Empirical Approach To Identify Operational Critical SUCCESS For BIM Projects

Empirical Approach to Identify Operational Critical
Success Factors for BIM Projects

Amarnath Chegu Badrinath, S.M.ASCE 1; and Shang-Hsien Hsieh 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 03/31/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abstract: Architecture, engineering, construction, and operation (AECO) organizations must adopt building information modeling (BIM)
technology, define workflows, and develop internal policies to deliver BIM projects successfully. AECO projects are known as BIM projects
when BIM is used during such projects. Organizations must identify project objectives, critical success factors (CSFs), and operational critical
success factors (OCSFs); set performance measures; and perform assessments to verify if they are progressing toward success. OCSFs are the
factors that can drive the CSFs such that operational issues are well resolved by the project stakeholders. There are several BIM standards
and guidelines to appropriately diffuse BIM technology and workflows. However, there are few holistic approaches to identify OCSFs. To
meet this necessity, a step-by-step procedure is proposed with an empirical approach to define project objectives, CSFs, and OCSFs. The
framework of influencing factors (IFs) is developed by organizing the wide range of IFs from the literature. As a case study, the proposed
approach is used to identify OCSFs for Taiwanese BIM projects. It is not only generally applicable to identify OCSFs in other countries, but
also capable of helping a small team of BIM experts to identify OCSFs. The developed framework of IFs can be adjusted to fit the needs of
design, construction, and operation organizations by retaining the necessary factor groups in the framework. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0001607. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Building information modeling (BIM); Influencing factors (IFs); Operational critical success factors (OCSFs);
Taiwanese architecture, engineering, construction, and operation (AECO) industry.
Introduction manager (DM), construction manager (CM), facility manager (FM),

project manager (PM), and owner (OW), were selected for decision
Efficient building information modeling (BIM) diffusion in archi- making regarding what defines success in delivering BIM projects.
tecture, engineering, construction, and operation (AECO) project Project objectives are plain and simple business goals that BIM
life cycles (PLCs) can bring several benefits to built environment projects are intended to accomplish. CSFs are the factors influ-
projects, including faster and efficient process, better design and encing critically the success of a project; they may not be directly
visualization, controlled life and environmental data, better produc- measured, but can be discussed or analyzed. OCSFs are the CSFs
tion quality, automated assembly, better customer service, life-cycle that are capable of driving the other CSFs to help addressing opera-
data, integration of planning and implementation processes, effi- tional issues or aspects day in and day out by the stakeholders in
cient and competitive industry, and so on (Mihindu and Arayici BIM projects. Typically, five to eight OCSFs are selected for each
2008; Alaghbandrad et al. 2015). AECO projects are known as organization (Parmenter 2015). While focusing on projects, 12–15
BIM projects when BIM is used during such projects. Although OCSFs may be selected. Once the OCSFs are in place, their cor-
AECO organizations and projects have their strategies, their teams responding performance measures can be defined. These measures
(i.e., organizational and project teams) are often working in direc- generally measure the quality of the process and are used to help
tions very different from the intended course. Each stakeholder in achieve the end results of the BIM project.
an AECO organization may have different definitions of the suc- A few aspects discussed in this study are critical when AECO
cess of a BIM project, depending on their context. This results in organizations are delivering BIM projects to their client. These as-
less or no alignement of stakeholders with the organizational and pects are (1) the benefits of BIM that owner organizations expect;
project strategies. It is therefore suggested that the definitions of (2) the maturity level of BIM in a project that has been delivered by
success for a BIM project be combined from all key stakeholders’ an AECO organization; and (3) whether it is possible to progres-
perspectives (Parmenter 2015) and that they be aligned. Defining sively measure and monitor BIM projects to reach a client’s expect-
project objectives, critical success factors (CSFs), and operational ations. The success of a BIM project needs to be defined first in
CSFs (OCSFs) will help the stakeholders align their daily activ- order to answer all these questions. Hence, the research question
ities with strategies. In this research, experts, specifically a design for this study is “How should the success of a BIM project be de-
fined?” It is essential to gain an understanding of the factors that
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan Univ., influence the success of a BIM project, factors that are critical for
Taipei 10617, Taiwan. the successful delivery of a BIM project, i.e., CSFs and OCSFs for
2
Chairman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan Univ., No. 1, developing performance measures for the success of a BIM project.
Sec. 4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei 10617, Taiwan (corresponding author). Email: Existing BIM assessment methods (AMs) and factors that influ-
shhsieh@ntu.edu.tw
ence the successful delivery of BIM projects should be investigated
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 7, 2018; approved on
August 14, 2018; published online on December 24, 2018. Discussion in order to deliver a comprehensive framework of influencing fac-
period open until May 24, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted tors (IFs). With an empirical approach, and using Taiwan as a case
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction for study, this research aims to identify project objectives, CSFs,
Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364. and OCSFs. It is the OCSFs, and the corresponding performance
© ASCE 04018140-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04018140

measures they inherently carry, that link daily activities and con- for a Taiwanese BIM project. In addition, the proposed approach
sequently organizational meaning to an organization’s strategies. can be a guideline for other markets to establish their OCSFs.
The OCSFs have a continual influence on the business, and there-
fore it is vital to measure how staff members in organizations align Framework of IFs for Successful Delivery of BIM Projects
their daily activities with these OCSFs. Once the project objectives, An extensive literature review was performed in this study to iden-
CSFs, OCSFs, performance measures, and metrics are defined, the tify the comprehensive framework of IFs from the existing BIM-
project strategies can be clearly established to help direct an AECO AMs and BIM uses frameworks, standards, and guidelines (BIM
project toward its success in its environment. The discussion of this uses publications). The framework served as an essential input
paper is limited to identifying BIM project objectives, CSFs, and for the proposed approach. This section discusses the outcome of
OCSFs. Future research can be performed to identify BIM perfo- this literature review, i.e., the comprehensive framework of IFs
mance measures and metrics. Parmenter (2015) explained that (Table 1), and then discusses how we generated the framework in
CSFs are the source of OCSFs, and OCSFs are the source of all a four-phased literature review. Phase 1 identified BIM assessment
performance measures. However, no study has addressed how to methods at different scales. Phase 2 created a detailed understand-
ing of BIM assessment methods at the project scale. Phase 3 iden-
identify OCSFs for BIM projects that can help the AECO stake-
tified BIM uses from existing BIM uses publications. Phase 4
holders to align their daily activities with organizational and project
mapped the BIM uses in a project life cycle. To represent IFs in
strategies. Therefore, this study proposes an empirical approach to
each cell, we use notations that combine second (header items) and
identify project objectives, CSFs, and OCSFs. This study sets the
third hierarchical (competency areas) layers. For example, TT in-
foundation for defining BIM performance measures and metrics.
dicates IFs associated with the BIM technology header and the
The approach presented in this study can benefit AECO organiza- technical competency area.
tional stakeholders, either separately or in collaboration, to identify The framework IFs presented in Table 1 is an outcome of a de-
OCSFs and align their daily activities with their organizational tailed study of IFs recognized from the literature and discussions
strategies for delivering BIM projects. with domain experts. IFs were collected from existing BIM-AMs
and BIM uses publications to fit in the categories, factor groups,
Research Significance and competency areas of the framework. In the framework, the cat-
egories and factor groups were developed in this research, and com-
Research in the area of identifying CSFs for construction project petency areas were adopted from individual BIM competency
management and implementation has been ongoing for several research (BIM ThinkSpace 2012) which included the definitions
years. Empirical studies aimed at identifying CSFs, and research of all the eight competency areas. Each IF of this research belongs
approaches for theoretical framework development or models list- to one of the eight competency areas. When we know the OCFs are
ing several of those factors, are seen as critical to AECO organi- of particular competency area, corresponding performance mea-
zations and project success (Sanvido et al. 1992; Belassi and Tukel sures can be clearly identified and tagged to project stakeholders
1996; Chua et al. 1999; Saqib et al. 2008; Jefferies et al. 2014; Alias or teams for performance assessment. Organizing IFs into factor
et al. 2014). Enegbuma and Ali (2011), Won et al. (2013), Shang groups allows an organization to include only a subset of factor
and Shen (2014), Tsai et al. (2014), Mom et al. (2014), Morlhon groups in the framework based on its organization type for perfor-
et al. (2014), Ozorhon and Karahan (2017), and Liao and Teo mance assessment of BIM projects at any stage of the life cycle.
(2017) focused on identifying CSFs. However, a weakness exists Organizing the IFs into competency areas can help tagging IFs
in the approach adopted by these researchers to identify CSFs at the of selected competency areas to the individuals, teams, and organ-
project scale. Moreover, no research has discussed how to identify izations associated with a project.
the OCSFs that are critical to define BIM performance measures. Table 1 also lists the number of IFs in each category, factor
As a response to this need, a detailed literature review was per- group, and competency area. In Phase 1, 509 IFs were collected and
formed on the existing BIM-AMs and a framework of IFs was de- organized in the framework. These IFs were then filtered to 454
signed. Using an empirical approach, a clear step-by step guideline factors by eliminating the factors with the same or similar mean-
is delivered to identify OCSFs for BIM projects. While validating ings. Some IFs may repeat in other factor groups. For example, the
the proposed approach, this study uncovered BIM project objec- IF thermal analysis occurred in design, construction, handover
tives, CSFs, and OCSFs for successfully delivering BIM projects and closeout, and operation and maintenance stage factor groups
in Taiwanese AECO industries. (Table 4). The level of importance of the IFs can vary at different
stages of the project. The row Key experts for each factor group in
Table 1 showcases the roles of experts involved in identifying the
Research Objective
CSFs and OCSFs for each factor group. We identified the key ex-
Establishing the business objectives of any AECO organizations perts in AECO projects as DM, CM, FM, PM, and OW. The expert
requires defining vision, mission, goals, and portfolio management. bank of the Taiwan BIM Alliance operated by the BIM Research
Meanwhile, establishing the project strategy and performance ob- Center at National Taiwan University was used to invite the key
jectives is essential to deliver successful BIM projects. This in- experts for each role. Later, the key roles for each factor group were
cludes defining project objectives, CSFs, OCSFs, performance discussed with BIM experts in the first focus group (FG) meeting
measures, and metrics. BIM project objectives, CSFs, and OCSFs for validation. For example, decisions of the role of a design man-
can be established at a market scale. However, performance mea- ager were considered to have higher significance in factor groups
sures and metrics can only be established at an organizational and of BIM technology, stakeholder skills and competencies, project
project scale. As a foundational step toward establishing project coordination and collaboration, planning stage, and design stage.
strategies, this study designed a comprehensive framework of IFs The mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE)
for successful delivery of BIM projects and proposes an empirical principle was adopted to perform filtering, grouping, and sorting
approach for defining project objectives, CSFs, and OCSFs, with of IFs in this study. The MECE principle is the process of organ-
the focus on OCSFs. With the identified OCSFs, future research izing information into subelements that are mutually exclusive
can then be performed to define performance measures and metrics and collectively exhaustive. The selected IFs for a particular factor

of IFs
Sum
19
56
72
26
39
81
76
34
51
454
group should exclude each other, i.e., be distinct, and should ex-
haust the relevant field, i.e., contain everything that belongs to the
factor group.
Supportive
(OS)
(DS)
(HS)
(CS)
(TS)
(SS)
(PS)
3 (FS)
The designed framework of IFs was discussed among the
(IS)
(S)
23
Taiwan BIM experts in the focus group meetings to verify the cat-
3
5
1
4
1
3
0
3
egories, factor groups, competency areas, IF classifications, and
key roles of experts for each factor group. The FG meeting with the
(OR)
(DR)
(HR)
(CR)
(TR)
(SR)
(PR)
0 (FR)
R&D
(IR)
(R)
BIM experts resulted in refining the framework. For example, the
15
factor group that was initially named project process interaction
5
0
0
7
1
0
1
was reframed to project coordination and collaboration, and BIM
Managerial
(DM)
(HM)
(OM)
(CM)
(TM)
tools and other resources was revised to BIM technology. Initially,

(SM)
(PM)
1 (FM)
(IM)
(M)
38
0 the factor groups of the framework were categorized based on the
7
0
20
1
5
0
4 input–process–output model, but with experts’ discussion, it was

revised to three superheaders (i.e., categories), specifically project
Administrative
BIM competency areas (short key)
resources, project collaboration, and PLC stages.

(HA)
(OA)
(DA)
(CA)
(SA)
(TA)
6 (FA)
(PA)
(IA)
Design, contractor, and operations (DCO) organizations can

(A)
78
modify this framework according to the organization’s nature and
33
8
6
3
3
2
10
7
project requirements (Table 2). In Table 2, Yes and No suggest

considering and not considering the factor group, respectively. For
Implementation
example, to modify the framework for a design organization, we

considered the IFs from factor groups BIM technology, stakeholder
(OI)
(DI)
(HI)
(CI)
(TI)
(SI)
(PI)
3 (FI)
(II)
34
(I)
skills and competencies, project teams and organization, project

3
4
7
6
3
5
coordination and collaboration, planning stage, and design stage.

For DCO organizations, the factor groups of project resources
and project collaboration categories are the most common. Mean-
Functional
while, the factor groups of the PLC category differ based on the
(OF)
(DF)
(HF)
(CF)
(TF)
(SF)
(PF)
6 (FF)
(IF)
(F)
44
organization type. For design organizations, planning-stage and

0
2
6
6
5
design-stage factor groups were added. For contractor organiza-

tions, construction and handover–stage and closeout-stage factor
Operational
58 (DO)
14 (HO)
0 (OO)
55 (CO)
groups were added. For operation organizations, the handover and

30 (FO)
1 (TO)
7 (SO)
13 (PO)
4 (IO)
182
(O)
closeout–stage and operation and maintenance–stage factor groups

were added.
Technical
Phase 1: BIM Assessment Methods at Different Scales

(DT)
(HT)
(OT)
(CT)
(TT)
(ST)
(PT)
2 (FT)
(IT)
(T)
For the framework design, an extensive review was performed to

40
realize and benefit from the existing BIM-AMs and to identify the
9
8
1
2
2
3
11
2
list of IFs for successful delivery of BIM projects. In the previous

PM, DM, CM, FM
decade, BIM experts from research and development (R&D) divi-

OW, PM, DM
Table 1. Framework of influencing factors for successful delivery of BIM projects
OW, CM, FM
Key experts
sions and industry advanced their efforts to establish assessment

DM, CM
PM, DM
PM, DM
OW, PM
CM, FM
OW, FM
tools, methods, and frameworks, which are collectively called as-

—
sessment methods in this study. Table 3 lists existing BIM-AMs,

and the column Adopted lists the BIM-AMs from which IFs were
identified for this study. BIM-AMs that were adopted for this study
were selected based on their accessibility. This study used 32 BIM-
Project coordination and collaboration (I)
Stakeholder skills and competencies (S)
AMs, and each of them has different strengths, weaknesses, roles,

Construction stage (RIBA stage 5) (C)
Planning stage (RIBA stages 0–1) (P)
Design stage (RIBA stages 2–4) (D)
and emphases. These BIM-AMs are capable of measuring the per-

Project teams and organization (O)
formance and conducting maturity assessments of BIM applica-

Operation and maintenance stage
Focus group (short key)
tions at five measurement scales: individual, team, organization,

Handover and closeout stage
project, and market. The BIM-AMs listed in Table 3 may not be

an exhaustive list of existing BIM-AMs. It is not our intent to
—
endorse any single commercial product, but rather to provide sug-

BIM technology (T)
(RIBA stage 6) (H)
(RIBA stage 7) (F)
gestions for available options to evaluate BIM maturity. Table 3

compares some of the factors among the listed BIM-AMs. Although
each AM is unique regarding its evaluation context and intended
users, similarities exist between their assessment criteria at the
macro level.
BIM-AMs are designed for competency measurement of indi-
vidual stakeholders, capability and compatibility measurements of
Project collaboration
stakeholders’ organizations or project teams, capability and matu-

Project resources
Project life-cycle
rity measurements of AECO organizations, process and perfor-

mance assessments of BIM projects, and industry- or market-level
Sum of IFs
Category
BIM maturity. A few of these AMs are recognized in the global

stages
market mainly for their unique perspective on BIM performance

and maturity assessment. Some of the BIM-AMs are user-friendly,

Table 2. Modifying framework of influencing factors to fit organization type
Project Handover Operation
Stakeholder Project coordination and and Number
BIM skills and teams and and Planning Design Construction closeout maintenance of factor
Factor group technology competencies organizations collaboration stage stage stage stage stage groups
Design organization Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 6
Construction organization Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No 6
Operations organization Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes 6
Note: Yes and no suggest considering and not considering the factor group, respectively.
provide guidelines for usage, are available for free online, and offer when transformed to a freely accessible BIM assessment tool,
case-study projects. However, the rest are less practical, lack in- can benefit the AECO industry. The BIM uses maturity model
structions, and suffer from a shortage of case studies. is a well-designed BIM assessment model, but it has a few short-
The core objective of these AMs is to facilitate AECO stake- comings. It is not fully developed (it is only available for three es-
holders in the successful delivery of BIM projects. Successful BIM sential BIM uses at only zero, one, and two maturity levels) and it
project delivery is achievable provided the success factor is defined provides no validation of the developed models with a real case
correctly and is accepted by the majority of project stakeholders. study. Since 2015, there has been very little effort from the AECO
Most of the BIM-AMs focus on the maturity of BIM technology and industry in the BIM field for delivering efficient BIM-AMs at the
workflows rather than how to successfully deliver BIM projects. project scale.
Thus, this study focuses on measuring the success of BIM project In most cases, too many CSFs are identified, and no process is
delivery rather than focusing solely on BIM technology and work- carried out to label the CSFs that are operational among the iden-
flows of a project. tified CSFs. Choosing too many factors as critical or choosing in-
correct CSFs interferes with achieving success in project delivery.
Phase 2: BIM Assessment Methods at Project Scale No study has discussed how to identify OCSFs for BIM projects.
Because this study focuses on the project scale, it was essential to The proposed approach sets a foundation for any AECO organi-
gain detailed understanding of BIM-AMs and its IFs at project zation to identify the list of project objectives, CSFs, and OCSFs
scale. Hence, a detailed review of BIM-AMs at project scale was for BIM projects. This study complements the existing BIM-AMs
performed in Phase 2. by delivering an empirical approach to identify project objectives,
In Table 3, within the project assessments category, it is CSFs, and OCSFs, which are essential for defining meaningful
clear that four of eight BIM-AMs originate from the United States. BIM performance measures to facilitate assessments.
Only three BIM-AMs at the project scale are accessible as tools,
specifically the national BIM standard capability maturity model Phase 3: BIM Uses from Existing BIM Uses Publications
(NBIMS-CMM), bimSCORE, and Arup’s BIM maturity measure- The method of applying BIM technology during a project life cycle
ment model (BIMMM). Of these three AMs, the NBIMS-CMM to achieve one or more specific objectives is termed BIM use. BIM
and Arup’s BIMMM are freely accessible. BIM-AMs are designed uses are considered as IFs because they are constant daily focuses
for maturity and performance assessments. The NBIMS-CMM, involving most stakeholders in operations and are also of concern
Arup’s BIMMM, and the BIM uses maturity model can be prepared to support the stakeholders. They describe an action or specific ac-
for maturity assessments. The characterization framework, BIM tivities on which stakeholders can focus to deliver BIM projects
excellence project assessment, and the goal-driven method for successfully. For a BIM project to be successful, it is well known
evaluation of BIM projects can be prepared for performance assess- to the global AECO industry that the BIM project’s deliverables
ments. The virtual design and construction (VDC) scorecard and are the end products which need to be delivered by the AEC or-
bimSCORE discuss both maturity and performance assessments. ganizations to their clients as expected. It is essential to confirm
Both simple and sophisticated BIM-AMs are available in the (1) which BIM uses are expected by the client; (2) what BIM tools
market. However, none of the BIM-AMs are widely acknowledged need to be adopted to help deliver expected BIM uses; (3) the stake-
and commonly applied in the AECO industry (Azzouz et al. 2016). holders who are to be involved in delivering each of these BIM
Seven of the eight BIM-AMs at the project scale were validated uses; (4) in which stage of the project the BIM uses delivery occurs;
with case-study projects. Previous findings indicated that there are and (5) how these BIM uses should be delivered to meet client ex-
few AMs for performance assessments of BIM projects (Change pectations. There may be many more questions to be answered dur-
Agents AEC 2013; Dakhil and Alshawi 2014; Alaghbandrad ing the BIM project delivery. This research found that BIM uses
2015). Recent project assessment trends in AECO industries sug- play a major role in successful delivery of BIM projects, and hence
gest that project maturity should be evaluated based on the method they were considered as IFs for successful delivery of BIM projects.
of applying BIM during the life cycle of a facility in order to Badrinath et al. (2016) analyzed and categorized BIM publica-
achieve one or more specific objectives, that is, BIM uses. Two of tions based on PLC stages, BIM research directions, and model
eight BIM-AMs at the project scale demand the presence of BIM uses frameworks. They found that most BIM researchers had ex-
uses in projects, and give a concept of measuring the maturity level plored the benefits achieved in the life cycle of a building with the
of a specific BIM use. BIM excellence project assessment (BIM use of BIM. Few researchers documented the list of BIM uses that
ThinkSpace 2015) and the BIM use maturity model (Alaghbandrad occur in different phases of a project (McGraw-Hill Construction
et al. 2015) are centered on BIM uses. In BIM excellence project 2012; Kreider and Messner 2015; BIM ThinkSpace 2015). It is
assessment, projects can be evaluated by an external certified evalu- beneficial to know BIM uses across the PLC stages and design
ator based on the 73 BIM uses and its deliverables as an imple- the framework of IFs with IFs from BIM uses publications. These
mentation template or performance metric [with a model richness BIM uses were first identified from an extensive literature review,
variable (MRV)-model richness value of 0–1]. This framework, then BIM uses in the existing literature were compared and further

Table 3. List of BIM assessment methods in global AECO industries

Method Assessment type Measurement categories and maturity levels Origin Year Adopted References
© ASCE
CPIx BIM assessment form Evaluates individuals Four sections including 12 BIM areas UK 2011 No —
BIM excellence individual assessment Evaluates individuals Fifty-five questions (for individual discovery AM) Australia 2013 Yes Succar et al. (2013) and
Change Agents AEC (2013)
iBIM-BIM capability self-assessment tool Evaluates individuals Fourteen questions of yes/no type and four maturity levels UK 2014 No —
BIM level 2 certificated practitioner scheme Evaluates individuals Undefined UK 2015 No —
Indiana University BIM proficiency matrix Evaluates teams Eight categories and four maturity levels United States 2009 Yes Indiana University (2009)
BIM excellence project team assessment Evaluates project teams Aggregates competency data of groups and teams Australia 2012 No —
BIM qualification scoring matrix Evaluates project teams Four categories and six maturity levels United States 2012 Yes Alaghbandrad (2015)
BIM proposal scoring matrix Evaluates project teams Five categories and six maturity levels United States 2012 Yes Alaghbandrad (2015)
Bew-Richards BIM maturity model Evaluates organizations Four maturity levels UK 2008 No —
BIM maturity index Evaluates organizations Five maturity levels Australia 2009 No —
BIM quickscan Evaluates organizations Four chapters and 50 measures Netherlands 2009 No —
BIM maturity matrix Evaluates organizations Seven key maturity areas and five maturity levels Australia 2010 Yes Succar (2009)
Vico BIM score Evaluates organizations Seven categories and 27 questions Global Org. 2011 Yes Vico Software (2011)
BIM adoption model Evaluates organizations Five maturity levels Taiwan 2012 Yes Tsai et al. (2014)
Owner’s BIM maturity matrix Evaluates organizations Sixteen planning elements, six maturity levels United States 2012 No —
Organizational BIM assessment profile Evaluates organizations Six areas, 20 subareas, and 6 maturity levels United States 2012 Yes —
Owner’s BIMCAT Evaluates organizations Three areas, 10 subareas, and 60 factors United States 2013 Yes Giel and Issa (2013)
BIM cloud score Evaluates organizations Six categories, 22 metrics, and 20 measures United States 2014 Yes Du et al. (2014)
The TOPC evaluation criteria Evaluates organizations Four areas Australia 2014 No —
BIM level 2 business system certification Evaluates organizations N/A UK 2015 No —
NBIMS interactive capability maturity Evaluates projects Eleven areas of interest and 10 maturity levels United States 2007 Yes NIBS (2007)
model
VDC scorecard Evaluates projects Four areas, 10 subareas, and 56 measures United States 2009 No —
Characterization framework Evaluates projects Three categories, 14 factors, and 74 results United States 2011 Yes Gao (2011)
04018140-5
BIM excellence project assessment Evaluates projects Seventy-three well-defined BIM uses organized in seven Australia 2011 Yes Change Agents AEC (2013)
MU series that can be applied in two ways, i.e., MUs as an and BIM ThinkSpace (2015)
implementation template and performance metric
bimSCORE Evaluates projects Four areas, 10 divisions, and 50 measures United States 2011 No —
Arup’s BIM maturity measure model Evaluates projects Thirty-one primary disciplines, 11 areas, and UK 2014 Yes Arup (2014)
6 maturity levels

Goal-driven method for evaluation of Evaluates projects Twenty-nine areas South Korea 2014 Yes Lee and Won (2014)
BIM project
BIM uses maturity model Evaluates projects and benefits Three key BIM uses and six maturity levels Canada 2015 No —
team selection
Jayasena and Weddikkara (2013) Maturity assessment at market Collaborative processes, enhanced skill, integrated Sri Lanka 2013 Yes Jayasena and Weddikkara
scale of BIM infant industry information and automated systems, and knowledge (2013)
management
McGraw-Hill Construction (2014) Maturity assessment at market BIM engagement index: experience, expertise, United States 2014 No McGraw-Hill Construction
scale by worldwide contractors implementation; four levels (2014)
Jung and Lee (2015) Maturity assessment at market Engagement level, the hype cycle model, the technology South Korea 2015 No Jung and Lee (2015)
scale diffusion model, and BIM services
Kassem and Succar (2017) Macro BIM adoption is Five macro BIM adoption models applied to assess and UK 2017 No Kassem and Succar (2017)
comparative market analysis compare the national BIM policies of 21 countries
Note: MU = model uses.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

frameworks
BIM use in
number of
discussions with the BIM experts were conducted to finalize the list
:::
for the framework (Table 4). Currently, there are six BIM uses pub-
1
6
1
1
lications, namely Bilal’s BIM use framework, the Massachusetts
Port Authority BIM guide, the DCAMM BIM guide, the Harvard
University BIM use guide, the Penn State University BIM uses
Existing conditions modelling

Existing conditions modeling
New York & New Jersey
classification, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
The Port Authority of
BIM standard manual

BIM standard. Detailed analysis of the BIM uses revealed a total of
75 BIM uses. Table 4 lists a few BIM uses that are compared among
the existing BIM uses frameworks, standards, and guidelines as a
N/A
N/A
N/A
:::
:::
:::
sample. The mapping process of similar or repeating BIM uses
Site analysis
in these 6 BIM uses publications found that 34 BIM uses were
common to all 6 publications, 22 BIM uses were common to 5 pub-

lications, 6 BIM uses were common to four publications, 5 BIM
uses were common to 3 publications, 4 BIM uses were common
to 2 publications, and 4 BIM uses were found only in 1 publication.
Site use planning, 3D control

and planning (digital layout)
Penn State University BIM
The comparison of BIM uses and further analysis identified 34
BIM uses in 6 BIM uses publications which are considered as the
uses classification
most commonly adopted BIM uses in AECO projects.
N/A
N/A
N/A
:::
:::
:::
Phase 4: BIM Uses in Project Life Cycle
There are varied numbers of tasks in the project life cycle of a build-
ing which can benefit from the incorporation of BIM technologies,
and these benefits are documented as BIM uses. This study organ-
ized 75 BIM uses by phases of project development. Organizing the
BIM uses in a chronological order benefits the BIM implementa-
(surrounding area, existing

buildings, geotech, and site
(surrounding area, existing

buildings, geotech, and site
tion in AEC projects and helps to realize which BIM uses become
Logistics planning (site

Harvard University
critical at different stages of the PLC (Table 5). Table 5 showcases
BIM uses guide

the project life cycle stages in separate columns. These are Stage 0,
Existing conditions
Existing conditions
and topography)
and topography)
strategic definition; Stage 1, preparation and brief; Stage 2, con-
N/A
N/A
N/A
:::
:::
:::
cept design; Stage 3, developed design; Stage 4, technical design;
Stage 5, construction; Stage 6, handover and closeout; and Stage 7,
planning)
in use. Table 5 lists a few BIM uses throughout a project life cycle.
The mapping exercise performed here indicates that most of these
BIM uses are not independent and occur in more than one stage of
the project life cycle. It is essential to consider the risk elements
scanning; existing conditions:
scanning; existing conditions:

scanning: construction phase
BIM project site modeling:

Division of capital asset
associated with implementing or not implementing a particular

maintenance BIM uses
Existing conditions: laser

interiors modeling; laser
BIM use. Some of the BIM uses can significantly reduce overall
management and
infrastructure modeling
Table 4. Comparison of BIM uses from existing frameworks, standards, and guidelines
project risk; however, they may shift risk from one party to another. interiors modeling
In other situations, implementation of a BIM use may potentially
N/A
N/A
N/A
:::
:::
:::
add risk for a party when they successfully perform their scope of
work.
To deliver any BIM use within the project execution process,
it is essential to perform a set of BIM uses. BIM uses such as
two-dimensional (2D) documentation, three-dimensional (3D) de-
tailing, BIM/GIS overlapping, energy simulation, sustainability
scanning; existing conditions
scanning; existing conditions

Massachusetts port authority
laser scanning: construction

modeling: building interior;
BIM project site modeling:

BIM guideline BIM uses
modeling: building interior
analysis, and whole life-cycle analysis can occur in six to seven

stages of PLC. Several of these BIM uses are fundamental for BIM
infrastructure modeling
project delivery. The primary BIM uses are design authoring, 2D

documentation, clash detection, cost estimation, structural analysis,
N/A
N/A
N/A
:::
:::
:::
construction planning, BIM or facility management integration,

and many more. In addition, it is beneficial to organize the BIM
uses into factor groups. With this, the framework can then be used
phase
to identify OCSFs both at the organization scale with selected fac-

tor groups and at the project scale with all the factor groups.
Demolition planning
Concrete precasting
Generative design
Photogrammetry
Laser scanning
Site analysis
Proposed Approach
framework
Succar’s
:::
:::
:::
In this study, a three-step approach is proposed for identifying BIM

project objectives, CSFs, and OCSFs (Fig. 1). Each of these three
steps is achieved via a four-stage process, i.e., designing a data col-
lection tool, undertaking data collection in a FG meeting, perform-
ing data analysis with several statistical procedures, and carrying
Number
out data validation in a FG meeting. The proposed approach is dis-

:::
:::
:::
73
74
75
cussed step-by-step in this section.

1

Table 5. BIM uses throughout project life cycle
Project type Project life-cycle stage
Number BIM use Green Smart Facade 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Site analysis — — — — Appear — — — — — —
2 Conceptualization — — — — — Appear — — — — —
3 Generative design — — — — — Appear Appear Appear — — —
4 Design authoring — — Important — — Appear Appear Appear — — —
5 Space programming — — — — — Appear — — — — —
::: ::: — — — — — — — — — — —
68 Demolition planning — — — Appear — — — — — — —
69 Egress and Ingress — — — — — — Appear Appear — Appear Appear
70 Disaster planning — — — — — — Appear Appear — Appear Appear

71 Security analysis — — — — — — Appear Appear Appear Appear Appear
72 Thermal analysis Important — — — — Appear Appear Appear Appear Appear Appear
73 Whole life-cycle analysis Important — — — Appear Appear Appear Appear Appear Appear Appear
74 Laser scanning — — — Appear — — — — Appear Appear Appear
75 Photogrammetry — — — Appear — — — — — — Appear
Note: Life-cycle stages: 0 = strategic definition; 1 = preparation and brief; 2 = concept design; 3 = developed design; 4 = technical design; 5 = construction;
6 = handover and closeout; and 7 = in use.
Fig. 1. Empirical approach to identifying OCSFs for BIM projects.
Define BIM Project Objectives being met. IFs are the source for all CSFs. CSFs identify those ac-
tivities necessary to meet the desired deliverables of the client and
BIM project strategy is developed around the BIM project’s objec-
tives, criteria for success, and performance measures or metrics. The maintain effective management of stakeholder relations. A step-by-
stronger the agreement between the stakeholders on the project’s step procedure to identify CSFs for BIM projects is discussed in
strategy, the higher are the chances for success (Kerzner 2013). Appendix II.
The procedure to define BIM project objectives is discussed in
Appendix I. Identifying the OCSFs for BIM Projects
CSFs are the source for all OCSFs, and OCSFs are the source
Identifying CSFs for BIM Projects for all meaningful performance measures. OCSFs are capable of
Organizations can first define success regarding CSFs and then es- driving most of the CSFs. Tracking the OCSFs will automatically
tablish performance measures to determine whether these CSFs are track the CSFs, which reduces the effort spent tracking CSFs.

OCSFs can be identified in a four-stage process as discussed in Each expert listed project objectives, and results from all the experts
Appendix III. were collected and compiled for further discussion. In the second
phase of FG Meeting 1, we shared the compiled results with the
experts and asked them to finalize the list of BIM project objectives
Case Study (Appendix I, Fig. 4). In this setting, the experts brainstormed and
discussed with each other to finalize six BIM project objectives.
This section discusses application of the proposed approach to de-
signing the framework of IFs, and defining project objectives, CSFs
and OCSFs for successful delivery of BIM projects in Taiwan. Defining CSFs for BIM Project Delivery in Taiwan
Fig. 2 presents the research methodology that provides a step by A literature review was performed to benefit in the process of ques-
step procedure followed in this study. The procedure to define the tionnaire design (Tsai et al. 2014). Fig. 2 provides a step-by-step
framework of IFs is discussed in the “Framework of IFS for Suc- procedure for identifying the CSFs. A set of five questionnaires was
cessful Delivery of BIM Projects” section. The proposed approach designed, targeting five key roles in BIM projects. Each question-
for identifying project objectives, CSFs, and OCSFs is discussed in naire covers IFs from factor groups that are relevant to the role
the “Proposed Approach” section. of a BIM expert (Table 1, Key experts). Ten BIM experts (two ex-
perts for each role) were invited to fill out these questionnaires.
Basic information was collected in the first section of questionnaire
Defining BIM Project Objectives for Taiwan
(Appendix II, Fig. 5). A five-point Likert scale was designed for the
This section discusses the process followed to define project objec- experts to evaluate the listed IFs (Appendix II, Fig. 6). The data
tives for successful delivery of BIM Projects in Taiwan (Fig. 2). obtained from the survey were coded, and responses were analyzed.
The project objectives were identified from the literature, which was Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package
further transformed into an open-ended questionnaire (Appendix I, for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 to identify the CSFs.
Fig. 3). One BIM expert for each role, i.e., DM, CM, FM, PM, and Four types of analysis, i.e., analysis of respondents’ characteristics,
OW, was identified and invited to join this activity in the first phase Cronbach’s alpha reliability test, t-test, and ranking analysis, were
of FG Meeting 1. These BIM experts were asked to list no more performed. Analysis of respondents’ characteristics was performed
than 10 project objectives for successful delivery of BIM projects to realize the respondents’ profiles and to check whether the se-
in Taiwan’s public procurement. The experts were asked to think lected experts represented the BIM experts of the selected region.
in the direction of a shift from the design-build (DB) approach Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was performed to check the reli-
to integrated project delivery (IPD) while listing project objectives. ability of the factor groups. The t-test was performed to confirm
Fig. 2. Research methodology.

Fig. 3. Data collection tool for BIM project objectives.
Fig. 4. Data analysis of BIM project objectives.
Fig. 5. Collect basic information from BIM experts.
whether there was a significant difference among the responses of Defining OCSFs for BIM Project Delivery in Taiwan
experts. The ranking analysis of the factors, i.e., category ranks and Defining performance measures for all 38 identified CSFs and
overall ranks, was performed to list the CSFs from each factor monitoring the performance of BIM projects would consume
groups. The final list of CSFs was identified in FG Meeting 2 with too many resources and are not productive. Therefore, filtering
the experts to check if they agreed with the CSFs list resulting from the original set of the identified CSFs into a much smaller set
the ranking analysis. of CSFs that are operational i.e., CSFs that can drive other CSFs,

Fig. 6. Sample view of the second section in the questionnaire.
can reduce the amount of resources spent on performance assess- satisfied so that performance assessments can be effective, easy,
ment. The OCSFs are few in numbers, but they are more influential and fast.
on the success of the project. They have a great positive influence To finalize the OCSFs for BIM projects, five BIM experts (one
on other CSFs and can easily demonstrate their relevance. CSFs for each role) joined the third FG meeting. Each expert was asked
identified in the previous phase were candidates for meaningful to map roughly 6–10 OCSFs that were relevant to their expertise
OCSFs. with the perspectives of Parmenter’s revised balanced scorecard
A literature review was performed to realize the benefits of iden- (Appendix III, Fig. 8). A similar procedure was performed for
tifying OCSFs from the CSFs list. This study adopted Parmenter’s understanding the relationships between OCSFs and project objec-
(2015) methodology to identify the OCSFs. One expert for each tives (Appendix III, Fig. 9). Both results from the previous phases
role was selected to determine the OCSFs via relationship mapping of the meeting were compiled and the percentage of acceptance of
of CSFs on a spreadsheet matrix (Appendix III, Fig. 7). Five sep- each relationship was tabulated. Finally, the results were shared
arate relationship maps on a spreadsheet matrix were designed for with experts in the final phase of the meeting for discussing and
BIM experts of each role. In the second phase of FG Meeting 2, finalizing OCSFs.
the experts were asked to map the sphere of influence of each CSF
relevant to their factor group toward 37 other CSFs. Data collected
from all five experts were compiled for further analysis. We per- Results and Discussions
formed three phase analyses, specifically CSFs relationship analy-
sis, ranking analysis, and mapping of CSFs against the factor groups Research to identify CSFs for successful delivery of construction
for listing OCSFs (Fig. 2). It is essential that the final list of OCSFs projects has been conducted by a number of researchers for sev-
satisfies the following four prerequisites: (1) identified OCSFs must eral years, such as Enegbuma and Ali (2011), Won et al. (2013),
be capable of driving CSFs at a higher rate; (2) there must be at least Shang and Shen (2014), Tsai et al. (2014), Mom et al. (2014),
one OCSF from each factor group; (3) identified OCSFs must drive Morlhon et al. (2014), Ozorhon and Karahan (2017), and Liao
other CSFs of their respective factor groups; and (4) the number and Teo (2017). However, few of them addressed issues about
of identified OCSFs should be minimal but with all prerequisites identifying the CSFs at the project scale, and none of them dis-
cussed identification of BIM OCSFs, which are critical for defin-
ing meaningful performance measures and successful delivery of
BIM projects. With the help of OCSFs, all stakeholders of the
project can better prioritize their daily activities for driving project
performance.
With an empirical approach adopted, a clear methodology is
delivered in this study for identifying BIM CSFs and OCSFs at
the project scale. This study determined CSFs and OCSFs for suc-
cessfully delivering BIM projects in the Taiwanese AECO Industry.
Six project objectives were listed by the BIM experts for success-
ful delivery of BIM projects in Taiwan’s public procurement. Four
hundred fifty-four IFs were classified under nine factor groups and
eight competency areas (Table 1). Thirty-eight CSFs and 13 OCSFs
Fig. 7. Mapping relationships of CSFs in spreadsheet matrix.
were identified for BIM project delivery in Taiwan. More-detailed
Fig. 8. OCSFs mapping to Parmenter’s BSC perspectives.

DCO organizations can still benefit from these results. CSFs of
project resources and project collaboration remain unaltered for all
these organizations. DCO organizations can add CSFs from the
planning and design stage, the construction and the handover and
closeout stages, and the handover and closeout and the operation
Fig. 9. OCSFs mapping to BIM project objectives. and maintenance stages. The next section discusses the data analysis
performed to identify the CSFs.
results and further discussions of this study are presented in this Data Analysis for Identifying CSFs
section.
The framework of IFs delivered in this approach was developed Data Summary
by arranging the wide-range of IFs from BIM AMs and BIM uses Ten Taiwanese BIM experts were identified and invited to take part
guidelines to factor groups and competency areas. Organizing IFs in this study, i.e., two experts for each role. These were Taiwanese
into factor groups allows an organization to include only a subset of BIM experts with job titles of architect, engineer, associate vice
factor groups in the framework based on its organization type for president, project manager, deputy chief engineer, general manager,
performance assessment of BIM projects at any stage of the life project manager, and assistant project manager. Basic information
cycle. Organizing the IFs into competency areas can help tagging about the BIM experts of this study is available in Badrinath
IFs of selected competency areas to the individuals, teams, and (2018). Two experts from each key role participated to identify
organizations associated with a project. DCO organizations can CSFs. One expert from each key role participated to identify project
modify this framework according to the organization’s nature and objectives and OCSFs. The data summarizing the respondents’
project requirements (Table 2). With the identified OCSFs, future characteristics are presented in Table 8. Descriptive statistics were
research can be performed to define meaningful key performance used to summarize the collected data for preliminary examination.
metrics for a Taiwan BIM project. Respondents for this study were selected by taking into account
their experience, the organization type with which they were asso-
BIM Project Objectives ciated, and their roles in BIM projects.
The number of respondents of each organization type was
Table 6 lists the original BIM project objectives, voting from each equally distributed, that is, 20% of respondents represented each
BIM expert, experts involved in voting for each objective, and the role. Most of the organizations to which respondents belonged fit
final list of selected BIM project objectives for the Taiwan AECO in three categories concerning the number of employees in the
industry. This list of BIM project objectives may vary for AECO organization, i.e., less than 20 employees (30%), 101–500 employ-
industries in different regions or countries. However, most of the ees (30%), and more than 500 employees (30%). The number of
key BIM project objectives may remain unaltered. Defining the BIM staff was greater than 20 in 40% of the respondents’ organi-
BIM project objectives is the foundation step to identify CSFs for zations. The majority (40%) of respondents were involved with
BIM projects. This step-by-step procedure is to intended to ensure 6–10 BIM projects. However, the majority of the respondents’ or-
that the final list of identified OCSFs is aligned with BIM project ganizations (40%) were involved in delivering more than 20 proj-
objectives. ects. Approximately 80% of the selected respondents had obtained a
master’s degree. Based on the authors’ observations, a majority of
CSFs for BIM Projects the organizations (40%) contained more than 20 BIM employees
and individuals involved in more than 5 BIM projects (80%). In
Table 7 lists 38 CSFs for successful delivery of BIM projects in addition, BIM technology and process adoption in the Taiwan
the Taiwan AECO industry. It also shows the ranks, category, factor AECO industry has been growing considerably in the last few years.
groups, competency areas, and mean and standard deviation (SD) Large organizations with more than 100 employees (100–500 and
values of the CSFs. It is found that there were no CSFs from >500) have taken up the challenge to be competitive in the market.
supportive and research and development competency areas. There
were 18 CSFs from the operational competency area; 5 each from Reliability Test
technical, functional, and administrative competency areas; and Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was performed to check the reli-
3 and 2 CSFs from implementation and managerial, respectively. ability of the factor groups in the framework. The raw data were
From an organizational perspective rather than a project perspective, tested for internal consistency of measurement using Cronbach’s
Table 6. Project objectives for successful delivery of BIM projects in Taiwan’s public procurement
Code Objective Voting Experts Selected
PO1 Delivering the project on time, with estimated cost and expected quality 4 DM, CM, FM, PM Yes
PO2 Add value to the project delivery by diffusing BIM technologies and workflows successfully in the project 3 DM, OW, PM Yes
life cycle
PO3 Benchmark existing IPD projects 1 FM No
PO4 Set the short-term goals, medium-term objectives, and long-term goals 1 PM No
PO5 Project delivery is within the scope set 2 CM, PM No
PO6 Reducing the risk factor in the project life cycle 3 DM, CM, OW Yes
PO7 Maintain the image and reputation of the AECO organization involved in the BIM project delivery 2 DM, CM Yes
PO8 Achieve reasonable and sustainable design and construction through IPD 1 FM No
PO9 5D management in project execution 1 DM Yes
PO10 Project the participation in technical training of personnel and the ability to execute the project 1 PM No
PO11 Estimate the life-cycle cost and make the best design plan in early stages for both short- and long-term cost 1 FM Yes

Table 7. Critical success factors for BIM projects
CSF Competency
rank Category Factor group areas Critical success factor Mean SD
28 Project resources BIM technology Technical TT1: Software functionality 4.63 0.744
29 Technical TT8: Technical tasks 4.50 0.535
30 Implementation TI12: Physical and knowledge infrastructure 4.50 0.535
7 Stakeholder skills Technical ST20: Modeling effectiveness and productivity 4.75 0.500
8 and competencies Functional SF36: Project management 4.75 0.500
33 Technical ST23: Model management 4.50 0.577
34 Operational SO34: General model use 4.50 0.577
35 Administrative SA50: Quality management 4.50 0.577
1 Project teams and Managerial OM142: Top management support 5.00 0.000
9 organization Functional OF80: Stakeholders’ and project teams’ roles and 4.75 0.500
responsibilities
10 Administrative OA98: Allocation of budget toward BIM 4.75 0.500
11 Administrative OA108: Project delivery methods that address BIM 4.75 0.500
12 Managerial OM127: Business process 4.75 0.500
13 Project collaboration Project coordination Functional IF156: Integrated BIM meetings 4.75 0.500
36 and collaboration Operational IO152: Model progression specifications 4.50 0.577
37 Functional IF160: Project mission 4.25 0.500
38 Functional IF157: Common data environment 4.25 0.957
24 Project life-cycle stages Planning stage Operational PO178: Early understanding of O&M-stage BIM uses 4.67 0.516
31 Administrative PA202: Documented BIM execution plan 4.50 0.548
32 Managerial PM208: Definition of project goals 4.50 0.548
2 Design stage Operational DO259: Clash detection 5.00 0.000
14 Technical DT215: Discipline model reviews 4.75 0.500
15 Operational DO246: Cost estimation 4.75 0.500
16 Operational DO254: 3D detailing 4.75 0.500
17 Operational DO267: Constructability analysis 4.75 0.500
3 Construction stage Operational CO321: 3D detailing 5.00 0.000
4 Operational CO341: Handover and commissioning 5.00 0.000
5 Operational CO348: BIM/FM integration 5.00 0.000
25 Handover and Operational HO390: Systems control and monitoring data 4.67 0.516
26 closeout stage Operational HO394: Facility data 4.67 0.516
27 Operational HO391: Space management data requirements 4.67 0.816
6 Operation and Operational FO411: Energy use 5.00 0.000
18 maintenance stage Operational FO415: Operations planning 4.75 0.500
19 Operational FO430: BIM/FM integration 4.75 0.500
20 Operational FO431: BIM/IOT interfacing 4.75 0.500
21 Operational FO433: Space management 4.75 0.500
22 Implementation FI443: Facility O&M process standardization 4.75 0.500
23 Administrative FA448: Continuous process improvement 4.75 0.500
alpha coefficient of reliability. The alpha levels examined for each factors from the BIM technology factor group for which the
of the factor groups are presented in Table 9. In practice, research- independent-samples two-tailed t-test was performed. Some exer-
ers have accepted the value of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to be cises were performed to verify if the small sample of selected BIM
equal to or greater than 0.70 (Field 2005). The reliability analysis of experts can represent the BIM experts of Taiwan. The selected 10
all underlying factors was conducted and the initial alpha levels experts were split into 2 groups, Group 1 (G1) and Group 2 (G2).
were identified. The alpha levels of a few factor groups were lower Each group contained five experts with key roles of DM, CM, FM,
than 0.7 in the initial analysis. It was necessary to perform scale- PM, and OW. Grouping was performed in such a way that each
if-factor-deleted analysis in SPSS to cause the alpha levels to reach group had respondents from all key roles, and the experts within
0.7 and make the factor groups reliable. A few factors were re- each group had a maximum amount of matching necessary infor-
moved from the factor groups during this process. Table 9 lists the mation. The grouping resulted in two groups with a significant dif-
number of factors that were removed from each factor group to ference in experts and their organization profiles. If the p-value was
reach the minimum alpha level. The final Cronbach’s alpha values higher than 0.05, i.e., the null hypothesis that there is no significant
for each factor group were higher than the required 0.70. Finally, difference between Group 1 and Group 2, the factor was accepted
from all 9 factor groups combined, 10 factors were excluded, which on the list. If the p-value was less than 0.05, i.e., the null hypothesis
resulted in 454 IFs for further analysis. Moreover, the factor values that there is a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2,
of each IFs were verified to determine whether they had a value the factor was rejected from the list, provided that the rejected
higher than 4.0, which was the criterion for factors to be selected factor did not affect the success of a BIM project in a significant
as CSFs. way. In Table 10, four factors, TT1–TT4, are visualized. TT1, soft-
ware functionality, had a p-value of 0.670 (>0.05), which indicates
T-Test acceptance of the null hypothesis that there was almost no signifi-
This test was performed to determine if two sets of data were sig- cant difference between the opinions of the two groups. Meanwhile,
nificantly different from each other. Table 10 presents a few of the TT4, software interoperability, had a p-value of 0.017 (<0.05),

Table 8. Respondents’ characteristics Table 10. Factors from BIM technology perspective (example t-test)
Category Characteristic Number Percentage Influencing Group Group t-test
factor (IF) Role 1 2 (p-value) Mean SD M1 M2
Organization type Design 2 20
Construction 2 20 TT1: software DM 4 3 0.670 4.63 0.744 4.75 4.50
Operation 2 20 functionality CM 5 5
Owner 2 20 FM 5 5
Project management 2 20 PM 5 5
Others 0 0 TT2: software — 4 4 0.670 3.63 0.744 3.75 3.50
Number of employees in 0–20 3 30 adequacy 3 3
organization 21–50 1 10 3 3
51–100 0 0 5 4
101–500 3 30 TT3: software — 4 4 0.550 3.50 1.069 3.25 3.75

>500 3 30 simplicity 3 4
Number of BIM 0–5 2 20 2 5
employees in 6–10 3 30 4 2
organization 11–15 1 10 TT4: software — 4 5 0.017 4.13 0.835 3.50 4.75
16–20 0 0 interoperability 3 4
>20 4 40 3 5
Number of BIM-related 0–5 2 20 4 5
projects respondent is 6–10 4 40 TT : : : — ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::
involved in 11–15 0 0 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::
16–20 2 20 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::
>20 2 20
Number of BIM-related 0–5 1 10
projects organization is 6–10 3 30 of this study because no factors were rejected from the t-test of
involved in 11–15 0 0
the study.
16–20 2 20
>20 4 40 Ranking Analysis
Respondent’s Bachelors 0 0 The ranking analysis was performed to rank the CSFs for BIM
qualifications Masters 8 80
projects. The ranking of IFs was centered on mean scores and their
Ph.D. 2 20
Others 0 0 standard deviations. When two or more factors had the same mean
Respondent’s role in the Design manager 2 20 score, factors with a smaller SD are assigned higher ranks. Yuan
BIM project team Construction manager 2 20 et al. (2009) and Lu et al. (2008) derived the ranking of factors from
Facility manager 2 20 the mean scores and SDs. Furthermore, Lu et al. (2008) also bench-
Project manager 2 20 marked mean scores of 4.0 on a five-point Likert scale as important.
Owner 2 20 In addition, Yuan et al. (2009) adopted a cutoff point of 3.0 on a
five-point Likert scale as important. However, Wethyavivorn et al.
(2009) suggested that the cutoff point should be weighed against a
correlation of factors; for example, factors with correlation coeffi-
Table 9. Reliability analysis for nine components of framework cients below 0.3 were excluded. In this study, factors having mean
Number scores of 4.0 and above were considered to be important. As an ex-
of factors ample, a list of only one factor group, BIM technology, is presented
removed in Table 11, because presenting the analysis results of all factor
Initial to reach Final groups would consume several pages. Table 11 presents a list of
alpha minimum alpha factors that fit in the BIM technology factor group, alongside group
Framework component level alpha level level
rank, overall rank, mean, and SD values for each IF. The top three
BIM technology 0.752 0 0.752 factors of each factor group were considered to be critical. Factors
Stakeholder skills and competencies 0.488 3 0.740 with mean and SD values equivalent to that of first three factors in
Project teams and organizations 0.904 0 0.904 the factor group were also considered to be critical. A total of 38
Project coordination and collaboration 0.655 1 0.726
factors fits into CSF categories from the factor groups (Table 7).
Planning stage 0.581 2 0.723
Design stage 0.482 4 0.720
Construction stage 0.931 0 0.931 OCSFs for BIM Projects
Handover and closeout stage 0.858 0 0.858
Operation and maintenance stage 0.931 0 0.931 Table 12 shows the OCSFs for successful delivery of BIM projects
in the Taiwan AECO Industry. These OCSFs need to be properly
communicated to the stakeholders involved in the BIM project
delivery. In this study, the factor groups such as BIM technology,
which indicates rejection of the null hypothesis that there was a stakeholder skills and competencies, project teams and organiza-
significant difference in the opinions of two groups. A similar analy- tions, and planning stage had two OCSFs. Other factor groups,
sis was performed for 454 IFs in 9 factor groups. Only 3 IFs of such as project coordination and collaboration, design, construc-
454 IFs had p-values less than 0.05. The results indicate that there tion, handover and closeout, and operations and maintenance
was no significant difference in responses among the experts. stages, had only one OCSF each. With respect to OCSF compe-
The three IFs with p-values less than 0.05, namely TT4 (software tency areas, five OCSFs were operational, three were functional,
interoperability), SA54 (administration, policies, and procedures), two were administrative, and one each was technical, implementa-
and PO187 (sustainability analysis), were however considered for tion, and managerial. Unexpectedly, no OCSFs were from the R&D
ranking analysis. Therefore, there was no change in the results and supportive competency areas.

Table 11. Ranking of factors that influence BIM technology perspective higher. Table 13 presents the OCSFs rank, CSFs rank, description,
Group Overall factor group, average value, and relationship count for each CSF.
rank rank Influencing factor (IF) Mean SD CSFs The first nine highly ranked CSFs that satisfied the first prerequi-
site are listed in the Phase 1 analysis column of Table 13. These
1 30 TT1: software functionality 4.63 0.744 Yes
2 31 TT8: technical tasks 4.50 0.535 Yes
OCSFs are capable of driving other CSFs at a higher rate (identified
3 32 TI12: physical and knowledge 4.50 0.535 Yes through “Average value” and “Relationship count”). The Phase 1
infrastructure analysis results were inputted to identify OCSFs satisfying the
4 65 TA16: BIM implementation cost 4.38 0.744 No other prerequisites, i.e., Prerequisites 2, 3, and 4.
5 97 TI13: regulatory 4.25 0.886 No
6 181 TA14: investment cost of 4.00 0.926 No Mapping CSFs to Factor Groups of Framework
technology In this stage, two analyses were performed (Table 13, Phase 2 analy-
7 182 TS17: software integration 4.00 1.069 No sis and Phase 3 analysis columns) to verify whether the OCSFs se-
8 203 TI10: initial and ongoing cost of 3.88 0.835 No lected in the analysis of the first phase satisfied all four prerequisites
education (Table 13, Phase 1 analysis). OCSFs in the Phase 1 analysis did not
9 235 TI11: technology capability and 3.75 0.707 No satisfy the second prerequisite, i.e., at least one CSF from each fac-
improvement plans tor group. Therefore, in the Phase 2 analysis, the CSFs were iden-
10 236 TS18: technical support 3.75 0.707 No
tified by fulfilling the first and second prerequisites, i.e., the OCSF
11 237 TT6: hardware functionality 3.75 0.886 No
12 277 TT2: software adequacy 3.63 0.744 No
of the higher OCSF rank and one OCSF for each of the nine factor
13 278 TA15: maintenance cost of 3.63 0.916 No groups. OCSFs classified in the Phase 2 analysis had OCSF ranks of
software, hardware, and network 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, and 22.
14 326 TT3: software simplicity 3.50 1.069 No To satisfy the third prerequisite, it was necessary to verify
15 341 TT7: hardware capability 3.38 0.518 No whether each of these OCSFs can drive other CSFs of their respec-
16 342 TT5: software compatibility 3.38 0.744 No tive factor groups. To perform the Phase 3 analyses, the OCSFs of
17 391 T09: networking services 3.13 1.458 No the Phase 2 analysis were mapped against other CSFs of their re-
18 392 TS19: long-term suppliers 3.125 1.246 No spective factor groups. A relationship agreement rate was chosen
from the spreadsheet matrix, and the average values were deter-
mined. OCSFs with an average value of less than 75% were con-
sidered to be less capable of driving CSFs in their factor groups,
The OCSFs influence the organizational business all the time,
i.e., OCSFs with ranks 5, 6, 10, and 17. Hence, further analyses
i.e., around the clock, and it is therefore vital to measure how the
were performed to choose the right set of OCSFs for Factor Groups
stakeholders in AECO organizations and their projects align their
1, 4, 5, and 8. It was clear from the analysis that CSFs with OCSF
daily activities to these OCSFs. It is beneficial for the AECO or-
ranks 7, 12, and 13 satisfied the third prerequisite better than the
ganizations involved in BIM project delivery to see these OCSFs
previously chosen OCSFs. CSFs with OCSF ranks 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 12,
as the source of all meaningful performance measures. From the
13, 17, and 22 were determined to be the OCSFs in the Phase 3
causality provided in the framework (Table 2), we can select the
analysis. To fulfill the fourth prerequisite, the final OCSFs were
OCSFs needed for a specific DCO organization. This will help
identified to be CSFs with OCSF ranks of 1–13, 17, and 22
Taiwan’s DCO organizations to identify the right set of BIM per-
(Table 13, Listed OCSFs column). OCSFs validation was per-
formance measures. These OCSFs will create the vital linkage be-
formed in FG Meeting 3. Here, listed OCSFs were mapped to bal-
tween daily activities and the organizational strategies that is the
anced scorecard (BSC) perspectives and project objectives to
sweet spot for achieving organizational alignment toward planned
identify the Final OCSFs. OCSFs Model progression specification
strategic results. The DCO organizations can choose their OCSFs
and 3D detailing in construction stage were excluded from the list
from Table 12. OCSFs 1–10 can be chosen for design organiza-
of OCSFs, and 13 OCSFs were finalized (Table 13, Final OCSFs
tions. OCSFs 1–7, 11, and 12 can be chosen for construction or-
column). Table 12 organizes the final OCSFs into categories, factor
ganizations. OCSFs 1–7, 12, and 13 can be chosen for operations
groups, and competency areas.
organizations. Communicating these OCSFs to organizational staff
is essential to achieve full understanding and engagement.
Conclusions
Data Analysis for Identifying OCSFs
As an initial step toward successfully delivering BIM projects to
This section discusses the data analysis performed to identify the clients, a three-step approach was proposed to define project objec-
OCSFs. tives, CSFs, and OCSFs for successful delivery of BIM projects
CSFs Relationship Analysis (Fig. 1). The approach proposed in this study was applied to the
As discussed in previous sections, the data were collected from Taiwan AECO industry as a case study to identify BIM project ob-
Taiwanese experts through relationship mapping of CSFs in a jectives, CSFs, and OCSFs for successful delivery of BIM projects
spreadsheet matrix. The votes of the five BIM experts, one from in Taiwan. Tables 6, 7, and 12 showcase the BIM project objectives,
each key role, were compiled. The spreadsheet matrix with experts’ CSFs, and OCSFs for successful delivery of Taiwan BIM projects.
inputs is not presented in this paper due to page limitations. How- The OCSFs identified in this research help the stakeholders of
ever, the number of votes for each CSF relationship is provided in Taiwan BIM projects to realize what is important and thus to pri-
Table 13 (Relationship count column). The average values for each oritize their daily activities. These OCSFs are the guiding force en-
CSF were analyzed and tabulated (Table 13, Average column). suring that all stakeholders of the project, every day, treat activities
that align well with OCSFs as a priority.
Ranking Analysis The proposed approach is not only generally applicable for
Once the average values of each CSF were calculated and tabulated, identifying OCSFs in countries other than Taiwan, but also is
the next step was to perform a ranking analysis that involved two- capable of enabling a small team of BIM experts to identify OCSFs.
phased analyses. The CSFs with higher average values were ranked There remains a need to extend the approach to derive meaningful

Table 12. Final list of OCSFs for BIM projects in Taiwan AECO industry
Competency OCSF
© ASCE
Category FG No. Factor group area rank OCSF OCSF definition
Project 1 BIM technology Implementation 1 Physical and knowledge infrastructure The primary BIM facilities and knowledge needed for the operation of
resources an AECO organization
1 Technical 2 Technical tasks Availability of the required technology and expertise to accomplish
specific technical steps
2 Stakeholder skills and competencies Operational 3 General model use Using model-based deliverables to improve design, construction and
operation of facilities
2 Functional 4 BIM Project management Managing the BIM projects where BIM workflows are used and BIM
deliverables are specified
3 Project teams and organizations Functional 5 Stakeholders and project teams’ roles and Different AECO stakeholders are assigned specific activities for which
responsibilities they are held accountable, i.e., their roles on a project. Moreover,
responsibilities are the specific set of duties that AECO stakeholders are
expected to complete as a function of their roles.
3 Administrative 6 Allocation of budget toward BIM AECO organizations willing to deliver BIM projects have to allocate
budget toward BIM resources
Project 4 Project coordination and Functional 7 Integrated BIM meetings AECO stakeholders involved in delivering BIM projects need to make
collaboration collaboration combined decisions and also resolve several issues, and this can happen
in integrated meetings during project planning, design, construction and
handover stages.
Project 5 Planning stage (RIBA stage 0–1) Administrative 8 Documented BEP Document BEP-BIM execution plans including, but not limited to,
life-cycle project information, project organizational chart, project schedule, BIM
stages process, and contracts.
5 Managerial 9 Definition of BIM project goals It is essential to define the project goals before forming the BIM project
teams.
6 Design stage (RIBA stage 2–4) Operational 10 3D detailing in design stage A model use representing how three-dimensional details are extracted
04018140-15
from information-rich BIM models; 3D detailing typically includes
hybrid 2D and/or 3D annotated views.
7 Construction stage (RIBA stage 5) Operational 11 BIM/FM integration in construction stage A model use representing the integration of BIM technologies and
processes in the construction stage with facility management
deliverables, databases, and workflows
8 Handover and closeout stage (RIBA Operational 12 Space management data requirements Delivering the BIM data that are associated with space management

stage 6)
9 Operations and maintenance stage Operational 13 BIM/FM integration in operation stage A model use representing the integration of BIM technologies and
(RIBA stage 7) processes in the operation stage with facility management deliverables,
databases, and workflows
Note: BEP = BIM execution plan.

Table 13. Analysis process to identify OCSFs for BIM project

OCSF CSF Relationship Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Listed Final
© ASCE
rank rank Critical success factor for BIM projects Factor group Average count analysis analysis analysis OCSFs OCSFs
1 3 CO321: 3D detailing in construction stage Construction stage 81.5789 35 OCSF OCSF OCSF OCSF —
2 9 OF80: stakeholder and project team roles and resp. Project teams and organizations 80.2632 36 OCSF OCSF OCSF OCSF OCSF
3 5 CO348: BIM/FM integration in construction stage Construction stage 78.9474 36 OCSF — — OCSF OCSF
4 10 OA98: allocation of budget toward BIM Project teams and organizations 78.9474 37 OCSF — — OCSF OCSF
5 31 PA202: documented BIM execution plan Planning stage 78.0702 37 OCSF OCSF — OCSF OCSF
6 30 TI12: physical and knowledge infrastructure BIM technology 76.3158 37 OCSF OCSF — OCSF OCSF
7 32 PM208: definition of project goals Planning stage 75.4386 37 OCSF — OCSF OCSF OCSF
8 34 SO34: general model use Stakeholder’s skills and competencies 71.0526 37 OCSF OCSF OCSF OCSF OCSF
9 19 FO430: BIM/FM integration in operation stage Operation and maintenance stage 69.7368 36 OCSF OCSF OCSF OCSF OCSF
10 36 IO152: model progression specifications Project coordination and collaboration 69.7368 34 — OCSF — OCSF —
11 8 SF36: project management Stakeholder’s skills and competencies 68.4211 37 — — — OCSF OCSF
12 29 TT8: technical tasks BIM technology 68.4211 37 — — OCSF OCSF OCSF
13 13 IF156: integrated BIM meetings Project coordination and collaboration 67.1053 37 — — OCSF OCSF OCSF
14 20 FO431: BIM/IOT interfacing Operation and maintenance stage 65.7895 35 — — — — —
15 28 TT1: software functionality BIM technology 65.7895 37 — — — — —
16 33 ST23: model management Stakeholder’s skills and competencies 65.7895 35 — — — — —
17 26 HO394: facility data Handover and closeout stage 64.0351 36 — OCSF OCSF OCSF OCSF
18 27 HO391: space management data requirements Handover and closeout stage 64.0351 36 — — — — —
19 35 SA50: quality management Stakeholder’s skills and competencies 63.1579 35 — — — — —
20 37 IF160: project mission Project coordination and collaboration 63.1579 37 — — — — —
21 38 IF157: common data environment Project coordination and collaboration 63.1579 37 — — — — —
22 16 DO254: 3D detailing in design stage Design stage 61.8421 34 — OCSF OCSF OCSF OCSF
23 4 CO341: handover and commissioning Construction stage 59.2105 30 — — — — —
24 1 OM142: top management support Project teams and organizations 57.8947 32 — — — — —
04018140-16
25 24 PO178: early understanding of O&M stage Planning stage 57.8947 31 — — — — —
26 23 FA448: continuous process improvement. Operation and maintenance stage 53.9474 35 — — — — —
27 11 OA108: project delivery methods that address BIM Project teams and organizations 51.3158 25 — — — — —
28 14 DT215: discipline model reviews Design stage 51.3158 31 — — — — —
29 21 FO433: space management Operation and maintenance stage 50.0000 35 — — — — —
30 7 ST20: modeling effectiveness and productivity Stakeholder’s skills and competencies 47.3684 32 — — — — —

31 25 HO390: systems control and monitoring data Handover and closeout stage 47.3684 30 — — — — —
32 6 FO411: energy use Operation and maintenance stage 39.4737 26 — — — — —
33 22 FI443: facility O&M process standardization Operation and maintenance stage 39.4737 24 — — — — —
34 18 FO415: operations planning Operation and maintenance stage 36.8421 21 — — — — —
35 2 DO259: clash detection Design stage 34.2105 22 — — — — —
36 12 OM127: business process Project teams and organizations 32.8947 21 — — — — —
37 17 DO267: constructability analysis Design stage 27.6316 19 — — — — —
38 15 DO246: cost estimation Design stage 19.7368 15 — — — — —
Note: IOT = internet of things.

performance measures, such as key performance indexes (KPIs), each of the following BIM technology factors in decision making
from the identified OCSFs for projects and DCO organizations. and/or technology implementation for your organization to deliver
With sufficient but manageable BIM performance measures, dash- BIM projects?” The degree of importance ranges from 1 to 5. Experts
boards for effectively monitoring BIM projects’ performance can are asked to mark the appropriate box for each IF. Experts must
be designed for the management and project teams of DCO organ- ensure that their responses do not exceed 20% at each degree of im-
izations. The step-by-step procedure to define the list of perfor- portance (i.e., responses need to have an even distribution of degrees
mance measures for an organization scale discussed by Parmenter of importance).
(2015) may be adopted for developing performance measures for Step 2.2. Data collection in FG Meeting 1 for identifying CSFs:
BIM projects. the data collection procedure for listing CSFs is performed in the
third phase of FG Meeting 1. First, the questionnaire and data col-
lection are introduced. Then the experts are asked to rate the im-
Appendix I. Step-by-Step Procedure to Define BIM portance of IFs on a scale of 1–5 (1 = very unimportant, 2 = not
Project Objectives important, 3 = neutral, 4 = important, 5 = very important).
Step 2.3. Data analysis with statistical procedures to list the
Step 1.1. Data collection tool for project objectives: project objec- CSFs: Statistical analysis can be performed with the help of SPSS
tives from the literature are transformed into an open-ended ques- to identify CSFs. Four types of analysis can be performed: analysis
tionnaire. Fig. 3 presents the template of data collection tool for of respondents’ characteristics, Cronbach’s alpha reliability test,
BIM project objectives. Users can select/modify/add new project t-test, and ranking analysis.
objectives. It is preferable not to exceed 10 project objectives. Step 2.4. Data validation in FG Meeting 2 for finalizing CSFs:
Step 1.2. Data collection in focus group Meeting 1: Arrange FG this is the first phase of FG Meeting 2. It is preferable to invite
Meeting 1 with the BIM experts identified for the project. It is pref-
experts who participated in the first FG meeting. Statistical analysis
erable to select two sets of experts for each role (DM, CM, FM,
is performed in advance to identify the list of CSFs that need to be
PM, and OW) for data collection procedure. FG Meeting 1 involves
discussed in FG Meeting 2. It is preferable to select no more than
three phases. The first, second, and third phases are for defining
three CSFs from each factor group.
BIM project objectives, finalizing BIM project objectives, and
grading IFs on a Likert scale, respectively. The purpose of data col-
lection and the proposed plan is introduced to the experts.
Step 1.3. Data analysis to list project objectives: the project ob- Appendix III. Step-by-Step Procedure to Identify
jectives listed by each expert are compiled, and the numbers of OCSFs for BIM Projects
votes for each project objective are listed. A compiled list of BIM
Step 3.1. Data collection tool for identifying OCSFs: in the second
project objectives will be presented in the second phase of FG
phase of FG Meeting 2, experts are invited to map the relationships
Meeting 1 for final decision. The data analysis of BIM project ob-
between the CSFs in a spreadsheet matrix. This method creates
jectives template is provided in Fig. 4.
documentation of the process that is easy to review. Five relation-
Step 1.4. Data validation in FG Meeting 1 to finalize project
ship maps on a spreadsheet matrix are designed to target BIM ex-
objectives: in the second phase of FG Meeting 1, the experts are
perts in each role. Experts are asked to map the sphere of influence
asked to discuss the compiled list of project objectives and come to
of each CSF relevant to their role toward other CSFs. The selection
a conclusion on the final list of BIM project objectives.
of the OCSFs is a very subjective exercise, and the effectiveness
and usefulness of those chosen CSFs are highly dependent on the
Appendix II. Step-by-Step Procedure to Identify degree of analytical skill of those who are involved in the process.
CSFs for BIM Projects Active leadership by senior management in this step is, therefore,
mandatory. Fig. 7 showcases the template for relationship mapping
This study delivers a framework of IFs for successful delivery of of CSFs that can be performed on the spreadsheet matrix. In the
BIM projects that benefits AECO organizations to identify the spreadsheet matrix, the first row and second column indicate the
CSFs for BIM projects (Table 1). This framework includes IFs CSF number. Experts can check boxes in a row to indicate if
organized in three categories, nine factor groups, and eight BIM the CSF of that row influences other CSFs. The first column in
competency areas. The set of IFs identified from a literature review the table (Count) shows the total number of CSFs influenced by the
is classified in the framework through critical thinking and brain- residing CSF of the row: the higher the number, the higher is the
storming sessions. The mutually exclusive and collectively exhaus- likelihood that the CSF is an OCSF. The last row of the table (Sum)
tive principle is adapted to perform filtering, grouping, and sorting indicates the total number of CSFs influencing the CSF of that
of the identified IFs. column. Count indicates the number of relationships of one CSF
Step 2.1. Data collection tool for identifying CSFs: a set of five toward other CSFs. Sum indicates the number of relationships
questionnaires can be designed, targeting experts in five key roles of other CSFs toward a CSF.
(DM, CM, PM, FM, and OW) in AECO projects. The questionnaire Step 3.2. Data collection in FG Meeting 2: this is the second
for each key role has two sections. The first section is for collecting phase of FG Meeting 2. It is preferable to involve at least one expert
the experts’ basic information. The template for collecting the basic in each role. The relationship mapping process is introduced to
information from BIM experts in presented in Fig. 5. the experts first. The second FG meeting has two phases, i.e., to
The second section includes IFs and their definitions from factor validate CSFs and perform relationship mapping of CSFs to iden-
groups that are relevant to the key role of the expert, and boxes for tify OCSFs. Data are compiled and relationship count values are
the experts to rate the importance of IFs on a scale of 1–5 (1 = very calculated.
unimportant, 2 = not important, 3 = neutral, 4 = important, 5 = very Step 3.3. Data analysis with statistical procedures to list OCSFs:
important). Fig. 6 provides a template for sample view of the three statistical procedures are essential to list the CSFs, namely
second section in the questionnaire. Each factor group is accompa- relationship analysis, ranking analysis, and mapping CSFs against
nied by a question to the expert. As an example, the question asso- the factor groups. It is essential that the final list of OCSFs satisfies
ciated with the BIM technology factor group is “How important are the following four prerequisites: (1) identified OCSFs must be

capable of driving CSFs at a higher rate; (2) there must be at least Azzouz, A., P. Shepherd, and A. Copping. 2016. “The emergence of build-
one OCSF from each factor group; (3) identified OCSFs must drive ing information modeling assessment methods (BIM-AMs).” In Proc.,
other CSFs of their respective factor groups; and (4) the number Int. Conf. on Integrated Design at 50: Building our Future, 1–12. Bath,
of identified OCSFs should be minimal but with all prerequisites UK: Univ. of Bath.
Badrinath, A. C. 2018. “An empirical approach for performance assess-
satisfied so that performance assessments can be effective, easy,
ments of BIM projects.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
and fast. National Taiwan Univ.
Step 3.4. Data validation in FG Meeting 3 to finalize OCSFs: Badrinath, A. C., Y. T. Chang, and S. H. Hsieh. 2016. “An overview of
this step has four phases. In the first phase, experts are updated on global research trends in BIM from analysis of BIM publications.”
the project status and given a brief overview of the other three In Proc., 16th Int. Conf. on Computing in Civil and Building Engineer-
phases. In the second phase, each expert is asked to map roughly ing (ICCCBE) 2016. Osaka, Japan: International Society of Computing
6–10 OCSFs that are relevant to their expertise with Parmenter’s in Civil and Building Engineering.
revised BSC perspectives (Parmenter 2015). Belassi, W., and O. I. Tukel. 1996. “A new framework for determining criti-
Fig. 8 presents the template for OCSFs mapping to Parmenter’s cal success/failure factors in projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 14 (3):
BSC perspectives. A similar procedure is performed for under- 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00064-X.
standing the relationships between OCSFs and project objectives BIM ThinkSpace. 2012. “Episode 17: Individual BIM competency.” BIM
ThinkSpace. Accessed October 4, 2015. https://www.bimthinkspace
in the third phase of the meeting. Fig. 9 presents the template
.com/2012/08/episode-17-individual-bim-competency.html.
for OCSFs mapping to BIM project objectives. CSFs typically have
BIM ThinkSpace. 2015. “Episode 24: Understanding model uses.”
connections with a maximum number of scorecard perspectives and BIM Think Space. Accessed September 10, 2015. https://www
project objectives in order to be nominated as OCSFs. The mapping .bimthinkspace.com/2015/09/episode-24-understanding-model-uses.html.
exercise is performed to confirm that the OCFs are oriented toward Change Agents AEC (Architecture Engineering and Construction). 2013.
organizational and project objectives. However, the selection of the “BIM excellence individual discovery.” Accessed October 5, 2017.
OCSFs is a very subjective exercise, and the effectiveness and use- http://bimexcellence.com/individuals/.
fulness of those OCSFs chosen are highly dependent on the degree Chua, D. K. H., Y. C. Kog, and P. K. Loh. 1999. “Critical success factors for
of analytical skill of those involved. Results from the second and different project objectives.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 125 (3): 142–150.
third phases of this meeting are compiled, and the percentage of https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:3(142).
acceptance on each relationship must be tabulated. The results are Dakhil, A., and M. Alshawi. 2014. “Building information modelling
then shared with experts in the fourth phase of this meeting to dis- benefits-maturity relationship from a client perspective.” Inf. Knowl.
Manage. 4 (9): 8–16.
cuss and finalize OCSFs.
Du, J., R. Liu, and R. R. Issa. 2014. “BIM cloud score: Benchmarking BIM
performance.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (11): 04014054. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000891.
Data Availability Statement Enegbuma, W. I., and K. N. Ali. 2011. “A preliminary critical success
factor analysis of Building Information Modelling implementation in
Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the Malaysia.” In Proc., Asian Conf. on Real Estate (ACRE): Sustainable
corresponding author by request. Information about the Journal’s Growth, Management Challenges, 3–5, Thistle Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
data-sharing policy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10 Field, A. 2005. Discovery statistics using SPSS. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001263. CA: Sage.
Gao, J. 2011. “A characterization framework to document and compare
BIM implementations on construction projects.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept.
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford Univ.
Acknowledgments
Giel, B., and R. R. Issa. 2013. “Synthesis of existing BIM maturity toolsets
to evaluate building owners.” In Proc., ASCE Int. Workshop on Com-
We thank Prof. Hui-Ping Tserng, Prof. Shih-Chung Kang, and Prof.
puting in Civil Engineering, 451–458. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Jianye Ching of the Department of Civil Engineering at National Indiana University. 2009. “IU BIM proficiency matrix (Multi-tab excel
Taiwan University (NTU) for their advice and assistance in the de- workbook).” The Indiana Univ. Architect’s Office. Accessed March
sign and analysis of the questionnaire-based survey. Thanks also go 15, 2016. https://www.google.com/search?q=cache:rvvGBRqNNPUJ:
to Vivian Chang and Ching-Chun Chou of the NTU BIM Center for big.yonsei.ac.kr/pdf/biglists/3.Models_for_Evaluating/4.%2520IU%252
their support in setting up the meetings with experts. We express 0BIM%2520Proficiency%2520Matrix.xls+&=6&=en&=clnk&=in.
our appreciation to the experts who were present at the meetings. Jayasena, H. S., and C. Weddikkara. 2013. “Assessing the BIM matu-
We thank Anthony Abram of Uni-edit.net for editing and proof- rity in a BIM infant industry.” In Proc., 2nd World Construction
reading this manuscript. Symp. 2013: Socio-Economic Sustainability in Construction, 62–69.
Moratuwa, Sri Lanka: Univ. of Moratuwa.
Jefferies, M., G. John Brewer, and T. Gajendran. 2014. “Using a case study
References approach to identify critical success factors for alliance contracting.”
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 21 (5): 465–480. https://doi.org/10
Alaghbandrad, A. 2015. “BIM maturity assessment and certification in .1108/ECAM-01-2012-0007.
construction project team selection.” Master thesis, Dept. of Construc- Jung, W., and G. Lee. 2015. “The status of BIM adoption on six conti-
tion Engineering, École de technologie supérieure. nents.” Int. J. Civ. Environ. Struct. Constr. Archit. Eng. 9 (5): 444–448.
Alaghbandrad, A., A. April, D. Forgues, and M. Leonard. 2015. “BIM Kassem, M., and B. Succar. 2017. “Macro BIM adoption: Comparative
maturity assessment and certification in construction project team se- market analysis.” Autom. Constr. 81 (Sep): 286–299. https://doi.org/10
lection.” In Proc., 5th Int. Construction Specialty Conf. of the Canadian .1016/j.autcon.2017.04.005.
Society for Civil Engineering (ICSC), Vancouver, BC, Canada. Kerzner, H. 2013. Project management best practices: Achieving global
Alias, Z., E. M. A. Zawawi, K. Yusof, and N. M. Aris. 2014. “Determining excellence. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
critical success factors of project management practice: A conceptual Kreider, R., and J. Messner. 2015. “A model use ontology.” In Proc., 32nd
framework.” Procedia Social Behavioral Sci. 153 (Oct): 61–69. CIB W78 Conf. 2015, 432–439. Delft, Netherlands: International Coun-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.041. cil for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction.
Arup. 2014. “The BIM maturity measure model.” Accessed February 26, Lee, G., and J. Won. 2014. “Goal-driven method for sustainable evaluation
2016. https://www.arup.com/Services/Building_Modelling.aspx. of BIM project success level.” In Proc., 10th European Conf. on

Product and Process Modeling (ECPPM), 33–38. Abingdon, UK: 118 (1): 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1992)
Taylor & Francis Group. 118:1(94).
Liao, L., and E. A. L. Teo. 2017. “Critical success factors for enhancing the Saqib, M., R. U. Farooqui, and S. H. Lodi. 2008. “Assessment of critical
building information modelling implementation in building projects in success factors for construction projects in Pakistan.” In Proc., 1st Int.
Singapore.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 23 (8): 1029–1044. https://doi.org/10 Conf. on Construction in Developing Countries, 392–404. Karachi,
.3846/13923730.2017.1374300. Pakistan.
Lu, W., L. Shen, and M. C. Yam. 2008. “Critical success factors for the Shang, Z., and Z. Shen. 2014. “Critical success factors (CSFs) of BIM
competitiveness of contractors: China study.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. implementation for collaboration based on system analysis.” In Proc.,
134 (12): 972–982. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008) Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, 1441–1448. Reston, VA:
134:12(972). ASCE.
McGraw-Hill Construction. 2012. The business value of BIM in North Succar, B. 2009. “Building information modelling maturity matrix.” In
America: Multi-year trend analysis and user ratings (2007–2012). Handbook of research on building information modelling and construc-
Smart Market Rep. New York: McGraw-Hill Construction. tion informatics: Concepts and technologies, edited by J. Underwood
McGraw-Hill Construction. 2014. The business value of BIM for construc- and U. Isikdag. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
tion in major global markets: How contractors around the world are Succar, B., W. Sher, and A. Williams. 2013. “An integrated approach to
driving innovations with Building Information Modelling. Smart Market
BIM competency assessment, acquisition, and application.” Autom.
Rep. New York: McGraw-Hill Construction.
Constr. 35 (Nov): 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05
Mihindu, S., and Y. Arayici. 2008. “Digital construction through BIM
.016.
systems will drive the re-engineering of construction business practices.”
Tsai, M. H., M. Mom, and S. H. Hsieh. 2014. “Developing critical success
In Proc., 2008 Int. Conf. Visualization, 29–34. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
factors for the assessment of BIM technology adoption. Part I: Meth-
Mom, M., M. H. Tsai, and S. H. Hsieh. 2014. “Developing critical success
odology and survey.” J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 37 (7): 845–858. https://doi.org
factors for the assessment of BIM technology adoption. Part II: Analysis
and results.” J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 37 (7): 859–868. https://doi.org/10.1080 /10.1080/02533839.2014.888811.
/02533839.2014.888798. Vico Software. 2011. “Calculate your BIM score.” Accessed April 14,
Morlhon, R., R. Pellerin, and M. Bourgault. 2014. “Building information 2016. https://gc.trimble.com/product-categories/bim-solutions.
modeling implementation through maturity evaluation and critical suc- Wethyavivorn, P., C. Charoenngam, and W. Teerajetgul. 2009. “Strategic
cess factors management.” Procedia Technol. 16 (Nov): 1126–1134. assets are driving organizational capabilities of Thai construction
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2014.10.127. firms.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (11): 1222–1231. https://doi.org
NIBS (National Institute of Building Standards). 2007. National building /10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000091.
information modeling standard, Version 1.0. Part 1: Overview, princi- Won, J., G. Lee, C. Dossick, and J. Messner. 2013. “Where to focus on
ples and methodologies. Washington, DC: NIBS. successful adoption of building information modeling within the
Ozorhon, B., and U. Karahan. 2017. “Critical success factors of build- organization.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (11): 04013014. https://doi
ing information modeling implementation.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (3): .org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000731.
04016054. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000505. Yuan, J., A. Y. Zeng, M. J. Skibniewski, and Q. Li. 2009. “Selec-
Parmenter, D. 2015. Key performance indicators: Developing, implement- tion of performance objectives and key performance indicators in
ing, and using winning KPIs. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. public-private partnership projects to achieve value for money.”
Sanvido, V., F. Grobler, K. Parfitt, M. Guvenis, and M. Coyle. 1992. “Criti- Constr. Manage. Econ. 27 (3): 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1080
cal success factors for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. /01446190902748705.

Empirical Approach To Identify Operational Critical SUCCESS For BIM Projects

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Empirical Approach To Identify Operational Critical SUCCESS For BIM Projects

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Empirical Approach to Identify Operational Critical

Success Factors for BIM Projects

Introduction manager (DM), construction manager (CM), facility manager (FM),

© ASCE 04018140-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04018140

© ASCE 04018140-2 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04018140

BIM experts resulted in refining the framework. For example, the

tools and other resources was revised to BIM technology. Initially,

4 input–process–output model, but with experts’ discussion, it was

resources, project collaboration, and PLC stages.

Design, contractor, and operations (DCO) organizations can

project requirements (Table 2). In Table 2, Yes and No suggest

example, to modify the framework for a design organization, we

skills and competencies, project teams and organization, project

coordination and collaboration, planning stage, and design stage.

organization type. For design organizations, planning-stage and

design-stage factor groups were added. For contractor organiza-

groups were added. For operation organizations, the handover and

closeout–stage and operation and maintenance–stage factor groups

Phase 1: BIM Assessment Methods at Different Scales

For the framework design, an extensive review was performed to

list of IFs for successful delivery of BIM projects. In the previous

decade, BIM experts from research and development (R&D) divi-

sions and industry advanced their efforts to establish assessment

tools, methods, and frameworks, which are collectively called as-

sessment methods in this study. Table 3 lists existing BIM-AMs,

AMs, and each of them has different strengths, weaknesses, roles,

and emphases. These BIM-AMs are capable of measuring the per-

formance and conducting maturity assessments of BIM applica-

tions at five measurement scales: individual, team, organization,

project, and market. The BIM-AMs listed in Table 3 may not be

endorse any single commercial product, but rather to provide sug-

(RIBA stage 6) (H)

(RIBA stage 7) (F)

gestions for available options to evaluate BIM maturity. Table 3

stakeholders’ organizations or project teams, capability and matu-

rity measurements of AECO organizations, process and perfor-

BIM maturity. A few of these AMs are recognized in the global

market mainly for their unique perspective on BIM performance

© ASCE 04018140-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04018140

© ASCE 04018140-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04018140

Table 3. List of BIM assessment methods in global AECO industries

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04018140

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

Existing conditions modelling

The Port Authority of

BIM standard manual

common to all 6 publications, 22 BIM uses were common to 5 pub-

Existing conditions modeling

Existing conditions modeling

Site use planning, 3D control

(surrounding area, existing

(surrounding area, existing

Logistics planning (site

BIM uses guide

scanning; existing conditions:

BIM project site modeling:

associated with implementing or not implementing a particular

Existing conditions: laser

scanning; existing conditions