DETERMINING THE FREQUENCY AND IMPACT OF

APPLYING BIM FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES ON

PROJECTS
Ralph Kreider
rgk5000@psu.edu
104 Engineering Unit A
University Park, PA 16802

John Messner
jmessner@engr.psu.edu
104 Engineering Unit A
University Park, PA 16802

Craig Dubler
crd137@engr.psu.edu
104 Engineering Unit A
University Park, PA 16802

ABSTRACT
The value of implementing Building Information Modeling (BIM) is challenging to
quantify. Few studies illustrate the value of BIM implementation throughout a
facility’s life; especially studies based on different variables such as implementation
methods and workflows. This paper presents results from a survey focused on
identifying the perceived benefits and frequency of implementation of twenty-five
BIM Uses which are currently being implemented on projects in the industry. The
BIM Uses span the lifecycle of a project with primary categories of planning, design,
construction and operation uses. The applications definitions of the BIM Uses were
adopted from a study of BIM Project Execution Planning which identified and
developed the descriptions through literature review, interviews and focus groups
with industry experts. The survey results indicate that all twenty-five BIM Uses were
perceived as beneficial and are currently being used to some degree on projects.
Based on the survey, the BIM Uses of 3D Coordination and Design Reviews were
perceived as both the most beneficial and the most frequently used applications of
BIM. Some BIM uses seem to be underutilized based on having a low frequency of
use relative to a high perception of value. The survey results can assist future teams
when prioritizing appropriate uses for BIM on their projects. The results have also
identified criteria to classify the level of BIM implementation on a project which can
support future research efforts to more accurately study the value of BIM
implementation on projects.

KEYWORDS
BIM, BIM Metrics, BIM Use, Process Mapping, Project Execution Planning

1|P age
INTRODUCTION
Demonstrating the value of Building Information Modeling (BIM) has been
challenging. Currently there are very few studies that show the value of BIM for
projects in the industry. The studies that exist tend to investigate the value of BIM
implementation for a specific task on a project, e.g., 4D CAD modelling or 3D design
coordination (Dawood and Mallasi 2006, Jongeling et al. 2008; Khanzode et al. 2008;
Staub-French and Khanzode 2007). More importantly there are very few studies that
focus on the value of implementing BIM throughout the lifecycle of a project partially
due to the nature of the complexities involved in separating the impact of BIM
implementation from the many other factors which influence project success.
This paper presents the results of a survey to define the perceived value and degree of
implementation for twenty-five identified potential BIM Uses across the project
lifecycle. The goal of the survey is to document the current status of BIM
implementation, and more specifically identify which BIM Uses appear to have the
highest value and frequency of implementation in the Architectural, Engineering,
Construction, and Operations (AECO) Industry. The survey results provide the
foundation for future studies which can investigate the interaction effect for
implementing multiple BIM Uses across various project phases.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
A BIM Project Execution Planning Guide focused a structured procedure for planning
the process of BIM execution on a project was developed and released as part of a
buildingSMART alliance project (Computer Integrated Construction Research
Program, 2009). A portion of the research to create this guide focused on identifying
the various methods used by project teams to leverage BIM technology in the
different project phases.
McGraw Hill recently conducted two studies with broad industry participation
focused on collecting data regarding BIM implementation in the industry. The Smart
Market Reports on Building Information Modeling by McGraw Hill provide results of
a broad survey of the United States industry focused on benchmarking the adoption
and value of BIM. The 2008 Smart Market Report (Building Information Modeling:
Transforming Design and Construction to Achieve Greater Industry Productivity)
reports that “62% of users surveyed indicated that they will be using BIM on over
30% of their projects in 2009.” (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2008) and that “82% of
BIM experts believe that BIM is having a very positive impact on their company’s
productivity”. Furthermore, 44% of BIM experts now regularly track BIM Return on
Investment (ROI). However, unlike the results presented in this survey, the 2008
Smart Market Report does not specifically categorize and quantify implementation at
a use case level, but instead reports on what would be considered by the BIM Uses
defined in the BIM Project Execution Planning Guide as Design Authoring. Design
authoring is focused on the use of parametric design tools to create the facility design
model. The Smart Market Report does however contain survey data for two
additional BIM uses including scheduling with BIM (Phase Planning/4D Modeling)
and Cost Data in BIM (Cost Estimation). The report summarizes BIM-related
activities, some of which could be considered BIM Uses, while others are merely
observations. The 2008 Smart Market Report also discusses potential benefit of BIM.

2|P age
The 2009 McGraw-Hill Construction Smart Market Report on BIM focuses on the
business value of BIM. It states that the vast majority of users see benefit from using
BIM and that BIM use is up from 28% in 2007 to 48% in 2009, however it does not
specifically address the degree to which they are using BIM (McGraw-Hill
Construction, 2009). The report also shares that 63% of users gain a positive return on
investment in BIM, yet this is not separated to focus on specific BIM Uses. An
interesting result of the study is that with experience comes a better return on
investment. It is important to note that 93% of respondents to the McGraw-Hill Study
believe that they are just scratching the surface or could get more from BIM. The
report talks about relative importance of internal benefits and states that an overall
better construction project is one of the top benefits of BIM. It reports on the value of
BIM during project phases and project factors that affect the value of BIM. Overall
the McGraw-Hill Studies are very detailed and speak tremendously to the value of
BIM, however there is limited information in the reports pertaining to the methods
and to what degree BIM is specifically used. It is important to consider this when
determining what leads to successful outcomes on projects through the use of BIM.

GOAL AND BIM USE DEFINITIONS

This research aims to more specifically identify the potential benefit of individual
uses of BIM on a project along with identifying which uses are most frequently
implemented on projects. The research was conducted via an online survey of
industry members. The survey focused on the twenty-five separate BIM Uses which
have been defined in the BIM Project Execution Planning Guide. The BIM Use
definitions were defined through research that included interviews with industry
experts, analysis of implementation cases studies and literature review. After initial
interviews conducted by the research team, the uses were further defined through a
graduate level course in architectural engineering at Penn State. In this class each
student was given a different Use to develop. For each use documented in the BIM
Project Execution Planning Guide, at least two interviews with industry professionals
were performed, and frequently more interviews were conducted. Additionally, a
literature review was completed by search multiple industry journal articles about
each BIM use. These BIM uses were then reviewed by an advisory board of industry
members that provided feedback to the project members. A complete listing of the
twenty-five BIM Uses is included in below in Table 1.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE BIM USE SURVEY

After defining the taxonomy of BIM Uses, an online survey was developed to
quantity the frequency of implementing each BIM Use along with the perception of
value for the BIM Use. A majority of the survey focused on a two-part question. The
first portion of the question was “How frequently does your organization use each
BIM Uses defined in the BIM Project Execution Planning Guide?” This question
contained the seven specific potential responses which included 0%, 5%, 25%, 50%,
75%, 95%, and 100%. The 5% and 95% values were added to this list to capture
organizations that were implementing the use on only a very small percentage of
projects or on many, but not all projects, respectively. The second question asked
“What is your organization's perceived level of benefit to the project for each use?”
For this question the responded selected between very negative, negative, neutral,
positive, and very positive. The survey was included questions related to demographic
information (organization type and position) along with several questions seeking

3|P age
feedback on the BIM Project Execution Planning Guide and procedure which are not
presented in this paper. “How frequently does your organization use each BIM Use
defined in the BIM Project Execution Planning Guide and what is your organization's
perceived level of benefit to the project for each use?”
The survey was distributed online to individuals who entered proper contact
information when downloading the BIM Project Execution Planning Guide between
October 2009 and December 2009. This included slightly over 1,000 potential
respondents. The demographics of the survey are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
The largest percentage of the organizations responding are architects (36%) while
facility managers and speciality contractors are make up a very small percentage (4%
total). Many respondents would call themselves BIM/VDC coordinators (29%) or
project managers (15%).
BIM/CAD Facility Owner/
University
Consultant Manager Partner
/Education Designer
14% 1% 12%
Specialty 6% Other Other 11%
Contractor 6% 10%
3% Engineer
Owner/ 4%
Owner Student
CM/ Rep 3%
Project
General 7% Professor
Executive
Contractor 3%
4%
14% Consultant
4%

CAD
Project
Technician
Manager
5%
15%
Engineer/
Design
Architect BIM/VDC
Consultant
36% Coord
13%
29%

Figure 1: Pie Chart of the Respondent Figure 2: Pie Chart of the Respondent Role in
Organization Disciplines Organization

175 participants responded to the question about frequency and benefit of each BIM
use. The response on each specific BIM use varied. Additionally there were less
responses for the level of benefit question than the frequency of use question. Once
the survey results were collected, the results were summarized using a relative
comparison to each other.

SURVEY RESULTS
The survey results were summarized using two different methods, the average
frequency and median response. The results of the frequency of use question are
summarized in table 1.

4|P age
Table 1: Survey Results of the question “How frequently does your organization use each of the
following BIM Uses?”

Response Average Median

BIM Uses 0% 5% 25% 50% 75% 95% 100%
Count Frequency Response
3D Coordination 14 16 17 24 30 22 35 158 60.4% 75%
Design Reviews 22 17 25 23 22 19 33 161 53.5% 50%
Design Authoring 48 14 16 18 21 6 29 152 42.2% 25%
Construction System Design 47 25 17 18 12 5 28 152 37.0% 25%
Existing Conditions Modeling 32 34 26 23 17 6 16 154 35.2% 25%
3D Control and Planning 54 21 14 17 20 9 15 150 34.4% 15%
Programming 56 20 27 15 12 6 17 153 30.7% 25%
Phase Planning (4D Modeling) 55 25 18 15 20 3 13 149 29.6% 5%
Record Modeling 58 27 15 15 20 5 10 150 28.2% 5%
Site Utilization Planning 52 30 21 13 19 5 10 150 28.2% 5%
Site Analysis 51 24 28 18 15 3 10 149 27.7% 5%
Structural Analysis 74 19 10 13 11 6 16 149 26.8% 5%
Energy Analysis 58 32 19 17 17 6 6 155 25.4% 5%
Cost Estimation 53 33 28 15 11 6 8 154 24.7% 5%
Sustainability LEED Evaluation 64 29 21 11 16 5 6 152 23.0% 5%
Building System Analysis 64 33 17 14 14 6 5 153 22.3% 5%
Space Management / Tracking 77 25 15 13 9 5 10 154 21.4% 0%
Mechanical Analysis 88 15 10 7 14 7 7 148 20.9% 0%
Code Validation 77 26 16 8 8 8 5 148 18.9% 0%
Lighting Analysis 74 32 16 12 8 4 4 150 16.9% 5%
Other Eng. Analysis 90 21 10 9 10 3 3 146 14.7% 0%
Digital Fabrication 87 26 13 8 8 3 4 149 14.4% 0%
Asset Management 104 17 13 8 3 1 3 149 9.6% 0%
Building Maintenance Scheduling 118 26 8 2 4 0 0 158 4.6% 0%
Disaster Planning 124 17 0 3 4 0 0 148 3.6% 0%

Table 1 illustrates that the mode of responses were 0% for most BIM uses with the
exception of 3D Coordination and Design Review. For the majority of BIM uses the
Median is either 0% or 5%. The average frequency places the majority of BIM Uses
falling between 20% - 30%.
Table 2 contains the results related to the perceived value of each BIM Use for
making a positive impact on a project. This data shows that the mode of responses
was either ‘neutral’ or ‘positive’ for most BIM uses with the exception being 3D
coordination and design review, which were all ‘very positive’. For the majority of
BIM uses the median value is ‘positive’. There were only three BIM Uses that had a
median response of ‘neutral’ and none with a median response of negative or very
negative. It is interesting to note that there were only three ‘very negative’ responses
received for specific uses throughout the survey responses. The Use with the most
negative responses was cost estimation. This may be caused by negative experiences
that uses are having with the implementation of BIM for cost estimating purposes.

5|P age
Table 2: Survey Results of the Question, ‘What is your organization's perceived level of benefit to
the project for each use?’

Very Very Response Perceived Median

BIM Uses Negative
Negative Neutral Positive
Positive Count Benefit Response
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
3D Coordination 0 1 6 40 92 139 1.60 Very Positive
Design Reviews 0 3 15 47 72 137 1.37 Very Positive
Existing Conditions Modeling 0 3 22 56 49 130 1.16 Positive
Phase Planning (4D Modeling) 0 3 20 52 44 119 1.15 Positive
3D Control and Planning 0 1 29 44 42 116 1.09 Positive
Construction System Design 0 4 25 49 44 122 1.09 Positive
Design Authoring 1 2 36 33 46 118 1.03 Positive
Site Utilization Planning 0 2 30 49 33 114 0.99 Positive
Programming 0 1 35 48 33 117 0.97 Positive
Sustainability LEED Evaluation 0 2 26 59 22 109 0.93 Positive
Energy Analysis 0 4 35 46 34 119 0.92 Positive
Cost Estimation 1 7 30 50 37 125 0.92 Positive
Structural Analysis 0 3 35 42 32 112 0.92 Positive
Record Modeling 0 4 31 53 26 114 0.89 Positive
Digital Fabrication 0 2 37 37 29 105 0.89 Positive
Building System Analysis 0 1 36 50 23 110 0.86 Positive
Site Analysis 0 3 37 52 25 117 0.85 Positive
Space Management / Tracking 0 1 39 52 17 109 0.78 Positive
Code Validation 0 1 39 51 16 107 0.77 Positive
Lighting Analysis 0 4 37 51 16 108 0.73 Positive
Mechanical Analysis 0 4 42 42 16 104 0.67 Positive
Other Eng. Analysis 0 2 47 40 10 99 0.59 Positive
Asset Management 0 1 61 28 10 100 0.47 Neutral
Building Maintenance Scheduling 0 2 65 28 9 104 0.42 Neutral
Disaster Planning 1 2 71 15 7 96 0.26 Neutral

An average value for the frequency of implementation was developed for each BIM
Use (see Figure 3). The percentage is a calculated value from the response to the
question which limited responses to potential answers of 0%, 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%,
95%, and 100%. The data shows that 3D Coordination and Design Reviews are used
significant more than other uses based on the average frequency with values of 60.
Design Authoring is the next at just over % average use. Most other uses fall below
30% with a few falling below 10%.

6|P age
 65% Frequency
Frequency
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

Figure 3: Bar Chart of the Frequency of use of each BIM Use

Figure 4 shows the average perceived values for implementing each BIM Use. The
scale for the value is a calculated number between -2 (for ‘very negative’) to + 2 (for
‘very positive’). It is interesting to note that all BIM Uses had an average value above
0 (‘neutral’) so the graph is represented on a 0 to +2 scale for each Use for
visualization. The BIM Uses in Figure 4 are ordered by the high frequency values
from the previous question.

1.8 Benefit
Benefit
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

Figure 4: Bar Chart of the Relative Benefit of Each BIM Use

7|P age
3D Coordination and Design Reviews have the most perceived benefit with existing
condition modeling and phase planning coming in third and fourth. The majority of
BIM Uses are between 1.2 and 0.8 which demonstrates that the majority of
respondents feel that the uses have a positive benefit. Additionally the perceived
benefit of BIM agreed with the frequency of use. According to respondents 3D
coordination is the most beneficial BIM Use followed closely by Design reviews.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that in general the frequency of use coincides with
perceived benefit. These results are the first step to begin to calculate the payback
back of BIM based on specific implementation of BIM uses and the level to which
they are implemented.
The frequency and benefit values can be integrated into a single figure to provide
insight into which BIM Uses may be perceived as being under or over utilized on
projects. According to the Frequency and Benefit Chart (Figure 5), one can see that
both 3D Coordination and Design Reviews performed the highest in both frequency
and benefit. Design Authoring, Construction System Design, Existing Conditions
Modelling, and 3D Control and Planning are significantly behind the first two as far
as frequency. According to the survey, Building Maintenance and Disaster Planning
are the most infrequently used. The perceived benefit of these BIM uses is also lower
than the remaining uses. It is important to note that this may be influenced by the
breakdown of respondents with few facility managers responding.

65%
Frequency and Benefit
60% Frequency
1.6
55% Benefit
50% 1.4
45% 1.2
40%
35% 1.0
30% 0.8
25%
20% 0.6
15% 0.4
10%
0.2
5%
0% 0.0

Figure 5: Bar Chart Comparing Frequency of Use Relative to Perceived Benefit

When the relative ranking of the frequency and the benefit are compared (see Table
3), several interesting results can be identified. Several BIM Uses were perceived as
very beneficial, yet they were not used a frequently as other uses. For example,
Digital Fabrication was ranked 22nd for frequency of use, but it was ranked 15th for
perceived benefit. Additionally sustainability is ranked 15th in frequently, yet has
benefit ranking of 10th. With the benefit ranks higher than the frequency, it is an

8|P age
indicator that these uses may be underutilized, yet there may be reasons which impact
the implementation, e.g., cost of implementation or difficulty in implementing.
There were other BIM Uses that where the frequency of use rank exceeded the rank of
perceived benefit. Examples include record modelling, design authoring, and
construction system design.
Table 3: Table of BIM Use Frequency and Benefit with Rank Out of Twenty-Five Uses

BIM USE Frequency Rank Benefit Rank

% 1 to 25 -2 to +2 1 to 25
3D Coordination 60% 1 1.60 1
Design Reviews 54% 2 1.37 2
Design Authoring 42% 3 1.03 7
Construction System Design 37% 4 1.09 6
Existing Conditions Modeling 35% 5 1.16 3
3D Control and Planning 34% 6 1.10 5
Programming 31% 7 0.97 9
Phase Planning (4D Modeling) 30% 8 1.15 4
Record Modeling 28% 9 0.89 14
Site Utilization Planning 28% 10 0.99 8
Site Analysis 28% 11 0.85 17
Structural Analysis 27% 12 0.92 13
Energy Analysis 25% 13 0.92 11
Cost Estimation 25% 14 0.92 12
Sustainability LEED Evaluation 23% 15 0.93 10
Building System Analysis 22% 16 0.86 16
Space Management / Tracking 21% 17 0.78 18
Mechanical Analysis 21% 18 0.67 21
Code Validation 19% 19 0.77 19
Lighting Analysis 17% 20 0.73 20
Other Eng. Analysis 15% 21 0.59 22
Digital Fabrication 14% 22 0.89 15
Asset Management 10% 23 0.47 23
Building Maintenance Scheduling 5% 24 0.42 24
Disaster Planning 4% 25 0.26 25

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK

This research ranked and quantified the perceived benefit of 25 BIM Uses on a project
along with the frequency of implementing the uses. From the data collected, 3D
Coordination and Design Reviews were most frequently used and had the highest
perceived benefit.
It is important to consider a potential limitation of using this data. The survey was
provided to individuals who were actively seeking information regarding BIM
implementation. Therefore, the perception of value and the frequency data collected
may not be entirely representative of the industry and it may be higher than the
average industry data would represent.
These survey results can be used to assist in the selection process for BIM Uses on a
project. If there are BIM Uses that an organization is not using and it appears other

9|P age
organizations are having success implementing these Uses, than pursuing the BIM
Use in the organization may be beneficial. The information gathered through this
survey will be beneficial for future research in several areas. First it aids in validating
the BIM Use portion of the BIM Project Execution Planning Guide. It will also help
to focus future research into high value BIM Uses. The Uses that ranked highest in
both categories could be more beneficial to projects and therefore justify added
research in the short term.
The data can also contribute to developing metrics for measuring the impact of BIM
implementation on a project. It is important that the research community continues to
develop a better understanding of which uses of BIM yield greater success on
construction projects, and expand studies into looking at the complementary impact of
BIM implementation across multiple BIM Uses. The identification and classification
of the BIM Uses, along with the initial perceptual data regarding benefit can assist in
design new studies to better understand the broad impact of BIM on projects.

REFERENCES
Building Information Modeling (BIM): Building Information Transforming Design
and Construction to Achieve Greater Industry Productivity (2008). “Smart Market
Report”, McGraw-Hill Construction, New York, NY, USA.
THE BUSINESS VALUE OF BIM: Getting Building Information Modeling to the
Bottom Line (2009). “Smart Market Report”, McGraw-Hill Construction, New York,
NY, USA.
Computer Integrated Construction Research Program. (2009). “BIM Project
Execution Planning Guide –Version 1.0.” October 8, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA, USA.
Dawood, N., and Mallasi, Z. (2006). Construction Workplace Planning: Assignment
and Analysis Utilizing 4D Visualization Technologies. Computer-aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, Pgs. 498-513.
Khanzode A., Fischer M., and Reed, D. (2005). Case Study of The Implementation of
The Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS) using Virtual Building Technologies on a
Large Healthcare Project, Proceedings 13th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, IGLC-13, Sydney, Australia.
Khanzode, A, Fischer, M, Reed, D. (2008). “Benefits and lessons learned of
implementing building virtual design and construction (VDC) technologies for
coordination of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems on a large
healthcare project.” ITcon Vol. 13, Special Issue Case studies of BIM use, pg. 324-
342. http://www.itcon.org/2008/22
Staub-French S and Khanzode A (2007) “3D and 4D modeling for design and
construction coordination: issues and lessons learned.” ITcon Vol. 12, pg. 381-407.
http://www.itcon.org/2007/26

10 | P a g e