The importance of the structures of the construction market for the implementation of the BIM method in an international comparison

Table of contents

Acknowledgements I

Table of contents II

Abbreviations V

List of figures VII

List of tables XI

Sources XII

1 Introduction

2 Building Information Modeling Roundup
2.1 Principles of the BIM methodology
2.2 BIM project lifecycle
2.2.1 Preliminary Planning with BIM
2.2.2 Planning with BIM
2.2.3 Construction with BIM
2.2.4 Operation with BIM
2.3 Structural barriers to BIM
2.4 Resume

3 Research basis of the work
3.1 Resume

4 Methodology of the work
4.1.1 Development of the research question
4.1.2 Examination of background aspects
4.1.3 Analysis of the cases
4.1.4 Results of the analysis
4.1.5 Verification of results
4.1.6 Criticism of case study research
4.2 Resume

5 Structural barriers to BIM
5.1 Market conditions’ influence on BIM
5.1.1 General requirements for economic activity
5.1.2 Market conditions in the AEC industry
5.1.3 Dependencies between stakeholders in the AEC industry
5.2 Market participants’ characteristics regarding BIM
5.2.1 Innovativeness of market participants
5.2.2 Certainty of return on BIM investments
5.2.3 Financial feasibility of BIM investments
5.2.4 Sizes of market participants
5.2.5 BIM use cases
5.3 Project delivery with BIM
5.3.1 BIM Standards
5.3.2 Contractual points of BIM
5.4 Institutions‘ roles in BIM developments
5.4.1 Level of BIM Education
5.4.2 Structure and elements of the BIM initiative
5.5 Resume

6 Comparison of Cases
6.1 Market conditions’ influence on BIM
6.1.1 General requirements for economic activity
6.1.2 Market conditions in the AEC industry
6.1.3 Dependencies between stakeholders in the AEC industry
6.2 Market participants’ characteristics regarding BIM
6.2.1 Innovativeness of market participants
6.2.2 Certainty of return on BIM investments
6.2.3 Financial feasibility of BIM investments
6.2.4 Sizes of market participants
6.2.5 BIM use Cases
6.3 Project delivery with BIM
6.3.1 BIM Standards
6.3.2 Contractual points of BIM
6.4 Institutions‘ roles in BIM developments
6.4.1 Level of BIM Education
6.4.2 Structure and elements of the BIM initiative
6.5 Resume

7 Results and Discussion
7.1 Results
7.2 Conclusions for the German AEC industry
7.3 Conclusions for German AEC companies
7.4 Resume

8 Summary

References

Applied data

List of interviewees

Abbreviations

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

List of figures

Figure 1.1: BIM as a platform to connect the value chain (self-created from information above)

Figure 1.2: Fragmentation of the value chain and BIM (self-created from information above)

Figure 2.1: The BIM principles overlapping Lean Construction (self-created from information above)

Figure 2.2: Structure of project phases and stakeholders to illustrate BIM application (self-created from information below)

Figure 2.3: Structure of structural barriers to BIM (self-created from information above)

Figure 3.1: Share of surveyed AEC professionals applying BIM in Germany in 2010 and 2015, in the UK between 2011 and 2018, in the US in 2007, 2009 and 2012 and in Finland in 2007 and 2013 in percent

Figure 3.2: Share of surveyed BIM user applying it for more than 30% of their projects in Germany in 2010, 2015 and 2018, in UK in 2010, 2017 and 2018 and US in 2009, 2012 and 2014 in percentage

Figure 4.1: Sequence of a case study analysis (self-created from information below)

Figure 4.2: Background of chosen interviewees (after list of interviewees)

Figure 5.1: The structure and substructure of structural barriers to BIM (self-created from information below)

Figure 5.2: Stakeholder groups of concern for the BIM lifecycle benefit (self-created from information below)

Figure 5.3: Mutual dependency of the management's and employee's conviction about BIM (self-created from information above)

Figure 5.4: The technology acceptance model applied on BIM (self-created from Information below)

Figure 5.5: The governance triangle of actors, processes and infrastructure (self-created from information above)

Figure 5.6: High initial costs and slowly increasing savings from BIM (self-created from information above, the figure is only a pictorial illustration and does not reflect any concrete values)

Figure 5.7: The value / difficulty ratio of BIM applications (self-created from information above)

Figure 5.8: Share of BIM application within sectors in percent

Figure 5.9: The four main fields of BIM standardization (self-created from information below)

Figure 5.10: Difference between File server and Bits server (self-created from information above)

Figure 5.11: Comparison of Design Bid Build, Design and Build and Integrated Project Delivery procurement

Figure 5.12: Different benefits over costs by different stakeholders from lifecycle application of BIM (self-created from information below, the figure is only a pictorial illustration and does not reflect any concrete values)

Figure 5.13: The three kinds of BIM contract amendments (self-created from information on the following page)

Figure 5.14: Deliverables of the BIM initiative (self-created from Information above)

Figure 5.15: The three central types of information material (various sources, indicated within the figure)

Figure 5.16: The Knock-on effect of the BIM mandate (self-created from information above)

Figure 6.1: Corruption Perceptions Index of Germany, UK, US and Finland between 2012 – 2017 on a scale of 0-100

Figure 6.2: Quality of electricity supply in Germany, UK, US and Finland between 2007/08 - 2017/18 on a scale of 1-7

Figure 6.3: 4G network coverage in Germany, UK, US and Finland in 2018 in percent

Figure 6.4: 4G average download speed in Germany, UK, US and Finland in 2018 in megabit per second

Figure 6.5: AEC industry value in Germany, UK, US and Finland between 2002 and 2017 in USD per person

Figure 6.6: Competition in the AEC industry, Five Forces analysis, in Germany, UK, US and Finland in 2018 on a scale of 1 -5

Figure 6.7: Share of survey respondents in the UK and US, claiming that missing client demand

Figure 6.8: BIM application amongst contractors in Germany, UK and US between 2009 and 2018 in percent

Figure 6.9: BIM application amongst architects in Germany, UK and US between 2009 and 2018 in percent

Figure 6.10: BIM application amongst engineers in Germany, UK and US between 2009 and 2018 in percent

Figure 6.11: Research and development expenditure in Germany, UK, US and Finland between 2012 and 2015 in percent of the GDP

Figure 6.12: Share of survey respondents that perceive a positive return on Investment for BIM

Figure 6.13: Average profit margins of the three largest construction firms in Germany, UK, US and Finland

Figure 6.14: Enterprise sizes by employees per size group in Germany, UK and US in percent

Figure 6.15: Structure of sectors in the AEC industry (self-created from information below)

Figure 6.16: Share of buildings in construction in Germany, UK and US between 2006 and 2019

Figure 6.17: Share of residential construction in construction in Germany, UK and US between 2006 and 2019

Figure 6.18: Share of non-residential construction in construction in Germany, UK and US between 2006 and 2019

Figure 6.19: Share of infrastructure in construction in construction in Germany, UK and US between 2006 and 2019

Figure 6.20: Processes BIM is applied on by surveyed BIM users in Germany and UK in 2015 in percentage of answers

Figure 6.21: Timeline of information management standards and IFC implementation (various sources, indicated within the figure)

Figure 6.22: Share of survey respondents indicating to use the IFC file format in Germany in 2015

Figure 6.23: Share of survey respondents indicating to use online BIM server in Germany in 2015

Figure 6.24: Procurement regulations in Germany, UK, US and Finland (self-created from information below)

Figure 6.25: Share of DBB, DB and IPD in overall procurement in UK in 2015 and 2018 and US in 2010 in percentage

Figure 6.26: Share of DB in public procurement in Germany in 2015 and US in 2012 in percentage

Figure 6.27: Comparison of copyright law in the US, UK, Finland and Germany (self-created from information below)

Figure 6.28: Timeline of templates for BIM contract amendments (various sources indicated in the figure)

Figure 6.29: Share of AEC programs offering BIM courses in Germany in 2015 and 2017,

Figure 6.30: Average number of AEC modules in AEC programs that include BIM in Germany in 2015 and 2017 and in the US in 2011

Figure 6.31: Structure and elements of the German BIM initiative (self-created from information below)

Figure 6.32: Structure and elements of the UK BIM initiative (self-created from information below)

Figure 6.33: Structure and elements of the US BIM initiative (self-created from information below)

Figure 6.34: Structure and elements of the Finish BIM initiative (self-created from information below)

Figure 6.35: Most important information sources on BIM in the UK and Germany

Figure 6.36: Annual spending administrated by the mandate's sponsor in Germany, the US and Finland in USD per person

Figure 6.37: Value of assets administrated by the mandate's sponsor in Germany, the US and Finland in USD per person

Figure 7.1: Influenceable and changeable structures in Germany and according actors (self-created from information below)

Figure 7.2: contractors response to the barriers to BIM in Germany (self-created from information below)

List of tables

Table 5‑1: Diffusion of Innovations Theory (various sources, indicated within the table)

Table 5‑2: Strategy for comprehensive inclusion of BIM in the curriculum of Institutions of higher education (various sources, indicated within the table)

Table 6‑1: Comparison of information management standards and technical standards from Germany, UK, US and Finland

Table 6‑2: Comparison of design management standards and modeling standards from Germany, UK, US and Finland

Table 6‑3: Comparison of templates between the UK, US, Finland and Germany (various sources indicated within the table)

Table 6‑4: Comparison of the BIM mandate in the UK, US, Finland and Germany (various sources, indicated within the table)

Sources

This work is based on comprehensive literature research and expert interviews. The degree of credibility of every source is always concerned when information is taken. If a statement of a source is doubtful, the matter and reasons are pointed out.

The method of citation corresponds to the specifications of the department for Construction Economics and Management of the Technical University of Braunschweig as well as agreements with the responsible supervisor of the department.

Citations are all indirect. The source is indicated by a footnote. A footnote that corresponds to a paragraph follows the paragraph after the last punctation mark. A footnote that corresponds to a sentence follows the last word of that sentence before the punctation mark. A footnote that corresponds to a subset follows the last word that subset before the comma or conjunction. A footnote that corresponds to a single word follows the word. These principles are not mixed within sentences. All footnotes within a sentence either only refer to a single word, a subset or the whole sentence.

1 Introduction

The fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0) is heralded^[1]. Digitisation is promising to interconnect the value chain and deliver higher quality and productivity for the whole industry^[2]. The stationary industry drives forward digitisation already for a significant time^[3] and achieved steep productivity increases over the years^[4]. In the AEC industry^[5], productivity is, however, declining^[6] and digitisation is only starting out^[7]. In the form of Building Information Modeling (BIM), a new drive of digitisation is now expected to turn this around and lead to a higher quality^[8] in project delivery in shorter time^[9] and with fewer costs^[10].

The initial position, and in many cases still the status quo, in the AEC industry is the exchange of two dimensional (2D) plans for information exchange at very limited points in time and with very limited information content^[11]. BIM is a concept of technology and methodology, that overarches the whole value chain of the AEC industry, including planning, construction, operation and more^[12]. It serves as a platform to digitally share information across this building lifecycle^[13], illustrated in Figure 1.1 below. Different stakeholders of the value chain optimising the project^[14] across these new channels and deriving the optimal data stock^[15] for their contribution at every point in time^[16] increases quality^[17] and productivity^[18].

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1.1: BIM as a platform to connect the value chain (self-created from information above)

Transition to this concept is initiated with stakeholders frequently sending each other BIM model files instead of 2D plans^[19]. Those BIM models are three dimensional (3D) representations of the planned geometry^[20], with additional information linked to each component^[21] and in a machine‑readable format to be generated and processed by software^[22]. Stakeholders thereby receive information in a form they can analyse and build on at a time they can still exert influence on the design^[23]. Further thought, this will go on to become a single BIM model consisting of connected contributions of different stakeholders, facilitating a constant interconnection^[24].

Once this platform for constant information exchange across the whole lifecycle is established, it is expected that technology will increasingly build on to it, to increase productivity and quality^[25]. Sensors, 3D scanners, drones and more can collect collecting increasing amounts of data on site and feed it to mobile devices and construction robots^[26].

Technologically, nothing has stood in the way of that transition for a long time^[27]. Yet, implementation in the AEC industry is dragging behind^[28]. To gain the full benefit of BIM, it has to interconnect the whole value chain^[29]. In the AEC industry, this is, however, mostly fragmented to several individual organisations^[30], as to be seen in Figure 1.2 below.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1.2: Fragmentation of the value chain and BIM (self-created from information above)

The business models of these individual organisations^[31], their individual know-how^[32], the standards^[33] and contracts^[34] that determine their interaction and the missing possibility for cooperation^[35] across their interfaces is slowing BIM implementation down. In consequence, while the long-term benefits of BIM are mostly clear, individual organisations are reluctant in fear about the short-term influence these hurdles still have^[36].

While all AEC industries face the challenge of fragmentation in general, different countries’ AEC industries are differently far in the process of digitisation. The German AEC industry in this regard is behind countries like the United States (US)^[37], the United Kingdom (UK)^[38] or Finland^[39]. It is therefore of great interest which structures are holding back Germany and how they can be overcome to benefit more from BIM.

The research question for this work consequently is:

“Why is Germany behind the UK, US and Finland in BIM and how can Germany catch up again?”

Over the years of the rise of BIM, numerous scientific papers have been written in various countries about structural barriers to BIM. Sometimes about structural barriers that exist in certain countries, like Becerik-Gerber / Rice’s (2010) “The perceived value of building Information Modeling in the U.S. Building Industry”, structural barriers that exist in certain areas, like Jeong et al.’s (2015) “BIM acceptance model in construction organisations”, or general investigations in structural barriers to BIM, like Azahr et al.’s (2017) “Building Information Modelling (BIM) uptake: Clear benefits, understanding its implementation, risks and challenges”. Scientific papers about structural barriers to BIM in Germany are, however, still rare and mostly in form of statistics, such as Braun et al. (2015).

To conduct a comprehensive search for structural barriers to BIM and corresponding solutions in Germany, an individual approach is hence chosen. In a broad international literature review, potential structural barriers to BIM are identified from different sources, such as the ones named above. On the basis of such possible barriers to BIM, a comparison of Germany with the BIM leading countries, UK, US and Finland is conducted. This shall reveal what structural barriers are in effect in Germany that are non-existent or already overcome in the other countries, to derive corresponding suggestions for Germany. Where a differentiation between market participants is necessary in this work, the focus is put on contractors^[40].

To conduct this research, the course of this work is chosen as the following. It starts in the second chapter with a roundup about BIM and its potential, to provide a common information base for this work. In the third chapter, it is then documented how the UK, US and Finland are ahead of Germany with regard to BIM. As the reasons for these countries’ advantage are to be found in a comparison with Germany, the methodology for such case study analysis is developed in the fourth chapter. Following this methodology, possible structural barriers to BIM of a countries AEC industry are identified in the fifth chapter. In the sixth chapter, the UK, US and Finland are compared with Germany according to these identified structural barriers, to find out where significant differences exist. Finally, in the seventh chapter, results of this comparison are analysed, to develop measures that can be transferred to Germany to reduce such structural barriers and improve Germany’s potential for BIM.

2 Building Information Modeling Roundup

In this chapter, a broad impression about the BIM method is meditated, that forms the basis for detailed examinations in the following chapters. It is outlined how the BIM method evolved, in connection with the rise of lean construction and digitization, how it can potentially transform project delivery in the AEC industry and what barriers are opposed to it. The first two sections explicitly describe the potential of BIM application, which, however, is rarely achieved. Where and why it is obstructed is dealt with in the third section.

Over centuries, building plans were drawn by hand, according to an established understanding^[41]. Over the last decades, building plans were drawn with digital CAD (Computer Aided Drafting) tools whose increased possibilities and reach necessitated the development of communication standards^[42]. The use of CAD tools is often seen as the last “revolution” in the AEC industry because it changed the productivity of developing and exchanging drawings^[43]. The primary means of planning and documentation, two-dimensional (2D) drawings, however, mostly remained the same as centuries before^[44]. Today, the AEC industry faces the next “revolution”, Building Information Modeling (BIM). This, however, develops the means of planning and documentation from 2D plans, lists and texts developed by single stakeholders towards intelligent building models, containing all relevant information and linking all relevant resources and recipients^[45].

In a BIM model, components are geometrically represented^[46]. Additional information is linked to each component, such as label, different categorisations, dependencies on other components and several more specifications i.e. regarding budget or schedule^[47]. This central structure of machine-readable information eases and partly automates accessing, processing and editing of information^[48].

Utilizing and facilitating this technical revolution affects all relevant processes and principles of planning and documentation^[49]. The BIM revolution is hence based on more than technology, it is a change in methodology.

2.1 Principles of the BIM methodology

To be seen in Figure 2.1 below is the significant influence of Lean Construction on the BIM method. Lean Construction refers to the adaption of the principles of the Toyota Production System on construction^[50]. The methodology focuses on the reduction of waste, increase of value and continuous improvement^[51] in processes. Lean construction involves a set of principles^[52], of which two are shared by the BIM method: integration^[53] and agility^[54]. BIM is, however, more than just its overlap with Lean Construction. It is also driven by the two principles of frictionless flow and lifecycle use of information^[55].

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2.1: The BIM principles overlapping Lean Construction (self-created from information above)

Integration, agility and the frictionless flow as well as lifecycle use of information are generally beneficial principles, as outlined below. The BIM methodology and BIM tools work on the basis of these principles and facilitate their success, which is outlined in the following section.

In traditional projects, stakeholders are engaged subsequently and rather independently^[56]. Applying the principle of integration means that stakeholders are involved together to work more parallelly and collaboratively in a collective process rather than isolated^[57]. Interfaces between stakeholders diminish^[58], coordination effort^[59] and competitive behaviour^[60] give way to straightforward close and frequent collaboration. This early involvement of stakeholders makes that all stakeholder’s know-how can be involved in the planning right from the beginning^[61]. Plans can be finalized and reviewed earlier, and mistakes or possible improvements detected early when changes can be made at low costs^[62]. Less time and higher quality of project delivery are the result^[63].

The principle of agility includes that changes are fast and easy implementable^[64] and information requirements are served just in time^[65]. Downtime in construction can be reduced significantly when plans are adapted and distributed soon after problems are detected, facilitated by automation and connection of systems^[66].

The principles of information flow and lifecycle use of information are set to break the current information losses in construction projects. Information from one stakeholder that is of value for another, can finally be made accessible, as part of comprehensive sharing of information. All valuable information developed or gathered is transferred across interfaces of project stakeholders and is made available in all phases that it can be applied wherever necessary in the lifecycle of a project.^[67]

Resulting from these principles is also the high quality and richness of machine-readable information as well as their partially automated processing. This facilitates simulations and iterative planning for better design decisions based on lifecycle value. It further enables fast and accurate implementation of design changes, data analytics for construction management and digitisation and automation in asset operation.^[68]

These principles directly transfer to the BIM use cases^[69] of different stakeholders in different project phases. These use cases are assigned to the project phase or stakeholder they are most important to, according to their reference in the literature. They are, however, not limited to these phases or stakeholders. The separate presentation of BIM use cases for each stakeholder must not hide that all principles of BIM that are elaborated above are based on interaction throughout the project lifecycle, either between professionals of one firm or between stakeholders of a project. Consequently, to make the most of each stakeholders potential BIM benefits that are described below, each stakeholder also depends on the other^[70]. Within this work, this is called the life cycle benefit of BIM.

2.2 BIM project lifecycle

The three main stakeholders of a project are client, planner^[71] and contractor, one each taking the lead in one of the four subsequent project phases^[72]. In this section BIM application is structured with regard to these project phases and stakeholders according to Figure 2.2 below.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2.2: Structure of project phases and stakeholders to illustrate BIM application (self-created from information below)

2.2.1 Preliminary Planning with BIM

During preliminary planning, the most important role is played by the client, as decision maker^[73]. Early stakeholder involvement pushes the level of planning in this early phase and, more importantly, facilitates a deep enough planning level from each stakeholder required for early BIM applications^[74]. As a result, BIM tools can use the increased level of planning to substantially improve the clients decision-making process^[75],^[76],^[77],^[78]. The client must, however, be prepared to make design decisions earlier, to enable these early planning processes^[79].

BIM applications improving the clients decision-making basis are manifold. Visualisation of the design intend for revision is more effective with a building model^[80],^[81], or even a 3D digital walkthrough of the planned building^[82]. Based on different models, different design alternatives can be visualised and analysed quickly to be compared^[83]. Automated simulations and analysis tools facilitate a quick and fact-based comparison^[84]. Sustainability of the building can be evaluated^[85], i.e. by simulation of expected energy consumption^[86],^[87]. Space management can be optimised applying corresponding tools^[88]. Early involved maintenance personnel can review the maintainability of the drafted building and suggest adaption^[89] on the basis of the model^[90], i.e. by evaluating the accessibility of certain machines to certain places^[91].

Following the preliminary planning, the client, or the one he entrusts it with, must manage an increasing number of stakeholders, plans and tasks throughout the planning and construction process^[92]. The comprehensive and structured information flow with BIM and its analysis with BIM tools can support project management^[93] by i.e. providing financial or progress data^[94].

2.2.2 Planning with BIM

In result of the client’s decision for a design, planning specialists are involved to develop detailed building plans on that basis^[95].

Application of the BIM method supports the planner^[96]. Yet, it also shifts more planning effort to their, especially early, planning stage^[97]. The overall project, including construction and operation, however, benefits from reduced effort and higher quality of planning^[98]. Tools for planning and data analysis enhance efficiency^[99],^[100]. The high-quality planning outcome facilitates overall time and cost reduction for the project by reduction of errors and omissions from deficient or defective planning^[101].

Modelling with BIM is not automatically easier than 2D drawing, it depends on the use of symbioses in the planning process. BIM models contain way more information than a 2D building section^[102], making it more laborious to develop^[103]. Yet, coming from the readily modelled component, BIM tools ease the modelling process. For example, planners can build up own, or use external, libraries of components, such as doors, windows, or even rooms, to reuse once designed content^[104]. This is facilitated, because components can be modelled with dependent dimensions, automatically adapting accordingly when one is changed^[105]. This extensively eases the implementation of design changes as well^[106],^[107].

Increasing collaboration between stakeholders is necessary for frictionless flow and lifecycle use of information, facilitated, amongst others, due to their parallel involvement in the project^[108]. The number of these stakeholders increases from the beginning of the planning phase^[109] especially due to their parallel involvement^[110]. Apart from the main stakeholders that were already planning and consulting during preliminary planning, several specialists now have to be managed additionally^[111]. This management is supported by various BIM applications^[112]. Examples are given below.

Just as in preliminary planning, stakeholders regularly review and contribute to each other’s planning to eliminate errors and implement optimisations early^[113]. Throughout the planning process, the federated domain-specific BIM models of these stakeholders are merged into a coordination model for such collective design review, including automated clash detection, and other design management functions.^[114] Optimisation potential can be detected by application of analysis tools, such as automated quantity take-off^[115], automated estimating^[116], automated scheduling^[117], thermodynamic^[118] and fire safety^[119] simulation or structural calculations^[120]. As a vast variety of component-related information can be stored in a model, more and more BIM tools are developed to automatically analyse them, such as automated inspection regarding the building code^[121]. In this regard is the contractor’s know-how is of high importance^[122],^[123]. Through design reviews with the contractor the planning can be optimised significantly i.e. regarding plant access or general buildability^[124].

Due to the parallel involvement of stakeholders and continuous information exchange, these design reviews can take place more regularly^[125]. This prevents misunderstandings and planning mistakes from the outset, before they lead to further damage^[126]. It also initiates iterative planning, because errors are eliminated, and optimisations implemented frequently^[127].

In spite of many stakeholders being involved from the beginning for consulting and parallel planning, stakeholder’s deliverables in the planning phase often build up on each other. Due to the principle of information sharing, however, stakeholders can build upon data-rich models of their predecessors. The structural engineer, for example, can take over large parts of the architectural model, saving laborious modelling.^[128]

Currently, this exchange and transfer of information with BIM mostly is the exchange of BIM model files. BIM model files have to be exchanged back and forth, between various stakeholders at numerous points. To make this possible, a Common Data Environment (CDE) must be established between the stakeholders. The CDE is a technical and methodical common ground between all stakeholders, assuring that information sent by one stakeholder is the same as information received by another.^[129]

Described file-based communication between stakeholders is increasingly replaced by server-based BIM application^{[130] [131]}. File-based communication involves every stakeholder developing and maintaining their own domain-specific BIM model file, of which they send copied files to other stakeholders, to be i.e. merged into a coordination model^[132]. With server-based application, a single, or few, central coordination models exist on a server, to be accessed and edited by several, or all stakeholders^[133]. Design steps taken by any stakeholder are communicated and possibly implemented automatically and in real-time^[134]. Cutting down on laborious manual file export and import for communication of these design steps hence significantly increases productivity in planning^[135].

2.2.3 Construction with BIM

Application of the BIM method, especially contractor’s early involvement, provides advanced high-quality planning at the end of the planning phase^[136]. This quality and richness of machine-readable information can be built on by stakeholders in the following phases^[137]. Authorities could utilize the model to check its accordance with the building code and other regulations. First automated code-checking tools for authorities are available and constantly developed further.^[138] In traditional procurement the model can be applied to enrich the tender process for construction with digital information, improving bidders price estimates and reducing ambiguities about the assignment.^[139]

2.2.3.1 The contractor’s application of BIM

The contractor is the most important stakeholder in the construction phase^[140]. The contractor can beneficially apply BIM technology and methodology in various ways throughout his engagement^[141].

The planning of execution by the contractor is significantly eased, as he receives a detailed planning, with little need for enhancement^[142]. This planning is already revised from a contractor’s perspective^[143],^[144], reducing late changes that would cause rework^[145] and thereby supplementary claims against the client^[146] and possibly delays^[147]. As this information is machine-readable, it can be imported by contractor’s systems with less effort^[148]. In preparation of construction, visualisation of the construction site in different phases assists manual Health and Safety checking (H&S). Automated tools for H&S checks are under development as well.^[149] The quantity take-off from geometric and other component’s information in the model can be automated due to their machine-readability^[150]. The automated quantity take-off can prepare large parts of the bill of quantities^[151].

Enrichment of the model data with information about time (4D)^[152] and costs (5D)^[153], i.e. the cost of a component’s material and the chronology and time needed for their production or installation, scheduling and estimating can be largely automated. Automated cost estimates combine the digital cost and quantity information from the model^[154]. Specialised tools, calculating optimized schedules from digital information, were widely used even before BIM erupted^[155]. BIM tools now allow the connection of schedule elements with BIM components to visualise the planned construction process for revision^[156]. Automated data delivery from the model to scheduling applications is, yet, still under development^[157]. Automated scheduling and estimating are more precise than manual, as human errors are diminished^[158]. Due to minimized human effort^[159] it can be done in more detail and repetitive, to compare different alternatives and reflect their impact on schedule and budget^[160].

Visualisation of the construction site during different construction phases, supported by precise and model-linked schedules, also assist with the planning of site logistics. This prevents geometric or time interferences between different arriving, transported, stored or removed goods, between different works or between goods and works.^[161]

The detailed, precise and machine-readable information of each component, delivered with BIM planning, can be applied for prefabrication^[162]. Thereby reduced planning effort for the manufacturer^[163] makes it an even more worthwhile method that reduces production cost and increases quality^[164].

During execution of construction, the most important aspect BIM assists the contractor with is construction management^[165]. Easily accessible component related information^[166] and visualisation of such component’s location^[167] and time lapse^[168], are available for construction management tasks. Multi-trade coordination^[169],^[170], briefing subcontractors^[171] and explaining the construction procedures^[172] as well as governance of site logistics^[173] are significantly supported. BIM model data can be accessed on site at field offices^[174],^[175] and via hand-held devices^[176],^[177]. 2D paper plans can automatically and instantly generated from the latest model for every section necessary^[178].

Documentation and supervision of the construction progress on site is supported by the BIM method and technology as well^[179]. A key facilitator of these applications is the laser-scanning technology^[180]. Laser scanners can record the shape of the construction site through a cloud of data points^[181]. This as-build geometry can be compared to the as-planned BIM model by software applications, to report the construction progress or deviations from the plan^[182], which is important for controlling and accounting^[183],^[184],^[185]. Preparation of the as-build BIM model further serves the adjustment of measurements for prefabricated components^[186] as well as information transfer to the operations phase^[187]. Applying the visual model and component related information for the final acceptance, it is also easier to locate or identify a component on site^[188] to i.e. add deficits descriptions to the component-related information^[189].

In view of the numerous current research projects, it can as well be expected that autonomous construction machines, working on the basis of a BIM model, will join the digitized construction site in the near future^[190].

2.2.4 Operation with BIM

Digitisation is also ongoing in facilities operation. Information systems, i.e. energy controlling systems, require vast input about the building, such as floor plans, materials, installations, etc.^[191]. With receiving this information machine-readable from the planning or construction phase, as suitable BIM models, much of the laborious information gathering for operation is no longer required^[192].

The BIM model can be applied in operation for many more tasks that included laborious manual tasks before. The location of components for preventive and corrective maintenance is eased through visualisation of the component as part of the model^[193]. Retrieving of component-related information, as well as editing component-related information, are eased, as they are linked to the component in the model^[194]. Component-related information delivered upon completion, combined with such edited throughout operation, can be automatically analysed i.e. for predictive maintenance^[195].

2.3 Structural barriers to BIM

Above described world of opportunities of BIM application is often only a vision still. The structures of an AEC industries hold many barriers that hamper BIM application and diminish its benefit. These structures are the subject of this work.

If one would have to describe the structures of a country’s AEC industry, it would probably be mostly about the existence of the main groups of market participants: clients, contractors, planners, and their characteristic ways of delivering projects, collectively or independently. Yet, there are in fact numerous other structures that characterize a country’s AEC industry. Too many to be described in entirety within the scope of this work. However, the scope of this work includes only such structures of AEC industries that significantly influence BIM diffusion. These are identified in comprehensive literature research and presented in the following chapter. As to be seen in Figure 2.3 below, structural barriers regarding relevant market participants as well as regarding project delivery, market conditions and institutions are identified. These hence form the structure of this work’s examination in chapter five and six and are illustrated below.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2.3: Structure of structural barriers to BIM (self-created from information above)

Implementation of BIM method and BIM technology is a major business decision for most market participants. Many are reluctant to take the step because market conditions do not give enough reason to expect promising benefits from BIM implementation. (cf. 5.1)

Market participants in the AEC industry are manifold, with various different business models. An innovative approach, sufficient resources as well as a portfolio that promises beneficial application of the BIM methodology and technology are factors to benefit from BIM implementation. Many companies’ business models currently do not fulfil these requirements, preventing them from adopting BIM. (cf. 5.2)

Project delivery with BIM means that stakeholders have to get much closer together than before and intertwine their project delivery processes. Stakeholders of construction projects are, however, mostly separated firms with own processes that often only come together for the single project, leaving limited chance for harmonisation^[196]. To achieve conformity of stakeholder’s processes, the standards, stakeholders base their processes upon, must give sufficient instructions on BIM (cf. 5.3.1). Contracts between the stakeholders of a project must further align stakeholders on application of BIM standards and other collective BIM aspects (cf. 5.3.2). Appropriate standards and contracts are, however, still rare (cf. 6.3.2.3).

In many countries, institutions are working on removing structural barriers of BIM. These institutions are no market participants themselves, but decisively influence market participants and their way of project delivery. Education institutions are building up necessary knowledge resources by educating AEC professionals. Industrial and governmental BIM initiative^[197] s provide further information resources. Both inform individuals to accomplish a change in business models. Initiatives further develop the required standards and contracts and influence market conditions i.e. through public procurement. Yet, the progress of such institutions is often showing only little success. (cf. 5.4)

2.4 Resume

In this chapter, the principles of the BIM methodology are presented. The potential of beneficial application of BIM methodology and technology in the AEC industry is demonstrated. Finally, the structures of the AEC industry, currently preventing these benefits, are sketched. Aim of this work is to identify and analyse these restraining structures in countries’ AEC industries, in Germany and the countries that lead in BIM. Those are compared, to find out where a lever can be applied to reduce structural BIM barriers in Germany. Consequently, the following chapter identifies which countries are leading in BIM to prepare for their comparison.

3 Research basis of the work

In this chapter, three BIM leading countries are identified from literature. Their leadership position in BIM and their edge over Germany are illustrated through compilation of related BIM statistics.

From a technical point of view, above described vison of building with BIM could be in full progress. Yet, structural barriers of different countries’ AEC industries hold back these developments, as it can be seen in Germany^[198]. Some countries are, however, very progressive in building with BIM. The US is a global leader^[199] and Europe is headed by the UK, followed by Finland^[200]. All three are far ahead of Germany^[201]. In Figure 3.1 below, results of different BIM surveys from these countries are compiled, illustrating this backlog.

Results from MHC’s (2010) “Business Value of BIM in Europe”^[202], MHC’s (2012) “Business Value of BIM in North America”^[203], NBS’s (2013) International BIM Report^[204], NBS’s (2018) A National BIM Report^[205] and Braun et al.’s (2015) BIM Report^[206] are gathered, about the share of their respondents from the AEC industry that indicate to apply BIM in general.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 3.1: Share of surveyed AEC professionals applying BIM in Germany in 2010 and 2015, in the UK between 2011 and 2018, in the US in 2007, 2009 and 2012 and in Finland in 2007 and 2013 in percent

Figure 3.1 on the previous page shows a comprehensive set of data about BIM user numbers in the UK, yet only two to three data points each for Germany, the US and Finland. However, two data points with adequate distance are sufficient to recognize a trend, as the UK’s example shows that such developments can realistically follow an almost linear course. The timeline represented for the different countries deviates as well but overlaps enough to draw a comparison. The beginning of the BIM era might date back further than 2007. Previous data was, however, not accessible and consideration of the last 11 years is sufficient to illustrate significant BIM trends in the considered countries. Unfortunately, MHC’s (2012) “Business Value of BIM in North America” does not distinguish between the US and Canada in this regard. The same study, however, presents general BIM application numbers distinguished between Canada and the US, which differ negligibly little. Consequently, the numbers presented in Figure 3.1 above for the US and Canada can be taken as representative only for the US as well.

It can be seen in Figure 3.1 that the trendline for BIM application in Germany is slightly falling. As BIM gets more popular even in Germany^[207],^[208],^[209],^[210], this is unrealistic. Yet, the two data points representing the state in Germany are gathered by two different surveys with rather different methods. Deviation in capturing the reality is hence likely to be blamed for this anomality. Both are recognized studies; the deviation can hence be estimated as small. Consequently, it can be expected that BIM applicants’ numbers are slightly growing instead of slightly falling in Germany. Results from the UK and Finland are of two different studies as well, they do, however, get together realistically.

It becomes clear from Figure 3.1, that at the beginning of the recording, BIM application was noticeably higher in Finland than in the UK, US or Germany. Yet, the difference in 2007 was still low. It was since then, that BIM application in the US and later in the UK experienced a steep rise. BIM application in Finland and Germany, however, only increased little. While the US has overtaken Finland by now and the UK reached Finland’s level, BIM application in Germany remains comparatively low.

As the sheer indication of BIM application does not imply to what extend the respondents apply BIM, additional statistics are consulted. In Figure 3.2 below, results of MHC’s (2010) “Business Value of BIM in Europe”^[211] and MHC’s (2012) “Business Value of BIM in North America”^[212], as well as Braun et al.’s (2015) BIM Report^[213] and Kaiser’s (2018) BIM Report^[214] are compiled. It shows the share of BIM applicants that indicate to apply BIM on more than 30% of their projects.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 3.2: Share of surveyed BIM user applying it for more than 30% of their projects in Germany in 2010, 2015 and 2018, in UK in 2010, 2017 and 2018 and US in 2009, 2012 and 2014 in percentage

While the amount of data presented in Figure 3.2 above is comparable to the foregone comparison, it stands out that last data points for the UK and Germany only correspond to >25% rather than >30% of projects. However, this is negligible as application numbers in the US are higher anyway, and >25% data points of the UK and Germany can be directly compared.

Examining Figure 3.2 above, it stands out that the development of deeper BIM application deviates less between the countries. Yet, it is the same ranking as above. Also, regarding deeper BIM application, the US is leading the way and Germany falls back behind the UK.

The statistics assembled above substantiate the initial claim that Germany is behind the UK, US and Finland in BIM application, even more comprehensive BIM application. Yet, at first glance there are no obvious reasons for this. The German industry is considered to industrialise faster^[215], and the GDP per capita does not identify the German industry as to be significantly weaker than of the other countries^[216]. Specific structural barriers must hence exist in Germany that cause this backlog in BIM behind the UK, US and Finland.

3.1 Resume

In this chapter, the UK, US and Finland are identified as BIM leading countries. It is shown that in Germany, the share of BIM applicants, as well as the share of applicants that apply BIM more comprehensively, is lower than in at least most of the leading countries. The reasons for Germany’s backlog in BIM have to be found in the specific structures of Germany’s AEC industry. The structures of Germany’s, the US’s, UK’s and Finland’s AEC industry must hence be compared. In the following chapter a methodology for this comparison is developed.

4 Methodology of the work

The research method chosen to answer the main question of this work is the case study method. The AEC industries of Germany, the UK, US and Finland are the cases to be compared and reasons for their different development regarding BIM are to be concluded. The following section gives reasons why the case study method is the best possible research method to apply for this work. Literature from different experts in the field of case study research is consulted, for a consistent proof of applicability. Further, a research strategy is developed in accordance with this expert literature.

Robert K. Yin (2018) is a long-standing and perhaps the most famous expert in the field of case study research^[217]. His latest guidebook “Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods” forms a major foundation for the creation of the strategy of this research. Second major source is Jillian Dawes Farquhar’s (2012) “Case Study Research for Business”, a guidebook focusing on case study research in business science, as more specific complement to Yin’s general approach^[218]. To complete the thorough research, Bingemer et. al.’s (2004) chapter, describing case study research as part of economic science, is included^[219], as well as John Gerring’s (2014) critical article, focussing on the limitations of case study research^[220].

Case Study research is a relatively young methodology that originated in social science^[221] but is spreading since^[222],^[223],^[224]. It is meanwhile quite established in the humanities, such as psychology, sociology or political science^[225]. In business science^[226], community planning^[227] and even in civil engineering^[228] it gains momentum, where Borner’s (2004) dissertation about knowledge management in construction companies stands out. The comparison of different countries^[229],^[230],^[231] regarding a specific phenomenon, i.e. the maturity of an industry^[232], is a typical application for case study research.

While definitions might differ in detail, all consulted authors define case study research as an empirical method, which is applied to study contemporary phenomena, that can only be studied within its context, not separated^[233],^[234],^[235],^[236]. This research method combines different kinds of tools and sources^[237],^[238]. The data included can either be qualitative or quantitative and originate from an array of different sources^[239],^[240], such as documents, interviews and observations^[241]. Case study research must, however, be distinguished from other forms of non-research case studies^[242],^[243],^[244]. As every research method, case study research follows a distinct methodology^[245]. Case studies for teaching or exemplary purposes do not follow a distinct methodology^[246],^[247]. The necessary steps of a case study analysis are presented in Figure 4.1 below.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4.1: Sequence of a case study analysis (self-created from information below)

à The case study starts with the development of the research question, connecting known facts and outstanding issues^[248],^[249]. Applicability of the case study method for this research question must be justified thereafter^[250],^[251],^[252].

à Apart from the case study question^[253] several background aspects need to be proven, gathered or developed as well, to lay the ground for the case study^[254],^[255],^[256]: framework^[257],^[258], cases^[259] and evidence^[260].

à As background aspects are given, information can be compiled for the analysis of the cases. Type^[261], structure^[262]. and scope^[263] of this information must be chosen according to the methodology.

à Results are then drawn from the collected information, about the studied phenomenon and identified causes^[264],^[265].

4.1.1 Development of the research question

The appropriate research question for a case study analysis is a “How?” or “Why?” question, asking for a reason rather than a condition^[266],^[267],^[268]. Certainly, there are descriptive case studies as well, that ask “How?” or “Who?”, to just describe a phenomenon^[269],^[270],^[271]. Gerring (2014) however, sees this as a simple preliminary stage^[272]. An advanced case study analysis, advocated by all concerned authors and advantaging the strengths of case study research, reveals and explains the processes within a complex phenomenon^[273],^[274],^[275],^[276]. The logic cause-effect relationships, that make up a phenomenon, hence need to be found, explained and proofed^[277],^[278],^[279],^[280].

The research question formulated in the introduction to this study is:

“Why is Germany behind the UK, US and Finland in BIM and how can Germany catch up again?”

In the foregone chapter, the necessary facts are already laid out: the UK, US and Finland are ahead of Germany regarding BIM (cf. 3). The question hence appropriately is “WHY?” is Germany behind and “HOW?” can this be changed. A case study analysis is hence the appropriate methodology to solve the research question of this work about the structures within the German AEC Industry that affect BIM diffusion.

4.1.2 Examination of background aspects

The background aspects that need to be given, proven or developed for the application of the case study method are an appropriate framework, suitable cases and adequate sources.

4.1.2.1 Examination of the framework

For the given framework to be suitable for a case study it must fit the characteristics of a case study. These characteristics are determined in comparison to other research methods^[281],^[282]. Other than with experiments or surveys, in case study research there is no possible influence on the events or their context^[283],^[284]. This makes it impossible to study the phenomenon within a specified and neutral environment^[285],^[286]. Different from surveys, case study research does include different information and sources about few cases rather than similar information and sources about many cases^[287]. Only by this, case study research enables to understand, describe and explain complex phenomena rather than making statements about the sum of a population^[288],^[289].

The investigated phenomenon in this study, different countries’ different success in BIM diffusion, can obviously not be influenced in the course of this work and hence need to be studied in its natural context, these countries’ AEC industries. Reasons for different countries’ different success in BIM are hidden in the complex structures of these AEC industries. Such reasons are as well interconnected rather than isolated. For example, institutions are differently developing standards and market participants are differently dependent on standards. The limited number of Germany and the leading countries in BIM must hence be analysed thoroughly and be compared as a whole. Consequently, the framework of this study matches the characteristics of a case study analysis.

4.1.2.2 Choice of cases

It is, known from the introduction which countries are chosen to be applied as cases in this study (cf. 1). Nonetheless, it must be explained why countries are the most appropriate form of cases and why these specific countries are chosen^[290],^[291].

Overall, cases must be chosen that enable to answer the research question^[292],^[293] and allow for generalisation of findings^[294],^[295],^[296]. The chosen cases must therefore be situated between similarity and variety. They must be homogeneous enough to be comparable^[297],^[298] but different enough to distinguish effective structures from general characteristics^[299],^[300]. Specifically, homogenous cases that show the same results of a phenomena, make it possible to highlight similar and neglect varying structures as possible causes for the phenomenon^[301]. Varying cases with different results on the contrary, make it possible to look for deviating structures and neglect similarities^[302],^[303]. The chosen cases must as well be similar enough to the cases the study findings are to be applied on^[304].

The chosen form of cases for this work is countries. Other possible forms are larger regions, such as North America or Central Europe, or smaller regions, such as provinces. Countries are the best form of cases for this study, as many structures of AEC industries reach up to the country’s border, such as national laws or public clients. Further, information on BIM adoption is mostly collected on national basis.

The case of Germany is, obviously, chosen as a varying case. The varying phenomenon is its low success in BIM diffusion. Its differences in structures to other countries, that are responsible for the different phenomenon, are to be identified in this work. Three leading BIM countries, the UK, US and Finland (cf. 3), are chosen as homogenous cases. The phenomenon, their success in BIM diffusion, is significantly different between them and the varying case, Germany. This substantiates identified cause-effect relationships between the phenomenon and specific structures. Several homogeneous cases are chosen, as it backs up the identified cause-effect relationships in case the same are found in several of the homogeneous cases or allows exclusion of single exceptions, further outlined more in (cf. 4.1.3.3).

As the findings about differences between Germany and other countries are only to be applied for statements about Germany, generalisability is sufficiently given. Similarity and variety of the chosen cases are demonstrated not in advance, but throughout the study. Therefore, it is clearly illustrated in which of the examined aspects the concerned countries are homogeneous, and in which aspects they significantly deviate.

4.1.2.3 Choice of sources

It is mentioned in the beginning, that one strength of case study research is the ability to include various kinds of sources and information^[305],^[306], qualitative, quantitative or both^[307]. However, all concerned authors narrow these down to the same five possible kinds of sources: documents, archival records, interviews, observations and physical artefacts^[308],^[309],^[310]. Yin (2018) claims that there is no advantage of one of these sources over the others^[311]. While Farquhar (2013) sees observations as possible but less suitable, compared to the other^[312].

Sources applied for the cases in this work are documents and interviews. The documents include survey reports, scientific publications, publications or online representations of organisations, market data and statistical data. These two forms of sources are not applied separately but primarily on the same aspects, to back each other up and balance each other’s disadvantages.

Documents are secondary sources^[313]. Advantages of documents are that they are precise^[314], stable^[315] and unobstructed^[316]. The disadvantages documents entail are, that they are often compiled with a selective view for a different research objective^[317],^[318], credibility of the data is difficult to prove^[319],^[320] and the researcher might not have full understanding about the meaning of the secondary data^[321]. Consequently, for applying data from documents, suitability of the data to serve the research objectives must be established^[322], the credibility^[323] of the data must be demonstrated, i.e. through a credible source^[324], and the data might have to be transformed to be understandable for the reader in the cause of the analysis^[325].

Interviews, as primary data, directly focus on the study^[326] and can provide explanations in addition to information^[327]. interviewees can suggest cause-effect theories^[328] and control the findings^[329]. Disadvantages of interviews are that they might reflect a biased and inaccurate personal view^[330] and that false questions, formulations or notes might tamper the information^[331]. To support the credibility of the answers, the choice of interviewees should be motivated^[332].

For the documents to be applied, the credibility of the source is supported by selecting and naming a credible source. Mostly only data, facts and clear statements are taken from the documents to avoid possibly biased interpretation. The data received is transformed to serve the purpose of this study. The applicability, comprehensiveness and significance of the data is discussed wherever applied. Corresponding interviews are applied to confirm or confute the data, facts and statements.

In term, documents are applied to confirm the interview data, and different interviews are applied to confirm each other. Significance of each interview is illustrated by a description of the interviewee’s suitability in the form of expertise and experience in the list of interviewees. Not every interviewee might have information on every topic. When information regarding a certain aspect only comes from a limited number of interviewees, this means that information was not available from others, not that others contradicted these statements. Contradictions between the interviewees are pointed out clearly.

The interviewees are chosen according to the following strategy. To assure the interviewees expertise, experts were chosen that hold a position as BIM specialist and preferably show other relevant experience within the field of digital planning and construction. To cover all countries and most of the decisive stakeholders, from every concerned country one stakeholder each was chosen with a background at a contractor and a planner. Wherever possible, experts were chosen that have experience from two of the concerned countries, enabling them to directly compare the structure. In addition, a BIM expert from a BIM association in Germany and a BIM expert from a major public client in Germany are chosen, to widen the perspective for Germany as this is the country in focus. Last, an expert of BIM in academia in Finland and the UK is included as well. Consulted experts and their background can be seen in Figure 4.2 below.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4.2: Background of chosen interviewees (after list of interviewees)

4.1.3 Analysis of the cases

As all background aspects are established, it must be developed how and which information regarding the cases are compiled for the following comparative analysis. This first implies the decision whether existing theories should be investigated, and information gathered accordingly, or theories be drawn from comprehensive case comparison. Following, the scope of the information to be collected must be defined and a possible substructure developed.

4.1.3.1 Testing of existing theories

There is consensus amongst the concerned authors that case studies offer the possibility to either look for new cause-effect theories or to confirm, or respectively confute, existing cause-effect theories^[333],^[334],^[335]. Conformation or confutation of existing theories is referred to by most of the concerned authors as “pattern matching”^[336],^[337],^[338]. These patterns are known cause-effect theories^[339],^[340],^[341]. The causes and effects, described by those theories, are, if possible, identified within the applied cases and their particular relationship analysed^[342],^[343].

While pattern matching does not rule out the development of new theories^[344], the trade-off between an exploratory or confirmatory case study must be concerned by the research strategy^[345]. The limitation to known cause-effect theories entails the danger of artificially narrowing the scope of the study only regarding those theories^[346],^[347]. Excluding information from the scope must hence be thoroughly justified^[348], its risk considered^[349], and the information applied still has to be searched for other cause-effect relationships^[350]. The latter might be additional causes for the same or other effects^[351] or rival theories that contradict the known cause-effect relationships^[352],^[353].

Illustrating the whole of a countries AEC industry to develop cause-effect relationships from it would exceed the scope of this work by far. In view of the numerous scientific works that already identify cause-effect relationships of structural barriers that influence BIM diffusion (cf. 1) it stands to reason that these theories are tested, to find out which ones are responsible for Germany’s backlog in BIM. The following chapter hence compiles known cause-effect relationships in BIM diffusion through literature research. To avoid an artificial narrowing of the scope, this literature research is very broad, and Interviewees are asked for additional or rival cause-effect theories.

[...]

---

^[1] cf. DIN (n.d.) C n.p.

^[2] cf. DIN (n.d.) C n.p.

^[3] cf. Bahner (2016) p. 1

^[4] cf. Barszcz / Walasek (2017) p. 1228

^[5] The AEC industry is the sum of industries of architecture, Engineering and Construction, according to Bass (2017) n.p.

^[6] cf. Barszcz / Walasek (2017) p. 1228

^[7] cf. Bahner (2016) p. 1

^[8] cf. BMVI (2015) A p. 1

^[9] cf. Pleines (n.d.) p. 1

^[10] cf. Kumar (2015) p. 32

^[11] cf. Succar (2009) p. 364

^[12] cf. Succar (2009) p. 357

^[13] cf. Hoff et al. (2017) p. 5

^[14] cf. Castagnino et al. (2016) p. 8

^[15] cf. Castagnino et al. (2016) p. 8

^[16] cf. Castagnino et al. (2016) p. 11

^[17] cf. Castagnino et al. (2016) p. 10

^[18] cf. Castagnino et al. (2016) p. 10

^[19] cf. Succar (2009) p. 364

^[20] cf. Beetz et al.(2015)B p. 93

^[21] cf. Beetz et al.(2015)B p. 93

^[22] cf. Beetz et al.(2015)B p. 3

^[23] cf. Succar (2009) p. 364

^[24] cf. Succar (2009) p. 365

^[25] cf. Castagnino et al. (2016) p. 3

^[26] cf. Castagnino et al. (2016) p. 5

^[27] cf. Bjork / Howard (n.d.) p. 50

^[28] cf. Bjork / Howard (n.d.) p. 50

^[29] cf. Hoff et al. (2017) p. 15

^[30] cf. Hoff et al. (2017) p. 5

^[31] cf. Hoff et al. (2017) p. 17

^[32] cf. Hoff et al. (2017) p. 17

^[33] cf. Hoff et al. (2017) p. 18

^[34] cf. Hoff et al. (2017) p. 17

^[35] cf. Barszcz / Walasek (2017) p. 1228

^[36] cf. Hoff et al. (2017) p. 17

^[37] cf. Cheng / Lu (2015) p. 443

^[38] cf. Di Giuda et al. (2015) p. 79

^[39] cf. Di Giuda et al. (2015) p. 79

^[40] Contractors is a common term for construction companies, according to Wikipedia (2019) I n.p.

^[41] Interview with Ron Allen on 25.04.2019

^[42] Interview with Ron Allen on 25.04.2019

^[43] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 120

^[44] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 120

^[45] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) B p. 93

^[46] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) B p. 93

^[47] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) B p. 93

^[48] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) B p. 3

^[49] cf. König (2015) p. 57

^[50] cf. Dave et al. (2010) p. 968

^[51] cf. Dave et al. (2010) p. 968

^[52] cf. Dave et al. (2010) p. 970

^[53] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 144

^[54] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 145

^[55] cf. Gu et al. (2014) p. 199

^[56] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 144

^[57] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 144

^[58] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 144

^[59] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 145

^[60] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 144

^[61] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 145

^[62] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 145

^[63] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 145

^[64] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 145

^[65] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 146

^[66] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 146

^[67] cf. Gu et al. (2014) p. 200

^[68] cf. Arayici / Khosrowshahi (2012) p. 626

^[69] A BIM use case is the purpose of BIM application on a project, according to HOCHTIEF Vicon (n.d.) n.p.

^[70] cf. Design Buildings Wiki (2018) D

^[71] In this work, architects and engineers are summarized as planners,

opposite to contractors that are focused more on execution.

^[72] cf. Brogden et al. (2012) p. 1

^[73] cf. Nical / Wodynski (2016) p. 300

^[74] cf. Arayici / Khosrowshahi (2012) p. 626 While “BIM application” refers to the application of BIM methodology and technology in general, “BIM applications” mean the application of specific software for specific tasks, according to Wikipedia (2019) J n.p.

^[75] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[76] cf. Arayici / Khosrowshahi (2012) p. 625

^[77] cf. Gu et al. (2014) p. 199

^[78] cf. Fischer / Jungedeitering (2015) p. 11

^[79] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[80] cf. Gu et al. (2014) p. 199

^[81] cf. Fischer / Jungedeitering (2015) p. 11

^[82] cf. Arayici / Khosrowshahi (2012) p. 625

^[83] cf. Arayici / Khosrowshahi (2012) p. 625

^[84] cf. MHC (2014) p. 38

^[85] cf. MHC (2014) p. 38

^[86] cf. Nical / Wodynski (2016) p. 302

^[87] cf. Becerik-Gerber et al. (2012) p. 437

^[88] cf. Becerik-Gerber et al. (2012) p. 347

^[89] cf. Nical / Wodynski (2016) p. 300

^[90] cf. Becerik-Gerber et al. (2012) p. 435

^[91] cf. Becerik-Gerber et al. (2012) p. 435

^[92] cf. Eastman et al. (2011) p. 4f

^[93] cf. Schaper / Tulke (2015) A p. 244

^[94] cf. Schaper / Tulke (2015) B p. 418

^[95] cf. Eastman et al. (2011) p. 6

^[96] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 5

^[97] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[98] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[99] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 7

^[100] cf. Becerik-Gerber et al. (2012) p. 437

^[101] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[102] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 17

^[103] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[104] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) B p. 114

^[105] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) B p. 114

^[106] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) B p. 114

^[107] cf. Jeong et al. (2014) p. 3f

^[108] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[109] cf. Eastman et al. (2011) p. 4f

^[110] cf. Sommer (2016) p. 144

^[111] cf. Eastman et al. (2011) p. 4f

^[112] cf. König (2015) p. 60

^[113] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[114] cf. Fischer / Jungedeitering (2015) p. 12

^[115] cf. Hanff / Wörter (2015) p. 333f

^[116] cf. Hanff / Wörter (2015) p. 340

^[117] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) D p. 218

^[118] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 5

^[119] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 5

^[120] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 5

^[121] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 5

^[122] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[123] cf. Brogden et al. (2012) p. 5

^[124] cf. Brogden et al. (2012) p. 5

^[125] cf. Tulke (2015) p. 279

^[126] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[127] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 5

^[128] cf. Fischer / Jungedeitering (2015) p. 12

^[129] cf. Beetz et al. D (2015) p. 207

^[130] cf. Koch (2015) p. 55

^[131] cf. Kivemini et al. (2008) p. 47

^[132] cf. Afsaria et al. (2016) p. 2

^[133] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) D p. 207

^[134] cf. Afsaria et al. (2016) 3

^[135] cf. Alreshidia et al. (2017) p. 96

^[136] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[137] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 2

^[138] cf. Tulke (2015) p. 281

^[139] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 7

^[140] cf. Eastman et al. (2011) p. 5

^[141] cf Ahn et al. (2016) p. 4

^[142] cf. Ahn et al. (2016) p. 3

^[143] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 6

^[144] cf. Brogden et al. (2012) p. 5

^[145] cf Arayici / Khosrowshahi (2012) p. 626

^[146] cf. Fischer / Jungedeitering (2015) p. 11

^[147] cf. Arayici / Khosrowshahi (2012) p. 626

^[148] cf. Arayici / Khosrowshahi (2012) p. 626

^[149] cf. Caponea et al. (2017) p. 455

^[150] cf. Hanff / Wörter (2015) p. 333f

^[151] cf. Hanff / Wörter (2015) p. 334

^[152] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) D p. 218

^[153] cf. Hanff / Wörter (2015) p. 340

^[154] cf. Hanff / Wörter (2015) p. 333

^[155] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) D p. 418f

^[156] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) D p. 418

^[157] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) D p. 418

^[158] cf. Hanff / Wörter (2015) p. 341

^[159] cf. Hanff / Wörter (2015) p. 341

^[160] cf. MHC (2014) p. 38

^[161] cf. cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 7

^[162] cf. Pflug / Schreyer (2015) p. 364

^[163] cf. Pflug / Schreyer (2015) p. 364

^[164] cf. Pflug / Schreyer (2015) p. 363

^[165] cf. MHC (2014) p. 32

^[166] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) C p. 145

^[167] cf. Christalon / Neubauer (2015) p. 508

^[168] cf. Tulke (2015) p. 277

^[169] cf. MHC (2014) p. 32

^[170] cf. Ahn et al. (2016) p. 11

^[171] cf. Bjork / Howard (n.d.) p. 49

^[172] cf. Bjork / Howard (n.d.) p. 49

^[173] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 7

^[174] cf. Ahn et al. (2016) p. 9

^[175] cf. MHC (2014) p. 39

^[176] cf. Ahn et al. (2016) p. 9

^[177] cf. MHC (2014) p. 39

^[178] cf. Berkhahn / Bormann (2015) p. 26

^[179] cf. Christalon / Neubauer (2015) p. 508

^[180] cf. MHC (2014) p. 43

^[181] cf. MHC (2014) p. 43

^[182] cf. Blankenbach (2015) p. 343

^[183] cf. Blankenbach (2015) p. 343

^[184] cf. MHC (2014) p. 21

^[185] cf. Hoff et al. (2017) p. 8.

^[186] cf. MHC (2014) p. 43

^[187] cf. Becerik-Gerber et al. (2012) p. 434

^[188] cf. Christalon / Neubauer (2015) p. 508

^[189] cf. Beetz et al. C (2015) p. 145

^[190] cf. Hoff et al. (2017) p. 6

^[191] cf. Becerik-Gerber et al. (2012) p. 437

^[192] cf. Becerik-Gerber et al. (2012) p. 437

^[193] cf. Becerik-Gerber et al. (2012) p. 434

^[194] cf. Becerik-Gerber et al. (2012) p. 435

^[195] cf. Nical / Wodynski (2016) p. 302

^[196] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) A p. 4

^[197] The BIM initiative is the sum of private and public organisations in an AEC industry that support the diffusion of BIM

^[198] cf. Beetz et al. (2015) p. 1

^[199] cf. Cheng / Lu (2015) p. 443

^[200] cf. Di Giuda et al. (2015) p. 79

^[201] cf. Elixmann / Eschenbruch (2015) p. 1

^[202] cf. MHC (2010) p. 11f

^[203] cf. MHC (2012) p. 9

^[204] cf. NBS (2013) p. 6

^[205] cf. NBS (2015) A p.

^[206] cf. Braun et al. (2015) p. 13

^[207] Interview with Nicodemus Jansson on 05.04.2019

^[208] Interview with Steffen Kujajewski on 07.05.2019

^[209] Interview with Gunther Wölfle on 12.04.2019

^[210] Interview with Daniel Forsmann on 10.05.2019

^[211] cf. MHC (2010) p. 11f

^[212] cf. MHC (2012) p. 14

^[213] cf. Braun et al. (2015) p. 15

^[214] cf. Kaiser (2018) p. 18

^[215] cf. World Bank Group (2014) n.p.

^[216] cf. World Bank (2017) C n.p.

^[217] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 4

^[218] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 4

^[219] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 541

^[220] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 341

^[221] cf. Yin (2018) p. XVI

^[222] cf. Yin (2018) p. XVI

^[223] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 346

^[224] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 541

^[225] cf. Yin (2018) p. 5

^[226] cf. Yin (2018) p. 5

^[227] cf. Yin (2018) p. 5

^[228] cf. Borner (2004) p. xiii

^[229] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 342

^[230] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 220f

^[231] cf. Yin (2018) p. 5

^[232] cf. Yin (2018) p. 5

^[233] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 342

^[234] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 19

^[235] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 541

^[236] cf. Yin (2018) p. 15

^[237] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 27

^[238] cf. Yin (2018) p. XXIV

^[239] cf. Yin (2018) p. XXIV

^[240] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 114

^[241] cf. Yin (2018) p. 12

^[242] cf. Yin (2018) p. XXI

^[243] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 542

^[244] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 17

^[245] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 6

^[246] cf. Yin (2018) p. XXI

^[247] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 17

^[248] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 353

^[249] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 102f

^[250] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 19

^[251] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 347

^[252] cf. Yin (2018) p. 4

^[253] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 346

^[254] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 353

^[255] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 551

^[256] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 98

^[257] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 113

^[258] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 346

^[259] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 346

^[260] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 346

^[261] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 26

^[262] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 343

^[263] cf, Yin (2018) p. 31

^[264] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 26

^[265] cf. Yin (2018) p. 34

^[266] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 347

^[267] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 19

^[268] cf. Yin (2018) p. 4

^[269] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 19

^[270] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 347

^[271] cf. Yin (2018) p. 4

^[272] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 347

^[273] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 55

^[274] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 348

^[275] cf. Yin (2018) p. 172

^[276] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 543f

^[277] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 55

^[278] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 348

^[279] cf. Yin (2018) p. 172

^[280] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 543f

^[281] cf. Yin (2018) p. 9

^[282] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 28

^[283] cf. Yin (2018) p. 9

^[284] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 28

^[285] cf. Yin (2018) p. 9

^[286] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 28

^[287] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 28

^[288] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 113

^[289] cf. Yin (2018) p. 911

^[290] cf. Yin (2018) p. 40

^[291] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 351

^[292] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 30

^[293] cf. Yin (2018) p. 26

^[294] cf. Yin (2018) p. 40

^[295] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 116

^[296] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 30

^[297] cf. Yin (2018) p. 198

^[298] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 351

^[299] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 125

^[300] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 351

^[301] cf. Yin (2018) p. 56

^[302] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 117f

^[303] cf. Yin (2018) p. 56

^[304] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 116

^[305] cf. Yin (2018) p. 12

^[306] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 541

^[307] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 33

^[308] cf. Yin (2018) p. 110

^[309] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 552

^[310] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 190

^[311] cf. Yin (2018) p. 113

^[312] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 190

^[313] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 220

^[314] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 555

^[315] cf. Yin (2018) p. 114

^[316] cf. Yin (2018) p. 117

^[317] cf. Yin (2018) p. 114

^[318] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 555

^[319] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 555

^[320] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 222

^[321] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 222

^[322] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 222

^[323] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 222

^[324] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 223

^[325] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 251

^[326] cf. Yin (2018) p. 114

^[327] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 555

^[328] cf. Yin (2018) p. 118

^[329] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 561

^[330] cf. Yin (2018) p. 114

^[331] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 555

^[332] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 213

^[333] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 26

^[334] cf. Yin (2018) p. 169

^[335] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 543f

^[336] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 348

^[337] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 258f

^[338] cf. Yin (2018) p. 175

^[339] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 258

^[340] cf. Yin (2018) p. 175

^[341] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 543f

^[342] cf. Bingemer et al. (2004) p. 543f

^[343] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 348

^[344] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 259

^[345] cf. Gerring (2014) p. 350

^[346] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 259

^[347] cf. Yin (2018) p. 29

^[348] cf. Yin (2018) p. 29

^[349] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 259

^[350] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 259

^[351] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 259

^[352] cf. Yin (2018) p. 33f

^[353] cf. Farquhar (2013) p. 268