption of new technologies by private housebuilders have a
crucial role in the overall success of the industry.
Therefore, to ensure improvements to efficiency throughout the industry, it is essential that
private housebuilders are included in the government’s BIM agenda. Hence, further research
is required to understand how housebuilding companies can adopt and implement BIM within
their companies.
1.5 Scope and boundary of study
The research study will centre on the adoption and implementation of BIM in the UK AEC
industry with a particular emphasis on private sector housebuilding organisations operating
both nationally and locally.
1.6 Organisation of the study
This introductory chapter has been intended to provide an overview of the research study
highlighting the aims, objectives, scope and justification of the study. The following chapter is
the literature review, followed by the research methodology in chapter three. The results are
analysed and discussed in chapter four with the recommendations and conclusions of the
research study discussed within chapter five.

4
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter starts by providing a broad overview of the UK housebuilding sector and the
concept of BIM by defining the process and its tools, capabilities and uses, as well as
providing an insight into the UK Governments’ 2016 BIM mandate (HMCO, 2011).
The chapter then discusses the potential use of BIM in the private housebuilding sector, by
first analysing the perception of BIM usage within housebuilding and how BIM can relate to
existing processes, as well as discussing the predominant barriers & drivers of implementing
BIM in the industry.
2.2 UK housebuilding industry
As previously mentioned (in section 1.1), the UK housebuilding industry is worth £42billion
per annum; approximately 38% of the UK construction industry output (HMCO, 2011). Of this
£42billion, £14bn (33%) is associated to public sector housebuilding and £28billion (67%)
associated to private sector development (HMCO, 2011). Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners
(2015) identified that there are approximately 3000 housebuilding firms, both public and
private sector, within the UK with currently private sector housebuilders accounting for 79%
of the housing completions from October to December 2014 (Department for Local
Communities and Government [DCLG], 2015).
Public sector housing is provided by a combination of local authorities and housing
associations, which are independent, private, not-for-profit organisations providing social and
affordable housing (Malpass, 1999). These housing associations are funded and regulated in
England by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and presently, there are an
estimated 1500 organisations in England (Walker, 2014). Private sector housebuilders, on
the other hand, aim to generate a profit by developing houses on acquired land. It is common
for large housebuilding organisations to have their own internal department for the design
and construction of buildings, whereas smaller housebuilders tend to sub-contract these
work packages out to specialists (i.e. Architects, Engineers and building sub-contractors).
With the government target of all new homes to be ‘zero carbon’ by 2016, as well as pledging
to provide two million new homes by 2016 and three million new homes by 2020 (DCLG,
2007), the UK housebuilding industry is currently under great pressure to provide sustainable
new homes and to meet the existing and future housing demand. The current housing

5
shortage has been compounded by insufficient new homes being built over the last three
decades of the twentieth century (Barker, 2004), in what MacEachrane (cited in Ball and
Dosanjh, 2012, p. 3) described as “the most severe housing output decline in decades”.
Furthermore, the recent recession has had a particularly great impact on the level of
housebuilding with private sector housing output falling sharply from Q1 2007 until Q1 2009
(see Figure 1), but has since recovered somewhat (Rhodes, 2014).
Nevertheless, Ball and Dosanjh (2012, p.4) state that, “housebuilding is at only half of its pre-
crisis level” with only 112,000 new homes being built in 2013 (Walker, 2014), which is some
way short of the requirement to build at least 240,000-245,000 new homes every year to
meet future demand (Holmans, 2011). Subsequently, Pan (2010) argues that innovation is a
key means in meeting the challenges faced by the housing sector, as well as providing
sustainable solutions and Cho (2011, p. i) also states that “those with good partnership and
collaborations with other specialist companies to deliver more innovative housing may
potentially be the leaders in the housebuilding sector in the near future”. Barker (2004) states
however, that housebuilding organisations have always been reluctant to innovate and
further to this Barlow (2000, p.40) states that traditionally the “private sector housebuilding
industry [has] been largely influenced by the value of land and its ability to make profits from
land development. This has resulted in low levels of technical and organisational innovation.”
In light of this, it is evident that innovation is viewed as a key means in providing a solution to
the existing problems in the housebuilding sector. Thus, with BIM being heralded as a means
to improve productivity, reduce costs and provide a sustainable solution to housing, it is
particularly important to explore the potential of BIM within the housebuilding industry.
2.3 Understanding Building Information Modelling (BIM)
BIM is one of the most exciting developments in the construction industry for several years,
yet its concept is nothing new. Bew and Underwood (2010, p.30) state that “it has been
Figure 1: Housebuilding output (£ billions), 2007-2014 (Rhodes, 2014, p.5)

6
nearly two decades since Building Information Modelling was first mooted and we still await
significant adoption”. Nevertheless, a study from Pike Research in 2012 (cited in Sackey et
al., 2013) revealed that it is predicted, annual worldwide revenue for BIM products and
services will grow from $1.8billion (£1.19billion) in 2012 to $6.5billion (£4.3billion) by 2020 as
uptake of BIM in various countries across the world increases. With this in mind, the BIM
Industry Working Group (2011) report identifies that there has already been national
deployments of BIM across Scandinavia/Europe, the Far East and the USA. Ultimately, as
the benefits of utilising BIM become more apparent, other countries are likely to follow suit.
Osan et al. (cited in Sackey et al., 2013, p.197) have referred to BIM as “a revolutionary
building design and construction technology”, as it is envisaged to bring about
comprehensive change to the construction industry. Further to this, Aouad and Arayici (2010,
p.47) have described BIM “as the answer to the fragmentation that exists within the building
industry which has caused various inefficiencies” further highlighting the pivotal role that BIM
has in minimising the inefficiencies that currently exist within the UK construction industry.
The following section therefore provides a definition of BIM for the purpose of this research
study and discusses its tools, capabilities and uses.
2.3.1 Defining BIM
Bew and Underwood (2010) report that there seems to be a universal lack of understanding
as to all that BIM encompasses across the AEC industry. A number of definitions of BIM
have been proposed over the past decade, although there still seems to be no unanimous
single definition of the term ‘BIM’ (Nederveen et al., 2010). In light of this, the following are a
number of definitions outlined by industry leading experts and regulatory bodies. The
government’s Industrial BIM Strategy (HM Government, 2012, p.3) defines BIM as “a
collaborative way of working, underpinned by the digital technologies which unlock more
efficient methods of designing, creating and maintaining our assets”. Similarly, Azhar (2011,
p.242) views BIM as a “virtual process that encompasses all aspects, disciplines, and
systems of a facility within a single, virtual model, allowing all design team members to
collaborate more accurately and efficiently than using traditional processes.”
Eastman et al. (2008, p.1) describe BIM as providing “an accurate virtual model of a building
containing precise geometry and relevant data needed to support the construction,
fabrication, and procurement activities needed to realise the building”. Furthermore, the
National BIM Standard for the United States (National Institute of Building Sciences, 2007,
p.21) definition is as follows; “a BIM is a digital representation of physical and functional
characteristics of a facility. As such it serves as a shared knowledge resource for information

7
about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its lifecycle from inception
onward”.
Therefore, with reference to the aforementioned definitions, it is apparent that digital
technology is a core principle of BIM. It is interesting however, that Eastman et al. (2008) and
the US National Institute of Building Sciences (2007) refer to BIM as a noun (i.e. a Building
Information Model) while both HM Government (2012) and Azhar (2011) refer to BIM as a
verb (i.e. Building Information Modelling). HM Government (2012) and Azhar (2011) both
define BIM as a process rather than just a model. Grilo and Jardim-Goncalves (2010, p.524)
further argue, “Building Information Modelling should be seen as a dynamic process rather
than a model per se”. Hence, for the purpose of this research paper, BIM is to be treated as
a process rather than just a digital technology, thus Azhar’s (2011) definition has been
adopted.
2.3.2 BIM tools, capabilities and uses
BIM has a potential use at all stages of the project life-cycle (Bryde et al., 2013) and supports
collaborative working environments to enable: the owner to appreciate the needs of the
project, the design team to design and develop the project, the construction team to manage
the construction and the facilities management team to manage the operation of the facility
(Grilo and Jardim-Goncalves, 2010). BIM symbolises a shift from traditional 2D design
practices to models developed through the combination of 3D modelling, 4D time modelling
and 5D cost modelling (Deutsch, 2011).
The Computer Integrated Construction Research Group (2011) identified twenty-five
common uses for BIM categorised into the four major project phases of Planning, Design,
Construction and Operation. Figure 2 highlights the primary and secondary uses of BIM
throughout the four phases of a project lifecycle;

8
During the planning stage of a project, the architect is tasked with obtaining sufficient
information of the site to determine potential constraints and external factors, which may
affect the outcome of the design (Yusuf, 2014). Such information includes site analysis, wind
direction, the sun path, and so forth. Through the use of BIM, much of this information can be
integrated into the model to perform early conceptual analysis, provide alternative design
options, produce accurate, quick cost estimates and produce an initial construction
programme (Yusuf, 2014).
Throughout the design phase of a project, one of BIM’s primary uses is design authoring.
Significant time savings can be made during design due to the parametric modelling abilities
of BIM design tools. Parametric modelling “represents objects by parameters and rules that
determine the geometry [of associated objects within a model]” (Eastman et al., 2011, p.31).
Therefore, when an object is changed or inserted into a building model, the parametric rules
ensure that associated objects are automatically modified (Eastman et al., 2011).
Figure 2: Primary and secondary uses of BIM (Computer Integrated Construction
Research Group, 2011, p.9)

9
Furthermore, every change to an object is automatically represented in all other views of a
model, thus negating the need for amendment of other drawings, which was often a problem
with the previous CAD systems. This eliminates errors and saves time attributed to rework of
drawings (Eastman et al., 2011). Additionally, during the design phase, BIM enables building
performance analyses (e.g. energy analysis) and structural analysis to be carried out, as well
as enabling options analysis between multiple design options to ensure optimisation of time,
cost and quality (Azhar et al., 2012).
During the construction phase, by ensuring that the construction team have full access to
accurate design, schedule and cost information accelerates the construction of the built asset.
4D BIM can be used as a tool for construction sequencing to effectively coordinate on-site
processes by simulating real-time construction sequences on-screen (Sacks et al., 2009).
This is particularly useful in managing material orders, delivery schedules and fabrication of
building components (Azhar, 2011) ensuring better construction planning and reduced time
and costs spent on-site.
In the operation and management phase, BIM provides valuable information for the facility
management team to support the operation and use of the built asset. Such information
include operational manuals and maintenance schedules, which aid facility managers to plan
for routine maintenance, appropriately allocate maintenance staff and reduce reactive
maintenance repairs (NHBC Foundation, 2013). Access to this type of information ensures
costs of operating a built facility are minimised and the performance of the building is
maintained throughout its operating life.
2.3.3 BIM design platforms
There is an abundance of BIM design platforms available within the AEC industry from a
variety of software vendors. Eastman et al. (2011 p.72) emphasise “that no one platform will
be ideal for all types of projects” and the choice of software will have a significant effect on
an organisation’s production practices, interoperability, and an organisation’s capability to do
specific types of projects (Eastman et al., 2011). Furthermore, Eastman et al. (2011, p.70)
also state that “most BIM design applications aspire to be more than just a design tool” and
also have interfaces to other applications for energy analysis, cost estimating, rendering, and
so on, thus increasing the functionality of BIM design platforms.
Additionally, Eastman et al. (2011) distinguished the three levels of a BIM design application
in the following hierarchy: BIM tool, BIM platform and BIM environment. Firstly, a BIM tool is
“a task-specific application that produces a specific outcome” (Eastman et al., 2011, p.70);
example tools include those for drawing production, cost estimation, scheduling and energy

10
analysis. The BIM platform is “an application, usually for design, that generates data for
multiple uses” (Eastman et al., 2011, p.70) and often has multiple embedded tools for
rendering, scheduling and for clash detection. Example BIM platforms include Revit, Bentley
Systems and ArchiCAD. Lastly, the BIM environment provides the data coordination and
management for a project and integrates the applications (tools and platforms) within an
organisation (Eastman et al., 2011). BIM environments allow for wider forms of information
transfer within projects than just the model data alone. Examples of BIM environments
include 4Projects and Asite.
Furthermore, Crotty (2012) identifies the phases of a project lifecycle where particular BIM
platforms, tools and environments can be utilised to provide support during each phase (see
figure 3);

11
Figure 3: Construction project software map (Crotty, 2012, p. 90)

12
2.4 BIM Evolution from CAD technology
Historically, designers relied on manual drafting techniques to provide design drawings for
clients. However, by the 1980s, Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) largely replaced these
traditional processes (Sun and Howard, 2004). The basic function of CAD packages allows
the user to draft drawings using a series of lines that connect to represent objects (Eastman,
1991). The real strength of CAD compared to manual drafting lied in its ability to amend or
edit parts of a drawing, which cannot be easily carried out using traditional techniques. Using
CAD meant that it was possible for designers to explore more alternative building layouts
during design (Kharrufa et al., 1988). Compared to manual drafting, CAD provided improved
productivity and efficiency of the drawing process ensuring reduction in time and costs spent
on design. Nevertheless, the challenge with CAD still remained in ensuring the drawings and
documents remained consistent throughout the design development (Crotty, 2012).
By the 21st
century, the focus shifted from 2D drawings and 3D visualisations to the data
itself (Eastman et al., 2011), which led to the use of BIM systems. BIM authoring tools
originate from CAD systems with the fundamental difference being the parametric modelling
ability of BIM tools to provide an intelligent computerised 3D model of the built asset being
designed (Crotty, 2012). This model is then able to support the generation of consistent,
accurate, multiple different views (Eastman et al., 2011). The use of BIM eliminates the
inconsistency and errors of drawings and documents often associated to the use of CAD,
thus improving efficiency on construction projects. Hence, the adoption of BIM within the
construction sector has rapidly increased.
2.5 Government 2016 BIM Level 2 mandate
As previously addressed (in section 1.4), the government mandated the use of Level 2 BIM
on all publicly funded construction projects by 2016 (HMCO, 2011). This was in response to
the Government Construction Strategy (HMCO, 2011), which recognised, backed by a
number of studies (Wolstenholme et al., 2009; Egan, 1998; Latham, 1994), that the
construction industry needed to become more efficient to ensure the UK gets full value from
construction.
By including BIM as one of the pillars of the Government Construction Strategy (HMCO,
2011), the government recognised its importance in helping to drive the construction industry
in the UK. To assist the drive in the adoption of BIM across government projects, a Client
BIM Mobilisation and Implementation Group (the BIM Task Group) has been established to
work with the industry and the supply chain to “strengthen the public sector’s capability in
BIM implementation” (BIM Task Group, 2013). The idea being that BIM Level 2 will provide

13
significant cost, value and carbon performance improvements in order to achieve the targets
set out by the government.
The BIM Task Group is headed up by Mark Bew and works in conjunction with government
department clients to raise awareness throughout the UK construction sector with regards to
the government’s BIM programme. The programme is underpinned by four core work
streams (see Figure 4), which aim to ensure consistency of approach and self-sufficiency by
the 2016 mandate (BIM Task Group, 2013). These are: 1) stakeholder and media
engagement, 2) delivery and productivity, 3) commercial and legal, and 4) training and
academia.
Further to this, the BIM Task Group has been divided into a number of sub-groups (see
Figure 5), which focus on a specific area of BIM use and adoption to engage relative
members of the supply chain. For example, these include BIM4SME, BIM4FM,
BIM4Collaboration and importantly, BIM4Housing, which is a Task Group set up for the
housing sector and is chaired by Andrew Carpenter. These individual groups organise
various events around the UK to promote awareness and guidance to industry stakeholders
of the uses and benefits of BIM for their particular sector.
Figure 4: BIM Task Group work streams (BIM Task Group, 2015)

14
Figure 5: BIM Task Group organisation (BIM Task Group, 2015)

15
The BIM Maturity Diagram Model (see Figure 6) developed by Bew and Richards (cited in
BIM Industry Working Group, 2011, p.16) acknowledges the process and data requirements
of utilising BIM. The maturity model identifies four staged levels of BIM maturity, which are
as follows:
0. “Unmanaged CAD probably 2D, with paper (or electronic paper) as the most likely
data exchange mechanism.
1. Managed CAD in 2 or 3D format using BS1192:2007 with a collaboration tool
providing a common data environment, possibly some standard data structures and
formats. Commercial data managed by standalone finance and cost management
packages with no integration.
2. Managed 3D environment held in separate discipline “BIM” tools with attached data.
Commercial data managed by an ERP. Integration on the basis of proprietary
interfaces or bespoke middleware could be regarded as “pBIM” (proprietary). The
approach may utilise 4D programme data and 5D cost elements as well as feed
operational systems.
3. Fully open process and data integration enabled by “web services” compliant with the
emerging IFC / IFD standards, managed by a collaborative model server. Could be
Figure 6: Bew – Richards BIM Maturity Model (BIM Industry Working Group, 2011, p.16)

16
regarded as iBIM or integrated BIM potentially employing concurrent engineering
processes.” (BIM Industry Working Group, 2011, p.16)
Level 2 of the Bew-Richards BIM maturity model (Figure 6) signifies the government’s target
of achieving Level 2 BIM by its 2016 deadline. Although, the target of Level 2 BIM has been
mandated since 2011 (HMCO, 2011), there still remain a number of industry professionals
who are not aware of BIM or its potential benefits. The National BIM Report carried out by
NBS (NBS, 2014) was completed by over 1000 construction professionals from differing
disciplines and found that just 5% of respondents were unaware of BIM altogether. Further
to this, another recent BIM survey, completed by 246 respondents across the AEC industry,
was carried out by Construction Manager (the magazine of the Chartered Institute of
Building) to gauge the readiness of the construction industry in implementing Level 2 BIM
(Knutt, 2014). This survey found that 18.7% were either unaware or unsure of the all-
encompassing scope of the Government’s 2016 BIM mandate (Knutt, 2014) and NBS also
found that 27% of respondents were unaware of the different levels of BIM (NBS, 2014).
When delving further into these survey results, Knutt (2014) also found that public sector
clients are slightly ahead of private sector clients in terms of their BIM readiness with public
sector clients averaging 3.28 out of a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being most ready) compared to
private sector clients indicating a BIM readiness rating of 2.33. It is of concern that although
public sector clients are more ‘BIM ready’ than the private sector, a score of 3.28 out of 10 is
still very low; therefore it is evident that significant change in business practices is still
required in order to meet the 2016 BIM deadline.
These surveys highlight that the efforts of the BIM Task Group is working, however, the
extent of change still required within the industry, to ensure the government’s 2016 mandate
is achieved, is concerning. Furthermore, the surveys apply to the construction industry as a
whole and the awareness and usage of BIM amongst housebuilders is likely to be somewhat
different. Hence, it is important to survey housebuilders in isolation to gauge the awareness
and level of usage within the sector.
2.6 Perception of BIM usage in the housebuilding sector
Although the awareness of BIM is increasing rapidly throughout the construction industry
due to the aforementioned government Level 2 BIM mandate, the impact of BIM has not yet
reached the housebuilding sector (NHBC Foundation, 2013). Nick Raynsford (Chairman,
NHBC Foundation) states that, “many working within housebuilding do not yet have an
awareness of [BIM’s] potential benefits for their sector” (NHBC Foundation, 2013, p.vii). This
lack of awareness could be attributed to the fact that the majority of the housing sector is

17
made up of private sector housebuilders (67%), so therefore the government’s BIM Level 2
mandate doesn’t apply to them directly. This is also coupled with the fact that private
housing developers are benefiting greatly from the rising demand for housing (Holmans,
2011), which is currently pushing up house prices significantly. Therefore, being an industry
that is reluctant to change, one theory for the lack of BIM awareness and usage is that large
private housebuilders do not feel the pressure to innovate while the sector remains
economically strong.
In February 2013, NHBC Foundation created a survey to gauge the level of awareness and
understanding of BIM throughout 18 of the major housebuilders in the UK. The National
House Building Council (NHBC) is an independent, non-profit organisation that works with
the housebuilding industry to help raise the quality standards of new homes by providing
technical guidance and high quality research to support housebuilders in tackling the
challenges of delivering high quality, sustainable new homes in the 21st
century (NHBC
Foundation, 2013, p.ii). The survey discovered that only 11% of respondents were using BIM
within their practices with 25% of respondents not even aware of BIM and the remaining 64%
of respondents who were aware of BIM, were not using it. Further results showed that the
BIM practitioners weren’t exploiting BIM to its full potential by not engaging their supply
chains in its use, instead issuing them information generated from the model, via hard copy
or electronic files (NHBC Foundation, 2013). These results further highlight the necessity of
establishing the main reasons and barriers for the poor uptake and awareness of BIM, which
this research paper has aimed to address.
2.7 How BIM relates to current housebuilding processes
To assess the potential benefits and limitations of utilising BIM within the housebuilding
sector, it is important to have an understanding of the current processes involved within
these organisations. Figure 7 depicts the fragmentation that currently exists between project
stakeholders in housebuilding projects. This coupled with the high level complexity of project
data and information exchange due to a large number of individual companies working on a
project increases the inefficiency of projects (Aouad and Arayici, 2010). Aouad and Arayici
(2010, p.44) state that currently “design processes are separated from the construction
processes, which increases the uncertainty and incompatibility between the design solution
and the actual construction”. Therefore, it is evident that improving the coordination and
communication between project stakeholders and closing the gap between the design and
construction teams will eradicate many of the inefficiencies that currently exist within the
construction process.

18
Currently, in order to exchange project information that is understood and followed by all
project team members, the majority of housebuilders use document management systems.
Traditionally, this has either been a bought-in software package or a simple in-house system
that has developed with the business (NHBC Foundation, 2013). However, it has often been
stated that existing processes are prone to delay, defects and waste with additional costs
associated to delayed, inconsistent or inaccurate information (Wilkinson, 2005).
BIM however provides this process change from inefficient practices to a fully collaborative
method of working where project team members are able to access and retrieve project data
and information from a single, central repository, known as a Common Data Environment
(Wilkinson, 2005). A Common Data Environment (CDE) is an environment where project
team members are able to “collect, manage and disseminate the project design, production,
construction and asset management information” (McCrae and King, 2005, p.6). The CDE in
most instances, is based around a project extranet capability supplied on the internet, which
provides a private, securely managed environment allowing authorised access to project
team members from any location (McCrae and King, 2005; Wilkinson, 2005). This ensures
all project members are working on accurate, up-to-date, relevant information. As shown in
Figure 8, the single, central repository offers a far more efficient method of managing project
documents than through traditional methods.
A core industry standard published by the British Standards Institute (BSI) in 2013 called
PAS 1192-2:2013 describes the process of information delivery through the CDE to ensure
the data at each information exchange is accurate (BSI, 2013). The CDE is depicted in
Figure 9 as a four stage process starting with the ‘Work in Progress’ (WIP) section, which
Housing
developer
Design
consultants
Construction
site
Sub-
contractors
Facilities
manager
Housing
developer
Design
consultants
Construction
site
Sub-
contractors
Facilities
manager BIM
Figure 7: Current work environment in the
housebuilding industry (adapted from
Wilkinson, 2005, p.8; Azhar et al., 2012, p.17).
Figure 8: Housebuilding work environment
on a BIM enabled project (adapted from
Wilkinson, 2005, p.8)

19
holds unapproved information for each organisation role, which is then checked, reviewed
and approved prior to issue to the ‘Shared’ area allowing other organisations to use as
reference material for their own design development (BSI, 2013). When all design has been
completed, this information in the ‘Shared’ area is then subsequently checked, reviewed and
approved prior to transition to the ‘Published Documentation’ area where the information
changes from ‘Preliminary’ to ‘Construction’ (BSI, 2013). Lastly, the ‘Archive’ area of the
CDE holds superseded project information in addition to ‘As-built’ information. Particular
advantages of utilising a CDE are as follows: time and cost is reduced in developing co-
ordinated information through sharing information in the CDE, a number of documents can
be generated from the model files and spatial co-ordination delivers ‘fit first time’ information
(BSI, 2013).
BIM provides not only a collaborative method of working through a CDE, but also a number
of other key advantages (which are detailed in full in section 2.9) across all stages of a
project. It is therefore evident that BIM has the potential to facilitate increased efficiency in
existing housebuilding processes through collaborative working and thus eradicating the
Figure 9: Common Data Environment (BSI, 2013, p. 26)

20
fragmentation that currently exists in the industry. BIM however is not just a large IT upgrade,
it requires “dramatic changes in current business practices” (Aoaud and Arayici, 2010, p.47).
Sackey et al. (2013 p.197) also states “the critical challenge in BIM implementation is to first
identify the gaps between the generic functionality of the chosen BIM system and the
specific organisational requirements”. Hence, to exploit the full potential that BIM can offer, it
is important that housebuilders understand how it fits into current methods, identify areas
that BIM can improve and fully commit to the BIM process.
2.8 Key factors in BIM implementation
A number of industry leading experts have described the key factors of BIM implementation
within AEC organisations (Succar, 2009; Gu and London, 2010; Bew and Underwood, 2010;
Sackey et al., 2013). It is widely accepted that BIM implementation “involves far more than
acquiring software, training, and upgrading hardware” (Eastman et al., 2011), however there
is no single document or guideline to advise organisations how to successfully implement
BIM (Sackey et al., 2013). Therefore, it is crucial to understand the key factors of BIM
implementation to develop a BIM implementation strategy for a private housebuilding
company.
Firstly, Succar (2009) identifies three interlocking ‘Fields of BIM activity’, which recognise the
key players and their deliverables for BIM implementation. The three interlocking BIM Fields
of activity are made up of ‘Technology’, ‘Process’ and ‘Policy’ (TPP) with each containing
two sub-fields: players and deliverables (see Figure 10). The Technology Field groups
together a variety of players who specialise in developing software and hardware systems
capable of increasing productivity and efficiency of the AEC sector. The Process Field
groups together a number of players who design, manufacture, construct, operate and use a
built facility and finally, the BIM Policy Field groups a number of players focused on
research, preparation of written standards and allocating risks and minimising conflicts within
the industry. These players include insurance companies, regulatory bodies and educational
institutes and play an influential preparatory, regulatory and contractual role in the whole
lifecycle of a built asset (Succar, 2009).

21
Similarly, Bew and Underwood (2010) identified the three key factors for successful BIM
implementation as: people, process and technology. Bew and Underwood (2010, p.38) refer
to these factors as “the key variables that need to be considered in delivering any change
programme”. Although people and process are imperative to BIM implementation, without
adequate technology systems, the first two elements cannot be sustained (Bew and
Underwood, 2010). Interestingly, Bew and Underwood (2010) and Succar (2009) both agree
that ‘process’ and ‘technology’ are two key variables for BIM implementation; however,
Succar (2009) identifies ‘policy’ as the third factor, whereas Bew and Underwood (2010)
state ‘people’ as the third factor. Succar (2009) however describes that people (key players)
play an integral role in all three BIM Fields involved in producing the ‘technology’ and ‘policy’
for BIM adoption and carrying out the ‘process’ of BIM implementation.
Furthermore, Sackey et al. (2013) delved further into this subject to identify the stages
involved in BIM implementation by carrying out primary research into how construction
Figure 10: Interlocking Fields of BIM activity (Succar, 2009, p.361)

22
companies manage the implementation of BIM within their organisations. The research
focused only on companies who had already implemented BIM and were working on BIM
enabled projects. Of the 10 respondents, 4 represented contractor organisations, 5 were
design and engineering firms and 1 was a project management firm. The findings found that
BIM implementation approaches differed from one organisation to another, however the
research did identify some common themes across the participating organisations. The
following four key stages exemplify the common themes discovered of the implementation
process of BIM (see Figure 11). The first being the ‘brainstorming stage’ which involves an
assessment and discussion of an organisations’ current status, the reasons for implementing
BIM and the extent of change required within the business. The ‘concept building stage’
follows, which defines the organisational BIM strategy and develops strategic leadership
teams and responsibilities. The ‘realisation stage’ involves the selection of the BIM software
package, as well as upgrading the organisations’ hardware, if necessary, and the training of
staff members in order to operate the software and understand what is required at each
stage of the process of a project. Finally, the ‘manifestation stage’ “marks the beginning of
an ongoing BIM-learning cycle” (Sackey et al., 2013, p.203) which optimises knowledge flow
between members of the organisation in order to provide continuous change to realise the
full benefits of BIM. These four key stages again highlight the importance of people and
technology in the process of BIM implementation.

23
It is evident that for successful BIM implementation, investment in people, processes and
technology is imperative and in order to fulfil the potential of BIM, changes are required to
almost every aspect of an organisation’s business and a clear implementation strategy is
Figure 11: BIM implementation framework (Sackey et al., 2013, p. 205)

24
key to achieving this. Therefore, this research study has ascertained whether these findings
regarding BIM implementation correlate with housebuilding organisations. Hence, the BIM
implementation framework developed by Sackey et al. (2013) has been utilised and adapted
for the purpose of this research.
2.9 Drivers of BIM adoption
There is a vast array of literature (Bryde et al., 2013; Eadie et al., 2013a; Yan and Damian,
2008; Azhar, 2011) surrounding the drivers of BIM use on construction projects. These are
broadly similar across the construction organisation spectrum, yet certain drivers differ
depending on the size and organisation type (e.g. design consultancy, contractor or
developer).
In 2008, McGraw-Hill Construction published a market report of BIM’s use in the AEC
industry (cited in Azhar, 2011, p.243) based on the findings of a questionnaire completed by
302 industry professionals including engineers, architects, contractors and owners. The
report found that 82% of BIM users believed BIM had a positive impact on their company’s
productivity, 79% of BIM users indicated that the use of BIM had improved project outcomes
and 66% of respondents believed that using BIM increased their competitiveness when
bidding for jobs. These results suggest that AEC industry professionals are realising the
benefits that BIM provides, however there is still a lack of research into the benefits of BIM
within the housebuilding sector. Hence, the knowledge gap that this research paper has
attempted to address is how BIM implementation can benefit the housebuilding sector in
order to eradicate much of the inefficiency that has always been associated with the UK
construction industry. Therefore, the following section discusses a number of drivers of BIM
implementation within the AEC industry, which have been provided as example drivers
during the data collection. This was in order to identify the main drivers for BIM adoption
specifically within private housebuilding organisations.
2.9.1 Clash detection
One of the key drivers for BIM adoption is its ability to simulate and detect physical clashes
of building components during the design phase. Historically, using traditional methods,
clashes between building elements are generally only discovered once on-site during
construction, thus requiring an element of redesign inevitably increasing cost and project
duration (Azhar, 2011). For example, Azhar (2011) highlights that by utilising BIM, a
$46million (£30.4million) hotel and retail project in Atlanta, Georgia, USA; the Aquarium
Hilton Garden Inn saved over $200,000 (£135,000) (after deductions made for assuming the

25
clashes would have been resolved using conventional methods) due to the detection of
more than 590 clashes prior to construction and saved 1,143 hours of construction labour.
Furthermore, Eadie et al. (2013a) conducted an online survey targeting the top 100 UK
construction contractors with international activity to rank the importance of 18 drivers for the
adoption of BIM. After the results were analysed from the 30 respondents (18 respondents
had implemented BIM and 12 had not), clash detection was ranked as the most important
driver for those that had implemented BIM and the fourth highest in importance for those that
hadn’t implemented BIM as yet. Additionally, Azhar (2008) states that through clash
detection, projects can benefit from cost savings of up to 10% of the contract value, as well
as reductions in project duration by up to 7%. Therefore, it is clear that clash detection is
perceived as a incredibly useful tool of BIM, as it has the ability to significantly aid in
reducing cost and duration of a project.
2.9.2 Generation of accurate cost estimates and schedules
By integrating product and cost data into building elements and components within a BIM
model, time savings of up to 80% can be attained (Eadie et al., 2013a) and the accuracy of
the cost estimates and schedules is greatly improved than utilising a paper-based system
(Eastman et al., 2011). Figure 12 provides this comparison of the estimating process
between traditional paper-based methods and BIM-based methods. BIM removes an
element of human error of a member of the project team manually checking each
component against a schedule, as each component on the cost estimate or schedule directly
relates to a specific object within the model (Eastman et al., 2011). BIM also provides the
ability to make well-informed design decisions regarding the cost implications of design
changes far more efficiently than using traditional paper-based methods, due to a cost
estimate being generated from the model instantaneously (Eastman et al., 2011).

26
Figure 12: Conceptual diagram of a BIM quantity takeoff and estimating process (Eastman et al., 2011, p. 279)

27
Furthermore, as BIM can efficiently generate material schedules from an early stage of
design, it is possible for a housebuilder to procure material packages earlier in the design to
ensure there are no delays when on-site with material orders. In an interview by Puckett
(2014) with Mark Duffield (Technical Director at Telford Homes) discussing the company’s
venture into utilising BIM on a residential project, Duffield stated that “the earlier availability
of detailed information meant that procurement could get underway sooner – once the
foundation package has gone out, nothing further is required for three or four months, so the
design comes off the critical path at that point” (Puckett, 2014). Thus, it is evident that BIM
provides the capability to eliminate common errors, save time and costs and improve the
overall efficiency of a project.
2.9.3 Earlier, accurate visualisations of a design
The three-dimensional element of BIM offers earlier, accurate visualisations of the design of
a built facility (Eastman et al., 2011). One particular advantage of this is the ability for model-
based decision-making from an early stage of design, enabling design changes to be made
efficiently ensuring a reduced impact on cost (Azhar et al., 2012). For example, Azhar (2011)
described that by utilising BIM at the planning stage for a project for Savannah State
University, Georgia, USA, a cost saving of $1,995,000 (£1,345,000) was attributed to the
early visualisations and cost estimates of three separate design options that were developed
in order to select the most economical and workable building layout.
Furthermore, another advantage is that the three-dimensional model can be useful for sales
and marketing purposes (Puckett, 2014). The sales and marketing team for large
housebuilders are able to generate marketing materials in the form of 3D visualisations to
assist in off-plan sales. This aids in ensuring the vast majority of homes are occupied when
construction is completed, which is beneficial for the cash flow of the housebuilder. As part
of Telford Homes’ Tweed House project, which utilised BIM, Mark Duffield (cited in Puckett,
2014) stated that significant time and money was saved in generating accurate 3D
visualisations from the BIM model. This was instead of commissioning an external agency to
build a 3D model of the built asset from scratch, and thus having a member of the project
team spending time checking the accuracy of the externally produced model (Puckett, 2014).
2.9.4 Improved construction programming
By using 4D BIM, a construction programme can be linked to the 3D objects in a design
allowing an animated simulation of the day-to-day on-site construction activities at any given
moment in time (Eastman et al., 2011). This capability allows for early detection of potential

28
on-site issues and opportunities for possible improvements in terms of health and safety, site
constraints, materials and plant storage, amongst others (Sulankivi et al., 2009).
The knock-on effect from falling behind on programme can be problematic for material
ordering, manufacture and delivery of particular building elements, however with accurate
and realistic construction sequencing utilising 4D BIM ensures significant time and cost
savings through reduced delays to the programme (Eadie et al., 2013a). This is because
BIM allows construction teams to generate new schedules for works when delays occur.
From these schedules, revised fabrication and delivery programmes are created (Eadie et
al., 2013a), which traditionally are very time-consuming activities.
2.9.5 Other drivers
Further drivers other than the ones described include: improved collaboration between
project team members, improved communication to operatives, greater cost control and
predictability, improved built output quality and an improvement in facilities management
activities after handover (Eadie et al., 2013a; Azhar, 2011; Eastman et al., 2011).
2.10 Barriers to BIM adoption
Although there are several benefits of utilising BIM, it’s adoption and use in the
housebuilding industry is scarce, which is evident from the research carried out by NHBC
Foundation (see section 2.6). Furthermore, the barriers of BIM adoption within organisations
in the UK AEC industry have been widely reported (Eadie et al., 2013b; Yan and Damian,
2008; Gledson et al., 2012), however very little has been reported specifically within private
sector housebuilding companies. Therefore, based on findings from literature, the following
section describes the predominant barriers of BIM adoption within the UK AEC industry,
which have also been provided as example reasons for data collection.
2.10.1 Lack of in-house expertise
Eadie et al. (2013b) surveyed 92 construction industry professionals from various disciplines
responsible for BIM adoption within their organisations and found that lack of in-house
expertise was the most prominent reason for not using BIM. Furthermore, the National BIM
Report carried out by NBS (2014) also found that lack of in-house expertise was the greatest
barrier to BIM adoption for larger organisations, with 77% of respondents indicating so.
Furthermore, with a current shortage of professionals with suitable BIM modelling skills
(NHBC Foundation, 2013), it is evident that industry bodies and associations need to provide
more training and education in the practical application of BIM.

29
2.10.2 Cost of new hardware/software and training staff
The significant cost of upgrading Information Communication Technology (ICT) systems,
allocating resources and training has been seen as one of the greatest barriers to
housebuilding organisations in the adoption of BIM (NHBC Foundation, 2013). This is also
felt industry-wide with a recent survey (Knutt, 2014) highlighting that 70.6% of medium-sized
£20m-£100m contractors indicated that both IT costs and training costs were the greatest
barriers to BIM implementation. In terms of implementation costs, as part of the research
carried out by Yusuf (2014) into BIM adoption within SME architectural practices, it was
found that on average it costs approximately between £9,000-£11,000 (including training)
per workstation to implement BIM. However, Yan and Damian (2008) also found that
companies are reluctant to invest in BIM as there is currently a lack of case study evidence
of the financial benefit of BIM.
A number of researchers (Rivard, 2000; Ahmad et al., 1995; Love and Irani, 2004) however,
have identified that investment in ICT raises productivity and efficiency of business activities.
For example, Rivard (2000) surveyed 220 AEC industry professionals on the current and
planned use of IT and its impact on the Canadian AEC industry and found that there were
significant increases in productivity on various business activities with the productivity of
general administration, design, project and site management improving. Azhar (2011) also
found that the return on investment (ROI) of BIM on 10 different construction projects in the
USA was on average 634% due to increased productivity and efficiency. Thus, to encourage
BIM adoption, it is crucial to promote the awareness of how BIM can improve productivity
and efficiency in order to attain the financial benefits of BIM.
2.10.3 Cultural resistance
A number of researchers (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998; Fernie et al., 2006; Aouad and Arayici,
2010) have identified that the culture of the UK construction industry has often been
resistant to change and innovate. In light of this, in terms of BIM implementation, Yan and
Damian (2008) surveyed 70 individuals from the AEC industry regarding the barriers to BIM
implementation and found that two of the predominant barriers were that people do not want
to learn BIM and many believe that current technology is enough. Khosrowshahi and Arayici
(2012) also found that the second greatest barrier to BIM use was a reluctance to initiate
new workflows or train staff. Therefore, in order for the private housebuilding sector to
implement BIM, it is vital that industry bodies and associations are able to get industry
professionals to understand the potential and value of the use of BIM over existing traditional
practices.

30
2.10.4 Other barriers
Further barriers other than the ones described include: legal and contractual issues, lack of
immediate benefits of projects delivered to date and a lack of client demand (Eadie et al.,
2013b).
2.11 Research boundary and focal point
The above review illustrates the challenges and the inefficiencies of the UK construction
industry and a number of reports and research studies have suggested that BIM can have a
vital role in alleviating these challenges. These reports have generally focused on the
adoption and implementation of BIM within organisations working on public sector projects,
however very little research has been undertaken regarding the adoption and
implementation of BIM within the private housebuilding sector, which hence is the focus of
this research study.
Furthermore, with research carried out by Ball and Dosanjh (2012) into the prospects for the
housebuilding industry identifying that 89% of private housebuilders were likely to be
changing the way they organised their business, as well as 88% of those looking to change
the productivity enhancing technology they use, currently there is a distinctive need for
research into BIM adoption within the housebuilding sector.

31
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
An extensive literature review has been carried out in order to gain an understanding of BIM
within the UK AEC industry with a particular focus on the private housebuilding sector. The
review identified the potentials, benefits, barriers and key factors for BIM implementation
within the private housing sector. It is clear however, from the review that there is a lack of
awareness and usage of BIM within private sector housebuilding, hence this chapter
identifies the research methods used in order to establish and understand the reasons why
this is the case.
3.2 Purpose of study
3.2.1 Aim of research
To explore the potentials, barriers and drivers to successful BIM based workflow adoption
within private sector housebuilding companies in the UK.
3.2.2 Objectives of research
1. To develop an understanding of BIM.
2. To review the current methods of construction used by housebuilding companies.
3. To establish the level of BIM usage and apparent barriers and drivers faced by
private housebuilders for the adoption and implementation of BIM.
4. To develop a conceptual BIM implementation strategy for a private housebuilding
organisation.
3.3 Research methods
There are two distinctions between types of research methods: quantitative and qualitative
research. Quantitative research is defined as an “inquiry into a social or human problem,
based on testing a hypothesis or a theory composed of variables, measured with numbers
and analysed with statistical procedures” (Naoum, 2013, p.39). Characteristically, this type
of research is ‘objective’ with the purpose of testing or validating a theory indicated at the
beginning of the research, as oppose to developing the theory (Naoum, 2013). In contrast,
qualitative research is an approach for “exploring and understanding the meaning individuals
or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (Cresswell, 2009, p.4). This research
method is ‘subjective’ by nature (Naoum, 2013) and by using techniques such as focus

32
groups and interviews provides a narrative understanding of the participants’ attitudes, views
and opinions of a particular subject.
The primary advantage of quantitative research over qualitative research is that a broader
study can be carried out with a larger number of respondents, thus accurately reflecting the
population of the sample (VanderStroep and Johnson, 2009). On the other hand, the primary
disadvantage of quantitative research is that this method provides a superficial
understanding of the answers given by the respondents and offers no further depth and
understanding beyond the responses given (VanderStroep and Johnson, 2009). In contrast,
the foremost advantage of qualitative research is that it is possible to gain a rich, in-depth
understanding of the views of the population under study, which is not possible with
quantitative research (VanderStroep and Johnson, 2009). Nevertheless, the main
disadvantage of qualitative research is that the findings may not represent the views of the
larger population because sample sizes are generally small and non-random (VanderStroep
and Johnson, 2009). Thus, it is evident that the advantages and disadvantages of each
method are inverses of one another (VanderStroep and Johnson, 2009). VanderStroep and
Johnson (2009) further highlight the main differences between the two research strategies in
Table 1.
Furthermore, mixed methods research is an approach that combines both qualitative and
quantitative research methods (Cresswell, 2009). The core notion behind this approach is
that the combination of both approaches allow for a greater understanding of a research
problem than either approach alone (Cresswell, 2009).
Table 1: Quantitative vs. qualitative research (adapted from VanderStroep and Johnson,
2009)
Characteristic Quantitative research Qualitative research
Type of data
Phenomena are described
numerically
Phenomena are described
in a narrative fashion
Analysis
Descriptive and inferential
statistics
Identification of major
themes
Scope of
inquiry
Specific questions or
hypothesis
Broad, thematic concerns
Primary
advantage
Large sample, statistical
validity, accurately reflects
the population
Rich, in-depth, narrative
description of sample
Primary
disadvantage
Superficial understanding
of participants' thoughts
and feelings
Small sample, not
generalisable to the
population at large

33
3.4 Chosen methodology
From the research carried out from the literature review, there is a general lack of
awareness and usage of BIM amongst private sector housebuilders. Therefore, the purpose
of this research is to understand the reasons as to why this is the case. Hence, in order to
understand the attitudes, views and opinions of those who may be involved in BIM adoption,
a qualitative research approach has been taken. A quantitative approach has not been
utilised, as an in-depth understanding of the reasons why there is a lack of awareness and
usage of BIM is required.
3.5 Data collection
3.5.1 Approaches to data collection
In order to understand the reasons why there is a lack of BIM awareness and usage within
private sector housebuilding, primary data collection has been utilised. As part of this data
collection, a survey approach was undertaken to establish a wider understanding of BIM
awareness and usage across a number of housebuilding organisations in the UK in
combination with a personal interview to provide a further in-depth understanding of the
issues regarding BIM implementation from a single housebuilding organisation’s point of
view.
3.5.2 Data collection methods
3.5.2.1 Online questionnaire
Yun and Trumbo (2000) identified two main modes of survey response; post (paper-based)
and electronic surveys. Electronic surveys include both web-based surveys and email
surveys. A web-based survey “is the collection of data through a self-administered electronic
set of questions on the web” (Archer, 2003). Archer (2003) describes a number of
advantages of web-based surveys over paper-based methods, which are as follows: paper,
postage and data entry costs are almost eliminated, data is available almost immediately
once a participant has completed the survey, question sequencing and routing can be
programmed into the questionnaire with ease and it is simple to send follow up reminders to
participants. Furthermore, Schmidt (1997) also states that a web-based survey is a dynamic
survey allowing for responses to be automatically viewed in graphical and numerical form
and Yun and Trumbo (2000) also identified that a number of researchers also found that
participants write lengthier and more self-disclosing answers on open-ended electronic
surveys than on paper-based surveys. This is particularly important in order to obtain rich,
in-depth information sufficient for this research study.

34
Hence, with the advantages of web-based surveys in mind, as well as due to time and cost
constraints and a lack of personal contacts, data was collected via an online questionnaire.
BOS survey software produced and run by the University of Bristol was used to collect the
data via the Internet.
3.5.2.2 Personal interview
A personal interview has been utilised to supplement the results obtained from the online
questionnaire. The personal interview also aimed to provide recommendations for BIM
implementation in a small housebuilding organisation. Carrying out a personal interview
allows probing of the interviewee and the quality of information is deep and detailed (Drever,
1995), which is important as part of this research study.
Naoum (2013) identified three forms of interviews: unstructured, structured and semi-
structured. For the purpose of this research, a semi-structured interview has been utilised. A
semi-structured interview is characterised by the use of a combination of ‘open-ended’ and
‘closed’ questions aimed at focusing on the respondents’ experiences regarding the subject
under study (Naoum, 2013). This approach has been taken as there are a number of
specific topics to structure the interview around, however to gain an greater understanding, it
was important to ask a series of ‘open-ended’ questions.
3.6 Questionnaire construction
Further building on the knowledge gained through the literature review and in order to
achieve objectives two and three, the three main objectives of the questionnaire was to
firstly, gauge the percentage of UK private sector housebuilding companies using BIM,
secondly, to identify the benefits to the companies who are using BIM and thirdly, for the
companies who are not engaging with BIM, establish an understanding of the barriers in
adopting BIM. Therefore, with this in mind, the questionnaire was separated into the
following five themes: (1) General details, (2) BIM use and awareness, (3) Industry
professionals not aware of BIM, (4) BIM users and (5) Non-BIM users, who are aware of BIM
(see Appendix item 3). The rationale behind each of these themes is explained below.
3.6.1 General details
This section aimed to understand the type and size of each organisation and the position,
roles and responsibilities of the participant. This section allows the researcher to instantly
identify whether the participant fits the required characteristics associated to the research
study. Furthermore, it was important to understand the position and responsibilities of the
participants in order to understand the attitudes towards BIM of those at a strategic level

35
(see section 3.7). Lastly, by understanding how many employees are employed in an
organisation, it is possible to ascertain as to whether the size of a housebuilding
organisation has an impact on BIM implementation. As part of the research carried out by
Gledson et al. (2012) regarding BIM implementation in large and SME construction
contractors, the study defined the classification of companies by number of employees as:
small (0-49 employees), medium (50-249 employees) and large (250+ employees). Hence
this research study has classified the size of companies according to this study.
3.6.2 BIM use and awareness
Section 2 (see Appendix item 3) aimed to establish the level of awareness and usage of BIM
amongst industry professionals within the housebuilding sector. This section builds on the
research carried out by the NHBC Foundation (2013) to assess whether BIM awareness and
usage has increased since 2013, where it was found that 25% of industry members
surveyed were not even aware of BIM and only 11% of those surveyed were using BIM (see
section 2.6).
Question 2.1 is a simple closed ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, which ascertained whether a
participant is aware of BIM. If the participant answered ‘no’, they were automatically routed
to ‘Section 3 – Industry professionals not aware of BIM’. If the subject answered ‘yes’, the
participant’s understanding of BIM was assessed further with questions 2.2 to 2.4 asking for
the respondent to describe their knowledge of BIM, through an open-ended question
(question 2.2), and whether they were aware of the government’s Level 2 BIM mandate.
Although many industry professionals may have heard of the BIM acronym, some research
studies (NBS, 2014; Knutt, 2014) have found that many within the construction industry are
still unaware or unsure of BIM and the government’s Level 2 BIM target by 2016 (see
section 2.5). Hence, building on these research studies, it was important to recognise the
level of understanding of BIM amongst housebuilding professionals.
Lastly, question 2.5 aimed to understand the percentage of housebuilding organisations
utilising BIM using a closed ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. Those that answered ‘yes’ were
automatically routed to ‘Section 4 – BIM users’ and those answering ‘no’ were directed to
‘Section 5 – Non-BIM users’ (see Figure 13). This question aimed to build upon the research
by NHBC Foundation (2013) to identify whether there has been an increase in BIM usage
over the past two years in the housebuilding sector.

36
3.6.3 Industry professionals not aware of BIM
Section 3 (see Appendix item 3) explored the reasons as to why participants are not aware
of BIM and aimed to examine what more could be done by the government and industry to
increase the awareness within the sector. Question 3.1 identifies whether participants are
aware of various industry groups who provide information on BIM, in order to recognise
which industry groups have the greatest influence on improving BIM awareness. Questions
3.2 and 3.3 were open-ended questions encouraging participants to provide an in-depth
response as to how the industry can raise awareness, as well as providing an understanding
of the barriers to BIM awareness within the sector. Once the participant completed this
section, they were automatically directed to the end of the questionnaire with the following
sections only applicable to those who were aware of BIM (see Figure 13).
3.6.4 BIM users
By questioning those who had implemented BIM, section 4 aimed to achieve objective three
by gaining an understanding of the drivers for BIM adoption, the changes to existing
practices, the challenges faced through BIM adoption and the main benefits of BIM since
implementation.
Firstly, questions 4.2 and 4.3 (see Appendix item 3) intended to understand the main drivers
as to why BIM was adopted within the participant’s organisation and whether the
government’s BIM Level 2 mandate had an influence on adoption. The list of drivers for
question 4.3 originated from the review of the drivers for BIM adoption (see section 2.9).
Questions 4.4 and 4.5 endeavoured to provide an understanding of the changes required for
BIM implementation. With a number of researchers (Sackey et al., 2013; Bew and
Underwood, 2010; Succar, 2009) identifying that ‘people’, ‘process’ and ‘technology’ are the
key factors for BIM implementation, these questions aimed to identify whether the changes
within each organisation involved these factors.
Question 4.7 was designed to understand the main benefits of utilising BIM in practice.
Although this question appears similar to question 4.3, there is a subtle difference, as
question 4.7 seeks to understand the reported benefits experienced of using BIM on projects,
as opposed to question 4.3, which looks to understand the driving reasons behind BIM
uptake. By understanding the prominent benefits for BIM adoption, housebuilders are able to
understand how it fits into current methods and identify where BIM has the ability to improve
existing practices.

37
Lastly, questions 4.8 and 4.9 intended to understand whether housebuilding companies
expect their supply chain to utilise BIM and if so, have these companies provided assistance
to supply chain partners, for example, by offering training or providing financial assistance.
These two questions have been previously asked within NHBC Foundation’s (2013)
research questionnaire, which found that generally practitioners of BIM did not require their
supply chain partners to engage in utilising BIM, but instead issuing information, from the
model, via hard copy or electronic files, thus not exploiting the full potential of utilising BIM.
So therefore, these questions look to further establish the attitudes of those within
housebuilding companies regarding collaboration with supply chain partners.
3.6.5 Non-BIM users
This section aimed to achieve objectives two and three to understand the challenges faced
with existing practices and processes, establish the level of knowledge and understanding of
BIM and identify what the predominant barriers to BIM implementation are.
Questions 5.1 and 5.2 (see Appendix item 3) were designed to understand the existing
processes and the main challenges and issues with existing practices within housebuilding
organisations. By understanding the principle challenges with existing practices allows
housebuilders to identify where BIM can aid in improving the efficiency of current practices.
Questions 5.3 to 5.6 aimed to provide an understanding of the level of knowledge and skills
of BIM amongst participants not currently using BIM. These results will establish whether the
government and industry are doing enough to educate industry stakeholders and if not,
understand what more can be done. Question 5.6 also identifies where housebuilding
professionals are most likely to turn to for information on BIM and hence, recognises the
prominent sources for government and industry to target BIM information to educate industry
professionals.
Question 5.7 aimed to identify the main barrier to BIM adoption within housebuilding
organisations. By utilising an open-ended style of question allowed for respondents to
provide a free, unrestricted answer, unencumbered by a prepared set of replies.
Lastly, question 5.8 intended to establish whether the participants are intending to
implement BIM within their practices and if so, how soon is this likely to happen. The results
of this question aimed to highlight the impact of the government’s BIM Level 2 mandate for
2016 on the private housebuilding sector. As part of the National BIM Report (2014), NBS
found that 93% of respondents representing organisations across the AEC industry stated

38
that they would be using BIM by 2016. It was therefore, important to establish the level of
difference between private sector housebuilding and the rest of the AEC industry.
3.6.6 Survey logic
To extract reliable data from each participant, skip logic (or conditional branching) has been
utilised throughout the survey to ensure respondents are directed to certain pages only
applicable to them. Figure 13 displays the survey map for the questionnaire and displays the
logic routes on the basis of a participant’s response. The ‘dotted arrows’ (in Figure 13)
represent the custom logic routes. For example as previously mentioned, if a respondent
answered ‘yes’ that they are currently using BIM (question 2.5), they were routed to ‘Section
4 – BIM users’ and therefore answered questions only applicable to BIM users.

40
3.7 Sampling method
Naoum (2013) identifies two main types of sampling methods: random sampling and
selected sampling. Firstly, random sampling is utilised when certain characteristics of the
sample is not essential with the sample being chosen randomly from the population so that
each subject has the same probability of being selected (Naoum, 2013). In contrast,
selected sampling involves specifying subjects from a population with certain characteristics
according to the research study being carried out (Naoum, 2013).
For the purpose of this research, a selected sampling approach was taken. In order to
understand the views and reasons as to why BIM has or hasn’t been implemented within a
participants’ organisation, it was vital to target senior managers within private sector
housebuilding organisations in the UK. Targeting senior managers within these
organisations was essential, as for the purpose of this research, it is highly important to
understand the attitudes and opinions of those in strategic positions who have an influence
in company decisions.
3.7.1 Sample size
A report written by Nathanial Lichfield & Partners (2015) commissioned by the Home
Builders Federation estimated that there are approximately 3000 housebuilding firms, both
public and private sector, in the UK, however there is an unavailability of a known record of
the number of private sector housebuilding organisations in the UK. Therefore, the overall
population size for this research study could not be obtained.
Since it has not been possible to obtain an overall population size, this research study has
identified a number of other research papers (NHBC Foundation, 2013; Sackey et al, 2013;
Gledson et al, 2012) that have conducted a similar study, in order to obtain an adequate
target number of responses. Of the research undertaken by the NHBC Foundation (2013),
Sackey et al. (2013) and Gledson et al. (2012), 18, 10 and 30 responses were received
respectively. Consequently, a target of 20 responses was set for this research study.
3.7.2 Limitations to questionnaire research
Due to the focused nature of this research study, a number of limitations to the sample size
exist. Firstly, targeting senior managers within private sector housebuilding organisations
naturally restricts the sample size. Secondly, the aim of this research study is to establish
the awareness and usage of BIM across the private sector housebuilding industry, so
therefore it is essential to obtain a range of responses from different housebuilders, rather

41
than several responses from only a few housebuilding organisations. Other limitations
include time and cost constraints and a lack of personal contacts.
3.8 Distribution of the questionnaire
After amending the wording and order of a number of questions following a pilot study, the
questionnaire was first distributed to a number of personal contacts in senior management
positions within private housebuilding organisations. At the same time, the questionnaire
was posted online within specific targeted groups on a professional networking website,
namely LinkedIn. Housebuilding professionals were targeted within groups associated to
BIM and housebuilding by posting the online survey in groups such as: ‘BIM4Housing’, ‘UK
House Building Network’, ‘CIOB (Chartered Institute of Building)’ and ‘RICS Building
Information Modelling (BIM)’. Lastly, another method of distributing the questionnaire was to
contact professionals through LinkedIn that met the specific characteristics required for the
research study. As part of this, a number of professionals involved with the BIM4Housing
Task Group were also contacted through this method.
3.9 Semi-structured interview
As previously mentioned (within section 3.5.2.2), a semi-structured interview was
undertaken to supplement the findings from the research questionnaire. The interview was
carried out with a personal contact; a Construction Director at a small housebuilding
company, namely Higgins Homes and is not currently using BIM. The interview was
undertaken after the results of the questionnaire were analysed and the aim of the interview
was to achieve objectives three and four in order to establish a further understanding of the
reasons for the lack of BIM adoption within the sector and then finally, propose
recommendations for BIM implementation for Higgins Homes. Therefore, an interview
schedule was developed (see Appendix item 6) identifying the main questions to be asked
resulting from the questionnaire findings and separated into the following five themes: (1)
General details, (2) Existing practices, (3) BIM awareness and understanding, (4) Barriers to
BIM adoption and (5) BIM implementation.
3.9.1 Existing practices
Based on the findings from the questionnaire, this section aimed to understand the reasons
behind the main challenges to existing practices throughout the industry, as well as at the
participant’s organisation. Question 2.1 is an open-ended question designed to allow the
interviewee to speak freely on the challenges with existing practices across the
housebuilding sector. Questions 2.2 and 2.3 were then designed to investigate the

42
challenges with existing processes within Higgins Homes to understand whether the
predominant challenges indicated from the findings of the questionnaire were comparable.
Question 2.4 was asked not only as a matter of courtesy, but also because the questions
may have stimulated the interviewee to think further about the topic.
3.9.2 BIM awareness and understanding
Building on the results of the questionnaire, the theme of the questions within section 3 (see
Appendix item 6) aimed to obtain more of an in-depth understanding of the reasons why BIM
awareness and understanding isn’t as widespread as it is throughout the rest of the UK AEC
industry through a set of open-ended questions.
3.9.3 Barriers to BIM adoption
This section aimed to further understand the main barriers of BIM adoption for private
housebuilders across the industry, as well as at Higgins Homes. Question 4.1 was aimed at
finding out why the adoption of BIM in private housebuilding lags behind much of the AEC
industry. Question 4.2 looked to investigate the theory (mentioned in section 2.6) that
perhaps the economic boom for the housebuilding industry is having an adverse effect on
BIM adoption within the sector. Then, after establishing the views of the interviewee of the
barriers to BIM adoption within the sector, questions 4.3 and 4.4 aimed to understand the
barriers to adoption within the participant’s practice to ascertain the problems that need to be
overcome in order to prepare a BIM implementation plan for Higgins Homes.
3.9.4 BIM implementation
To achieve objective four to develop a BIM implementation strategy for a small
housebuilding company, this section was designed to obtain the views of the interviewee as
to what is required to enable implementation within Higgins Homes. Firstly, question 5.1 (see
Appendix item 6) was asked to recognise whether BIM was already being considered within
the practice to understand whether the organisation were aware of BIM and believed that
BIM could improve their business. The interviewee was then shown the BIM implementation
framework (see Appendix item 6) devised by Sackey et al. (2013), which was discussed
within section 2.8, to discuss whether this implementation strategy would be applicable for
Higgins Homes in order to adapt and develop an implementation plan for the organisation.
3.9.5 Administration of the interview
Opdenakker (2006) stated that conducting face-to-face interviews can give the interviewer a
lot of extra information, through social cues, such as body language, gestures and facial

43
expressions, that can be added to the verbal answer of the interviewee to a question.
Therefore, in seeking to receive rich, in-depth responses, a face-to-face interview was
undertaken at the interviewee’s workplace. Additionally, during the interview, a tape
recording was taken, as according to Opdenakker (2006), by recording an interview this
ensures that the interview transcript is likely to be more accurate than taking notes. Shortly
after, the data collected from the interview was transcribed (see Appendix item 7).
3.10 Method of data analysis
“The process of [qualitative] data analysis involves making sense out of text and image data”
(Cresswell, 2009, p.183) in order to understand the meaning of participant’s qualitative
answers. The process involves organising and preparing the data for analysis, reading
through the data to gain a greater understanding, representing the data and interpreting the
overall meaning of the data (Cresswell, 2009). Figure 14 highlights Cresswell’s (2009)
process for data analysis for qualitative research, which this research study has followed.

44
To analyse both the qualitative and quantitative data from the questionnaire, a coding
system was utilised to quantify the data numerically to allow easier analysis of the data. The
information from each of the open-ended questions was coded in terms of themes and a
data summary sheet was populated. Once this data was recorded, the descriptive statistics
method of analysis was applied to this raw data in order to interpret the meanings of the
results of the questionnaire. The descriptive statistics method provides a general overview of
Interpreting the meaning of themes/descriptions
Interrelating themes/description
(e.g. grounded theory, case study)
Themes Description
Coding the data
(hand or computer)
Reading through all data
Organising and preparing data for analysis
Raw data
(transcripts, fieldnotes, images, etc.)
Validating the
accuracy of the
information
Figure 14: Data analysis in qualitative research (adapted from Cresswell, 2009, p. 185)

45
results (Naoum, 2013). As part of this method, Naoum (2013) states that there are generally
three methods that are used to describe particular aspects of a group of data: ‘frequency
distribution’, ‘measurement of central tendency’ and ‘measurement of dispersion’. For this
research study, the ‘frequency distribution’ method has been employed to summarise the
raw data, which involves distributing the information into categories and determining the
number of responses belonging to each category (Naoum, 2013).
To analyse the qualitative data obtained from the semi-structured interview, an ‘interpretive-
descriptive’ approach has been undertaken, which has been developed by Belenky (cited in
Maykut and Morehouse, 1994, p.44) and refers to the researcher accurately interpreting,
describing and reporting people’s words and meanings, in order to gain a deeper
understanding of the research topic from a participant’s perspective.

46
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
This section analyses the responses from the online questionnaire undertaken during this
research. Responses were received from respondents from 18 different organisations,
however, 3 respondents were excluded from this research study, as they did not work for
housebuilding organisations. Therefore, for the purpose of the research, 15 responses have
been used for the final analysis. Of these 15 responses, the participants represented varying
sizes of organisations (see Figure 15) with 3 small housebuilders (0-49 employees), 7
medium-sized housebuilders (50-249 employees) and 5 large housebuilders (250+
employees).
Furthermore, 7 participants held senior management positions (1 partner, 3 directors and 3
senior managers) and the remaining 8 respondents were at management level. Additionally,
11 participants worked within the Technical department, 2 were Project Managers, 1 worked
as an Estimator and 1 respondent worked within the Procurement team (see Figure 16).
20%
47%
33%
0-49 employees
50-249 employees
250+ employees
Figure 15: Distribution of housebuilding organisations surveyed according to size

47
4.2 Key findings
This section analyses all the data that was collected from the questionnaire and categorises
them into the following key findings as discussed below.
4.2.1 BIM awareness
Encouragingly, all 15 (100%) respondents were aware of the term ‘BIM’, highlighting an
improvement on the research carried out by NHBC Foundation (2013), where 25% of
respondents had not heard of BIM. Although, the participant’s are aware of BIM, it is
interesting to recognise their understanding of BIM with 2 of the 15 (13%) respondents
appearing to have a poor understanding by inaccurately describing BIM. Of the remaining
responses, the most frequently mentioned term to describe BIM was ‘technology’, identified
within 10 out of 15 (67%) of the answers, ‘collaboration’ or ‘collaborative working’ was
mentioned within 8 of the 15 (53%) answers and ‘process’ mentioned in just 7 of the 15
(47%) answers (see Figure 17). As previously mentioned (in section 2.3.1), BIM should be
viewed as a process, not just a digital technology, thus these findings highlight that the
majority of respondents within the industry still perceive BIM as a technology rather than a
process.
73%
7%
13%
7%
Technical/design
Estimating
Project management
Procurement
Figure 16: Distribution of surveyed participants according to job role

Dissertation - FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Dissertation - FINAL

Similar to Dissertation - FINAL (20)

Dissertation - FINAL