1. ROI
1.1. BIM Benefit Categories
1.1.1. Asset Management by Owner
1.1.1.1. Cost Savings - Organization
1.1.1.1.1. Direct Inspection Costs
1.1.1.1.2. Direct Maintenance Costs (excluding staff time)
1.1.1.1.3. Direct Operations Costs
1.1.1.1.4. Reduced paper, printing, and distribution (postage) (FHWA-HIF-17-028 )
1.1.1.2. Staff time savings
1.1.1.2.1. Reduced Data Entry Time
1.1.1.2.2. Reduction in Design Time for in-house designed projects
1.1.1.2.3. Maintenance Information Retrieval Time
1.1.1.2.4. Programmatic Information Retrieval Time
1.1.1.2.5. Increased employee productivity and efficiency (Terreno et al 2015)
1.1.1.2.6. Greater efficiency on the job (Terreno, S., et al. 2015)
1.1.1.2.7. Reduce Safety Code Compliance Costs
1.1.1.3. Ancillary Organizational Benefits
1.1.1.3.1. Better emergency preparedness (Terreno, S., et al. 2015)
1.1.1.3.2. increased security of documents (FHWA-HIF-17-028 )
1.1.1.3.3. Improved collaboration
1.1.1.3.4. Improved business growth ( Love, Peter E. D., et al. 2013)
1.1.1.3.5. Firm growth (Bryde, David, et al. 2013)
1.1.1.3.6. Improved learning for younger staff (McGraw-Hill 2012)
1.1.1.3.7. More detailed strategic planning with holistic considerations (Terreno, S., et al. 2015)
1.1.1.3.8. Improved hiring and controlling subcontractors (Bryde, David, et al. 2013)
1.1.1.3.9. Enhanced reputation and level of public trust
1.1.1.3.10. improved change management (Terreno, S., et al. 2015)
1.1.1.3.11. Improved asset management (Fanning, Blaine, et al. 2015)
1.1.1.3.12. improved sustainability management (Terreno, S., et al. 2015)
1.1.1.3.13. Improved profit margin for project team members (Bryde, David, et al. 2013)
1.1.2. End User (Road User)
1.1.2.1. Asset End User Benefits
1.1.2.1.1. Comfort management (e.g. by promoting improved productivity) (Love, Peter E. D., et al. 2014)
1.1.2.1.2. Fuel and material savings (e.g. by facilitating less travel and waste) (Love, Peter E. D., et al. 2014)
1.1.2.1.3. Clearer Facility Management requirement definition for design & construction (Terreno, S., et al. 2015)
1.1.2.1.4. Better monitor and manage related health and safety issues for users (Fanning, Blaine, et al. 2015)
1.1.2.1.5. Reduction in emissions yielding improved health (no source to date)
1.1.3. Project Delivery (Design & Construction)
1.1.3.1. Project Cost Savings
1.1.3.1.1. Shorter Delivery Time
1.1.3.1.2. Design Process Efficiency
1.1.3.1.3. Construction Process Efficiency
1.1.3.1.4. Reduced field conflicts
1.1.3.1.5. Improve Visualization for Planning
1.1.3.1.6. Improved safety
1.1.3.1.7. Reduced waste
1.1.3.1.8. Project Delivery Method Cost Savings
1.1.3.1.9. Clear Process Definition
1.1.3.1.10. Asset Turnover Efficiency
1.1.3.2. Ancillary Project Benefits
1.1.3.2.1. Increased quality
1.1.3.2.2. Improved risk management
1.1.3.2.3. Improved collaboration & coordination
1.1.3.2.4. Improved sustainability (Newton and Chileshe 2012)
1.1.3.2.5. Improved energy efficiency (Walasek, Dariusz, and Arkadiusz Barszcz. 2007)
1.1.3.2.6. Allows for use of information in maintenance (Barlish et al 2012)
1.1.3.2.7. Improved competitiveness (Newton and Chileshe 2012)
1.2. BIM Investment Categories
1.2.1. Organizational and Asset Management
1.2.1.1. Recurring
1.2.1.1.1. Human
1.2.1.1.2. Direct
1.2.1.2. Non-Recurring
1.2.1.2.1. Human
1.2.1.2.2. Direct
1.2.1.2.3. Design Office Transition Costs (FHWA-HIF-13-050)
1.2.1.2.4. Development Costs (FHWA-HIF-13-050) (Direct)
1.2.2. Project Delivery
1.2.2.1. Recurring
1.2.2.1.1. Human
1.2.2.1.2. Direct
1.2.2.2. Non-Recurring
1.2.2.2.1. Human
1.2.2.2.2. Direct
1.3. BIM Return Categories
1.3.1. Organizational
1.3.1.1. Improved collaboration with owner/design firms (McGraw Hill 2014)
1.3.1.2. Enhanced organizational image (McGraw Hill 2014)
1.3.2. Project
1.3.2.1. Productivity gain (Autodesk 2007)
1.3.2.2. Reduced printing use costs (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010)
1.3.2.3. Reduced document shipping costs (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010)
1.3.2.4. Reduced travel costs (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010)
1.3.2.5. Reduced approved change orders (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010; Hoffer 2014; Giel 2009; Lee et al 2013)
1.3.2.6. Reduced claims and disputes (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010)
1.3.2.7. Reduced correcting errors and omission (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010)
1.3.2.8. Improved information control (Qian and Ang Yu 2012)
1.3.2.9. Improved communications (Qian and Ang Yu 2012)
1.3.2.10. Reduced error and omissions (McGraw Hill 2014; Qian and Ang Yu 2012)
1.3.2.11. Reduced rework (McGraw Hill 2014; Qian and Ang Yu 2012; Hoffer 2014)
1.3.2.12. Improved Collaboration (Hoffer 2014)
1.3.2.13. Reduced RFIs (Giel 2009; Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. 2012)
1.3.2.14. Reduced project delay (Giel 2009)
1.3.2.15. Clash detection (Azhar 2011)
1.3.2.16. Reduced Contractor costs (Barlish and Sullivan 2012)
1.3.2.17. Reduced direct costs (Sen 2012; Lee et al 2012)
1.3.2.18. Reduced indirect costs (Sen 2012; Lee et al 2012)
1.3.2.19. Duration improvement (Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. 2012)
1.4. Quantitative Performance Indicators/Metrics
1.4.1. Quality control (rework reduction) ( Love, Peter E. D., et al. 2013)
1.4.2. On-time completion (reduction in delay) ( Love, Peter E. D., et al. 2013)
1.4.3. Overall cost (cost reduction) ( Love, Peter E. D., et al. 2013)
1.4.4. Units (square feet/meters)/person hour ( Love, Peter E. D., et al. 2013)
1.4.5. Dollars/unit (square feet/meters)/person hour ( Love, Peter E. D., et al. 2013)
1.4.6. Safety (reduction in lost person-hours) ( Love, Peter E. D., et al. 2013)
1.4.7. Change orders as a % of standard costs (Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. 2012)
1.4.8. Avoidance log and associated costs (Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. 2012)
1.4.9. RFI quantities in Non-BIM vs. BIM (Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. 2012)
1.4.10. Offsite prefabrication man-hours from contractors (Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. 2012)
1.4.11. OCIP insurance headcount dollar savings % off site hours (Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. 2012)
1.4.12. Reconciliations of savings from contractors using BIM (Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. 2012)
1.4.13. Reconciliations of savings from designer using BIM (Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. 2012)
1.4.14. Actual durations as a % of standard duration (Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. 2012)
1.5. BIM ROI Study Results
1.5.1. Organizational
1.5.2. Project
1.5.2.1. Building
1.5.2.1.1. D3 Project in Seoul, Korea
1.5.2.1.2. Ashley Overlook - Holder Project (Azhar 2011)
1.5.2.1.3. Progressive Data Center - Holder Project (Azhar 2011)
1.5.2.1.4. Raleigh Marriott - Holder Project (Azhar 2011)
1.5.2.1.5. GSU Library- Holder Project (Azhar 2011)
1.5.2.1.6. 1515 Wynkoop - Holder Project (Azhar 2011)
1.5.2.1.7. HP Data Center - Holder Project (Azhar 2011)
1.5.2.1.8. NAU Sciences Lab - Holder Project (Azhar 2011)
1.5.2.1.9. A Public Sports Facility Project in South Korea - A three phase framework to evaluate ROI (Lee and Lee 2019)
1.5.2.1.10. Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn Project (Azhar 2011)
1.5.2.1.11. Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia (Azhar 2011)
1.5.2.1.12. The Mansion on Peachtree, Atlanta, GA (Azhar 2011)
1.5.2.1.13. Case studies by (Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. 2012)
1.5.2.1.14. Results from the workshop by Stowe, Ken, et al. (2015)
1.5.2.1.15. Three case studies from a commercial CM firm (Giel, Brittany K., and Raja R. A. Issa. 2013)
1.5.2.1.16. Malta House, (Walasek, Dariusz, and Arkadiusz Barszcz. 2007)
1.5.2.2. Infrastructure
1.5.2.2.1. Case Studies
2. BIM Assessment Approaches
2.1. Organizational Level
2.1.1. Organizational BIM Assessment
2.1.1.1. Content
2.1.1.1.1. Strategy
2.1.1.1.2. BIM Uses
2.1.1.1.3. Process
2.1.1.1.4. Information
2.1.1.1.5. Infrastructure
2.1.1.1.6. Personell
2.1.1.2. Scale
2.1.1.2.1. 0 - Non-existant
2.1.1.2.2. 1 - Initial
2.1.1.2.3. 2 - Managed
2.1.1.2.4. 3 - Defined
2.1.1.2.5. 4 - Quantitatively managed
2.1.1.2.6. 5 - Optimized
2.1.2. BIMe (Kassam 2020)
2.1.2.1. Content
2.1.2.1.1. Current version not publicly available, tailored to client per Bilal Succar
2.1.2.1.2. Technology
2.1.2.1.3. Process
2.1.2.1.4. Policy
2.1.2.1.5. Stages
2.1.2.1.6. Organizational Scale
2.1.2.2. Scale
2.1.2.2.1. Initial (0)
2.1.2.2.2. Defined (max 10)
2.1.2.2.3. Managed (max 20)
2.1.2.2.4. Integrated (max 30)
2.1.2.2.5. Optimized (max 40)
2.1.3. BIM Compass
2.1.3.1. Content
2.1.3.1.1. Organization and Management
2.1.3.1.2. Mentality and culture
2.1.3.1.3. Information Structure and Information Flow
2.1.3.1.4. Technology and Applications
2.1.3.2. Scale
2.1.3.2.1. Unknown
2.1.4. BIM Online Maturity Assessment
2.1.4.1. Content
2.1.4.1.1. Vision and Leadership - BIM vision and Knowledge of the senior management team of BIM
2.1.4.1.2. Strategy - Strategy for BIM and collaborative working, and implementing strategies
2.1.4.1.3. Culture - an organizational culture to support and embody the use of BIM
2.1.4.1.4. Implementation - having BIM champion with right competency and knowledge responsible for leading the implementation of BIM and collaborative working
2.1.4.1.5. People - Has your organization assessed the competence and knowledge level of your staff in relation to BIM and collaborative working?
2.1.4.1.6. Training Provision - provision of BIM training plan for employees
2.1.4.1.7. Information management process - Formal process of informational management to support BIM
2.1.4.1.8. Information management: Common Data Environment - Using a common data environment to enable collaborative working
2.1.4.1.9. Model authoring/analysis software-Using 3D information for design and construction
2.1.4.1.10. Delivering 4D, 5D, and 6D outputs - ability to use 3D information and produce 4D, 5D, 6D outputs on projects in collaboration with its supply chain
2.1.4.1.11. Procurement for BIM and collaborative working - using BIM execution plan on projects
2.1.4.1.12. Project delivery and the BIM Execution Plan - clear process on the implementation of BIM execution plan
2.1.4.1.13. Delivering asset information and COBie - producing electronic asset information collaboratively with its supply chain either associated with 3D-derived model outputs or in COBie
2.1.4.1.14. Government Soft Landing - employing government soft landing routinely through early client and end-user engagement on most projects to support defined project outcomes
2.1.4.2. Scale
2.1.4.2.1. 4 option choices
2.1.5. SFT's BIM Compass
2.1.5.1. Collaborative management
2.1.5.2. Design Management
2.1.5.3. Library objects
2.1.5.4. Information management
2.1.5.5. Information Exchange
2.1.5.6. Soft Landing
2.1.5.7. Security
2.1.6. CPIx BIM Assessment Form
2.1.6.1. Content
2.1.6.1.1. Using native CAD/BIM - Are you prepared to issue your native CAD / BIM format files?
2.1.6.1.2. Work according to BIM Standard - Do you work to a CAD / BIM Standard?
2.1.6.1.3. Having a BIM process - Do you produce a BIM model as an iterative process?
2.1.6.1.4. Having a level of information (LOI) for BIM models - Do you understand the ‘Level of Information’ required at each of the project delivery stages?
2.1.6.1.5. Having a level of detail (LOD) - Do you understand the ‘Level of Detail’ required at each of the project delivery stages?
2.1.6.1.6. Maintenance for the CAD/BIM tools - Are all your CAD / BIM Tools covered by a yearly maintenance agreement?
2.1.6.1.7. Training - Do you train your staff In the use of your CAD / BIM tools?
2.1.6.1.8. BIM certification - Can you provide CAD / BIM related qualifications and CPD Certification for proposed team members?
2.1.6.1.9. BIM coordination - How do you carry out spatial co-ordination using CAD / BIM?
2.1.6.1.10. BIM uses
2.1.6.1.11. Copyright - What are the issues of IP rights and ownership of the BIM models?
2.1.6.1.12. BIM vision and strategy for future
2.1.6.2. Scale
2.1.6.2.1. Qualitative
2.1.7. NBIMS Capability Maturity Model
2.1.7.1. Content
2.1.7.1.1. Data Richness - Identifies the completeness of the building Information Model from initially very few pieces of unrelated data to the point of it becoming valuable information and ultimately corporate knowledge about a facility
2.1.7.1.2. Life-cycle views - Views refer to the phases of the project and identifying how many phases are to be covered by the BIM. One would start as individual stove pipes of information and then begin linking those together and taking advantage of information gathered by the authoritative source of the information. This category has high cost reduction, high value implications based on the elimination of duplicative data gathering. The goal would be to support functions outside the traditional facility management roles, such as first responders.
2.1.7.1.3. Roles or Disciplines - Roles refer to the players involved in the business process and how the information flows. This is also critical to reducing the cost of data re-collection. Disciplines are often involved in more than one view as either a provider or consumer of information. Our goal is to involve both internal and external roles as both providers and consumers of the same information so that data does not have to be re-created and that the authoritative source is the true provider of the information.
2.1.7.1.4. Change Management - Change Management identifies a methodology used to change business processes that have been developed by an organization. If a business process is found to be flawed on in need of improvement, one institutes a “root cause analysis” of the problem and then adjusts the business process based on that analysis. Since this is related to the following item, business processes it should come after it.
2.1.7.1.5. Business Process - The business process defines how business is accomplished. If the data and information is gathered as part of the business process then data gathering is a no cost requirement. If data is gathered as a separate process then the data will likely not be accurate. The goal is to have data both collected and maintained in a real time environment, so as physical changes are made they are reflected for others to access in their portion of the business process.
2.1.7.1.6. Timelines/Response - While some information is more static than other information it all changes and up to the minute accuracy may be critical in emergency situations. The closer to accurate real time information you can be the better quality the decisions that are made. Some of those decisions may be life saving in nature.
2.1.7.1.7. Delivery Method - Data delivery is also critical to success. If data is only available on one machine then sharing can not occur other than by email or hard copy. In a structured networked environment if information is centrally stored or accessible then some sharing will occur. If the model is a systems oriented architecture (SOA) in a web enabled environment the nentcentricity will occur and information will be available in a controlled environment to the appropriate players. Information assurance must be engineered into all phases.
2.1.7.1.8. Graphical Information - Often the starting point is a non-graphical environment. The advent of graphics helps paint a clearer picture for all involved. As standards are applied then information can begin to flow as the provider and receiver must have the same standards in place. As 3D images come into play more consumers of the information will have a common view and a higher level of understanding will occur. As time and cost are added then the interfaces can be expanded significantly.
2.1.7.1.9. Spatial Capability - Understanding where something is in space is significant to many information interfaces and the richness of the information. Energy calculations must know where the heat gains will come from, first responders need to know where water supplies and utility cutoffs are located in relation to the facility.
2.1.7.1.10. Information accuracy - Having a way to ensure that information remains accurate Is only possible through some mathematical ground truth capability. Having a mathematical product will also allow for better management by supporting difficult to game metrics. These numbers can be used for occupancy, information collection completeness and overall inventory calculations.
2.1.7.1.11. Interoperability / IFC Support - Our ultimate goal is to ensure interoperability of information. Getting accurate information to the party requiring the information. There are many ways to achieve this, however the most effective is to use a standards based approach to ensure that information is a form that it can be shared and products are available that can read that standard for of information.
2.1.7.2. Scale: 1-10 level
2.1.8. Maturity Matrix: Self Assessment Questionnaire
2.1.8.1. Content
2.1.8.1.1. Governance
2.1.8.1.2. Organization
2.1.8.1.3. Integration
2.1.8.1.4. Digital Transformation
2.1.8.1.5. Capable Owner
2.1.8.2. Scale
2.1.8.2.1. 3 choices questions
2.1.9. Supply Chain BIM Capability Assessment
2.1.9.1. Content
2.1.9.1.1. Organization
2.1.9.1.2. Standards
2.1.9.1.3. Cost
2.1.9.1.4. Software
2.1.9.1.5. Model Use
2.1.9.2. Scale
2.1.9.2.1. Unknown
2.1.10. Vico BIM Scorecard
2.1.10.1. Content
2.1.10.1.1. Portfolio and Project Management
2.1.10.1.2. Cost Planning
2.1.10.1.3. Cost Control
2.1.10.1.4. Schedule Planning
2.1.10.1.5. Production Control
2.1.10.1.6. Coordination
2.1.10.1.7. Design Team Engagement
2.1.10.2. Scale
2.1.10.2.1. 4 choices questions
2.2. Project Level
2.2.1. Arup BIM Maturity Measures
2.2.1.1. content
2.2.1.1.1. Project
2.2.1.1.2. Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, Public Health, Facades, Geo-technics, Lighting
2.2.1.2. scale
2.2.1.2.1. 0 - non-existent
2.2.1.2.2. 1- Initial
2.2.1.2.3. 2- Managed
2.2.1.2.4. 3- Defined
2.2.1.2.5. 4- Measured
2.2.1.2.6. 5- Optimizing
2.2.2. BMAT
2.2.2.1. Content
2.2.2.1.1. Assessment and Need
2.2.2.1.2. Procurement
2.2.2.1.3. Post Contract Award
2.2.2.1.4. Mobilization
2.2.2.1.5. Production
2.2.2.1.6. AIM (asset information model) Maintenance
2.2.2.1.7. Performance Management
2.2.2.1.8. Information Security
2.2.2.1.9. Information Quality
2.2.2.1.10. Collaborative Working
2.2.2.2. Scale
2.2.2.2.1. 4 choices questions
2.2.3. VDC Scorecard
2.2.3.1. Content
2.2.3.1.1. Performance
2.2.3.1.2. Technology
2.2.3.1.3. Adoption
2.2.3.1.4. Planning
2.2.3.2. Scale
2.2.3.2.1. Unknown
2.2.4. Dstl BIM Maturity Measurement Tool
2.2.4.1. Content
2.2.4.1.1. BIM Procurement / Employer Engagement
2.2.4.1.2. BIM Delivery
2.2.4.1.3. Data, Verification and Validation
2.2.4.1.4. Collaborative working
2.2.4.1.5. Visualisation / Stakeholder Engagement
2.2.4.1.6. Discipline based model authoring
2.2.4.1.7. Construction
2.2.4.1.8. Model based estimating and change management
2.2.4.2. Scale
2.2.4.2.1. Unknown
2.2.5. BIM Working Group BMAT
2.2.5.1. Not publicly available
2.2.6. BIM Excellence Online Platform
2.2.6.1. In organizational level
2.3. Team Level
2.3.1. BIMe
2.3.1.1. Not public
2.4. Individual Level
2.4.1. BIMe
2.4.1.1. Content
2.4.1.1.1. Technical
2.4.1.1.2. Operation
2.4.1.1.3. Functional
2.4.1.1.4. Implementation
2.4.1.1.5. Administration
2.4.1.1.6. Supportive
2.4.1.1.7. Research and Development
2.4.1.1.8. Managerial
2.4.1.2. Scale
2.4.1.2.1. 0 - None
2.4.1.2.2. 1 - Basic
2.4.1.2.3. 2 - Intermediate
2.4.1.2.4. 3 - Advanced
2.4.1.2.5. 4 - Expert
3. Case Study Projects - Documented
3.1. Organizational
3.1.1. Transport for London
3.1.1.1. Documented in Gurevich and Sacks (2020)
3.2. Project
3.2.1. D3 Project in Seoul, Korea
3.2.2. Ashley Overlook - see ROI study results
4. BIM Adoption in Infrastructure
4.1. US
4.1.1. Highways & Bridges
4.1.1.1. DOTs
4.1.1.1.1. Indiana
4.1.1.1.2. PennDOT
4.1.1.1.3. WisDOT Projects (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.1.1.1.4. Massachusetts DOT (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.1.1.1.5. Overview of BIM Use in DOTs
4.1.1.2. Chesapeake Roadway Projects by Clark Nexsen (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.1.1.2.1. Two intersection projects for the City of Chesapeake, VA - Combined design and engineering fees of less than $100,000.
4.1.1.2.2. The team modeled the roadway and performed stormwater design analysis based on the model.
4.1.1.2.3. Modeling the project improved visualization, enabled faster design reviews, enhanced coordination, ensured better constructability and increased collaboration.
4.1.1.3. Case study by Fanning et al (2015)
4.1.1.3.1. Comparison of two bridge construction projects by Kiewit Infrastructure- owner: Colorado DOT (CDOT)
4.1.1.4. Highway Practices (MDOT: 3D Highway Design Model Cost Benefit Analysis )
4.1.1.4.1. Cost Benefit Analysis
4.1.1.4.2. Other benefits
4.1.1.5. ZOO INTERCHANGE, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN (FHWA-HIF-13-050)
4.1.1.5.1. 3D and 4D modeling
4.1.1.5.2. it included a redesign of 14 bridges, 3 tunnels, 29 retaining walls, several entrance and exit ramps, 7 noise barrier walls, 54 sign structures, multiple utilities, and many other complex factors.
4.1.1.5.3. saved approximately $9.5 million
4.1.2. Airports
4.1.2.1. Use of BIM on Airports (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.1.2.1.1. Delta Air Lines redevelopment at JFK ($1.2 billion)
4.1.2.1.2. The Green Build at San Diego International ($1.2 billion)
4.1.2.1.3. Terminal Renewal and Improvement at Dallas/ Fort Worth ($2.3 billion)
4.1.2.2. Airport Practice (ACRP SYNTHESIS 59)
4.1.2.2.1. Sharing GIS resources (ACRP SYNTHESIS 59)
4.1.2.2.2. CHALLENGES TO DATA SHARING
4.1.2.2.3. Case Examples
4.1.3. Dams, Canals and Levees
4.1.3.1. Use of BIM on Dams, Canals, and Levees (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.1.3.1.1. The Panama Canal
4.1.4. Water & Wastewater Facilities
4.1.4.1. Use of BIM on Water and Wastewater Facilities (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.1.4.1.1. Arbennie Pritchett Water Reclamation Facility
4.1.4.1.2. Des Moines Combined Sewer Solids Separation Facility
4.1.5. Rail
4.1.5.1. Use of BIM on Transit Projects (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.2. International
4.2.1. Case study project in Australia by (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
4.2.1.1. BIM tools used:
4.2.1.1.1. Autodesk AutoCAD Civil 3D, Navisworks, and 12D Model and Bentley MXRoad
4.2.1.2. Upgrade of existing highway: expanding approximately 4.2 km of the highway from four to six lanes, construction of a central median along the length of the upgraded section, upgrading major intersections to allow for wider circles of turning movements, bus lanes, on-road cycling facilities, and a continuous pedestrian path.
4.2.1.3. BIM Uses in Pre-construction Stage
4.2.1.3.1. Engineering analysis
4.2.1.3.2. Quantity take-off
4.2.1.3.3. Clash detection
4.2.1.3.4. Transportation management/ traffic impact simulation to predict the volume and saturation on the highway
4.2.1.4. BIM Uses in Construction Stage
4.2.1.4.1. Conduct field survey
4.2.1.4.2. Quality management
4.2.1.5. BIM Uses in Post-construction Stage
4.2.1.5.1. Road management
4.2.1.5.2. Geospatial issue tracking
4.2.2. Case study project in Shanghai, China by (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
4.2.2.1. BIM tools used:
4.2.2.1.1. Autodesk Revit, Navisworks, Robot Structural, Ecotect Analysis, and Infrastructure Modeler
4.2.2.2. The new road was constructed for four lanes in each direction. The total length of the Chinese case study project was 500 m. Five existing roads were connected into, as well as provided access and egress to, the site including an existing highway.
4.2.2.3. BIM Uses in Pre-construction Stage
4.2.2.3.1. 3D Modeling
4.2.2.3.2. Quantity take-off
4.2.2.3.3. Clash detection
4.2.2.4. BIM Uses in Construction Stage
4.2.2.4.1. Track on-site construction progress
4.2.2.5. BIM Uses in Post-construction Stage
4.2.2.5.1. The Chinese case study was also the first infrastructure road project handled by the contractors involved. Some BIM uses were not applied, particularly in operation and maintenance following completion and handover of this case study project, such as the subsequent road management of traffic.
4.3. General Infrastructure (US, UK, Germany & France)
4.3.1. Organizations of all sizes foresee increasing their implementation of BIM to more than 50% of their infrastructure projects, but the size of the organization has implications for the pattern of high infrastructure BIM usage over the five year span.(McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.3.1.1. Midsize organizations show the pattern of greatest growth, more than quadrupling the percentage of high-level implementers from 2009 to 2013, with the small-medium group expanding from 11% to 47% and medium-large organizations expanding from 13% to 58%.
4.3.1.2. By 2013, small organizations will lead the way in high-level implementation, when almost two thirds (65%) predict they will be practicing at that level.
4.3.2. Almost half (46%) of the firms report using BIM on their infrastructure projects, up from 27% two years ago (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.3.3. Organizations currently using BIM for infrastructure plan to use it on more of their infrastructure projects in the future. The percentage of those using BIM on more than 50% of their projects will grow from 30% now to 52% in just two years. (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.3.4. 79% of current non-users feel positively about future adoption, with only 4% actually opposed. Therefore, education and best practices should be effective at accelerating adoption. (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.3.5. 67% of all users report a positive ROI on their BIM investments, even higher than the 63% of BIM users for buildings who reported the same in 2009, demonstrating that the value achieved will drive growth in infrastructure as it has in the buildings sector. (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.3.6. A/E firms and owners report the fastest adoption growth rates. (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.3.6.1. Two years ago, 73% of current A/E users were either not using BIM for infrastructure or using it at a low level. By 2013, the trend is reversed, with 78% expecting to use it on more than 25% of their projects.
4.3.6.2. Owners go from 74% with low/no levels of use in 2009 to 84% using it on 25% or more of their projects by 2013.
4.3.7. Level of BIM implementation for infrastructure over time (McGraw-Hill 2012)
4.3.8. The use of BIM for infrastructure appears to be about three years behind its use on vertical construction. (McGraw-Hill 2012)
5. Use Cases for BIM in Infrastructure
5.1. Project Delivery
5.1.1. 3D engineering analysis (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
5.1.2. Design clash analysis (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
5.1.3. 4D construction progress visualization (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
5.1.4. 5D cost analysis (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
5.1.5. Construction safety analysis (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
5.1.6. Live and dead load structural analysis (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
5.1.7. BIM integrated site setting out or surveying (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
5.1.8. Tracking onsite construction progress (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
5.2. Asset Management
5.2.1. Transportation management (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
5.3. Organized by Phase
5.3.1. Based on different stages (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
5.3.1.1. Pre-construction
5.3.1.1.1. Site setting out
5.3.1.1.2. Site layout and logistics
5.3.1.1.3. Project scheduling
5.3.1.1.4. Material management
5.3.1.1.5. Engineering analysis
5.3.1.2. Construction
5.3.1.2.1. Construction inspection
5.3.1.2.2. Human resource management and progress tracking
5.3.1.2.3. Quality assurance
5.3.1.2.4. Safety management
5.3.1.2.5. Cost control
5.3.1.2.6. Constructibility reviews
5.3.1.3. Post-construction
5.3.1.3.1. Planned maintenance
5.3.1.3.2. System analysis
5.3.1.3.3. Asset management
5.3.1.3.4. Emergency plan
5.3.1.3.5. Transportation management
6. Software
6.1. BIM Software Suitable for Transportation Projects (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016)
6.1.1. Autodesk Incorporated series
6.1.1.1. AutoCAD Map 3D; Storm and Sanitary Analysis; ReCap; InfraWorks; AutoCAD Civil 3D; Bridge Module; Rail Layout Module; River and Flood Analysis Module; AutoCAD Utility Design; and Robot Structural Analysis Professional
6.1.2. Bentley System Incorporated series
6.1.2.1. Power Rail Track; Power Rail Overhead Line; Power InRoads; Power GEOPAK; MXROAD; PowerCivil; RM Bridge; LEAP Bridge Enterprise; Bentley PowerRebar; LEAP Bridge Steel; gINT software; InspectTech; ProjectWise; and AssetWise (Chong, Heap Yih, et al. 2016); Bentley MicroStation and MX (FHWA-HIF-17-028: Addressing Challenges and ROI for Paperless Project Delivery (e-Construction) Final Report)
6.1.3. Tekla and Trimble Incorporated series
6.1.3.1. TEKLA Structures; TEKLA BIMSight; TEKLA Field3D; TRIMBLE Feedback; TRIMBLE Locus; TRIMBLE DMS; TRIMBLE Eservices; TRIMBLE Webmap; and TRIMBLE Communication Networks
6.2. FHWA-HIF-17-028: Addressing Challenges and ROI for Paperless Project Delivery (e-Construction) Final Report (2017)
6.2.1. plan set review and preparation
6.2.1.1. Adobe Acrobat products, Autodesk AutoCAD and Civil 3D, Bentley MicroStation, Geopak, InRoads, and MX, Bluebeam Revu
6.2.2. electronic bidding and contract award
6.2.2.1. Bid Express, Expedite Bidding Software, DocuSign
6.2.3. project collaboration
6.2.3.1. Doc Express, OnBase, ProjectSolve, ProjectWise, SharePoint
6.2.4. project construction management and mobile devices
6.2.4.1. AASHTOWare Project, Mobile Inspector by Infotech, Headlight by Pavia Systems, Masterworks by Aurigo, Primavera P6, Android tablet, Apple iPads, Windows tablets.
7. Drivers and Challenges to BIM Adoption in Infrastructure
7.1. Design and construction firms: At 67%, lack of demand by clients is the top concern (McGraw-Hill 2012)
7.2. Owners: At 55%, poor internal understanding of BIM is the top reason for delaying use of BIM on projects (McGraw-Hill 2012)
8. Potential Case Study Criteria, Projects and Approach
8.1. Case Study Selection Criteria
8.2. Potential Case Study Projects
8.2.1. Organization
8.2.1.1. US
8.2.1.1.1. South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT)
8.2.1.1.2. Indiana DOT RFID Tagging
8.2.1.2. International
8.2.2. Project
8.2.2.1. US
8.2.2.1.1. Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
8.2.2.2. International
8.2.2.2.1. Lebuhraya Borneo Utara Sdn Bhd
8.2.2.2.2. Harbour Road 2 Project, Jakarta, Indonesia
8.2.2.2.3. Woolgoolga to Ballina, New South Wales, Australia
8.2.3. Potential Sources
8.2.3.1. BSI Awards
8.2.3.2. BE Inspired Awards
8.2.3.3. DBB
8.2.3.4. Individual Contacts
8.3. Case Study Questions
9. Phase 1 Report
9.1. 1) the current status of BIM adoption within infrastructure in the United States and other countries
9.2. 2) focused processes within transportation infrastructure requirements that can benefit from BIM
9.3. 3) information from previous studies related to ROI for BIM adoption in various construction industry sectors and across multiple phases of project delivery and asset management
9.4. 4) recommendations and lessons learned from the literature
10. Resources
10.1. Journal - Conference Papers
10.1.1. Wu et al. (2017) Overview of BIM Maturity Measurement Tools, https://www.itcon.org/papers/2017_03-ITcon-Wu.pdf
10.1.2. Kassem et al. (2020) BIM: Evaluating tools for maturity and benefits measurement, https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/files/bim_evaluating_tools_for_maturity_and_benefits_measurement_report.pdf
10.1.3. Cady, Philip D., Inflation and Highway Economic Analysis, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 5, September 1983.
10.1.4. Gurevich, Ury, and Rafael Sacks. “Longitudinal Study of BIM Adoption by Public Construction Clients.” Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 36, no. 4, 2020, p. 05020008, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000797.
10.1.4.1. Used Arup evaluation tool
10.1.5. Barlish, Kristen, and Kenneth Sullivan. “How to Measure the Benefits of BIM — A Case Study Approach.” Automation in Construction, vol. 24, 2012, pp. 149–59, doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.02.008.
10.1.5.1. Includes a table (Table 3) that has frequency of use
10.1.6. Love, Peter E. D., et al. “A Benefits Realization Management Building Information Modeling for Asset Owners Building Information Modeling for Asset Owners.” Automation in Construction, vol. 37, 2014, pp. 1–10.
10.1.7. Lee, Myungdo, and Ung-Kyun Lee. “A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING AN INTEGRATED BIM ROI BASED ON PREVENTING REWORK IN THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE.” JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, vol. 26, no. 5, May 2020, pp. 410–20, doi:10.3846/jcem.2020.12185.
10.1.8. Son, Junick, and Jongho Ock. “A Study on Measurement Method of BIM ROI in Architectural Design Firm.” Korean Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, vol. 21, no. 3, Sept. 2016, pp. 267–80, doi:10.7315/CDE.2016.267.
10.1.9. Newton, Leonard Kym, and Nicholas Chileshe. Awareness, Usage and Benefits of Building Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption-the Case of South Australian Construction Organizations. 2012, doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2352.3363.
10.1.10. Azhar, Salman. “Building Information Modeling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks, and Challenges for the AEC Industry.” Leadership and Management in Engineering, vol. 11, no. 3, 2011, pp. 241–52, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000127.
10.1.11. Won, Jongsung, et al. “Quantification of Construction Waste Prevented by BIM-Based Design Validation: Case Studies in South Korea.” Waste Management, vol. 49, 2016, pp. 170–80, doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026.
10.1.12. Terreno, S., et al. “The Benefits of BIM Integration with Facilities Management: A Preliminary Case Study.” Computing in Civil Engineering 2015, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2015, pp. 675–83, doi:10.1061/9780784479247.084.
10.1.13. Bryde, David, et al. “The Project Benefits of Building Information Modelling (BIM).” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 31, no. 7, 2013, pp. 971–80, doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.001.
10.1.14. Walasek, Dariusz, and Arkadiusz Barszcz. “Analysis of the Adoption Rate of Building Information Modeling [BIM] and Its Return on Investment [ROI].” Procedia Engineering, vol. 172, 2017, pp. 1227–34, doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.144.
10.1.15. Khanzode, Atul, and Martin Fischer. “Benefits and Lessons Learned of Implementing Building Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) Technologies for Coordination of Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) Systems on a Large Healthcare Project.” ITcon, vol. 13, 2008, pp. 324–42.
10.1.16. Staub-French, Sheryl, and Atul Khanzode. “3D and 4D Modeling for Design and Construction Coordination: Issues and Lessons Learned.” ITcon, vol. 12, 2007, pp. 381–407.
10.1.17. Fanning, Blaine, et al. “Implementing BIM on Infrastructure: Comparison of Two Bridge Construction Projects.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, vol. 20, no. 4, 2015, p. 04014044, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000239.
10.1.18. Giel, Brittany K., and Raja R. A. Issa. “Return on Investment Analysis of Using Building Information Modeling in Construction.” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, vol. 27, no. 5, 2013, pp. 511–21, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000164.
10.1.19. Love, Peter E. D., et al. “From Justification to Evaluation: Building Information Modeling for Asset Owners.” Automation in Construction, vol. 35, 2013, pp. 208–16, doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.008.
10.1.20. Lee, Ghang, et al. “D3 City Project — Economic Impact of BIM-Assisted Design Validation.” Automation in Construction, vol. 22, 2012, pp. 577–86, doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2011.12.003.
10.1.21. Stowe, Ken, et al. “Capturing the Return on Investment of All-In Building Information Modeling: Structured Approach.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, vol. 20, no. 1, 2015, p. 04014027, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000221.
10.1.22. Chong, Heap Yih, et al. “Comparative Analysis on the Adoption and Use of BIM in Road Infrastructure Projects.” Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 32, no. 6, 2016, p. 05016021, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000460.
10.1.23. Won, J., & Lee, G. (2016). How to tell if a BIM project is successful: A goal-driven approach. Automation in Construction, 69, 34-43.
10.2. Reports
10.2.1. FHWA-HIF-17-028: Addressing Challenges and ROI for Paperless Project Delivery (e-Construction) Final Report
10.2.2. FHWA-HIF-16-068: Addressing Challenges and ROI for Paperless Project Delivery (e-Construction) Technical Brief
10.2.3. ACRP Synthesis 59: Integrating Airport Geographic Information System (GIS) Data with Public Agency GIS (2014)
10.2.4. MDOT Report SPR 1680: 3D Highway Design Model Cost Benefit Analysis
10.2.5. NCHRP Report 866: Return on Investment in Transportation Asset Management Systems and Practices
10.2.6. NCHRP Reports 831 Volumes 1 & 2: Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for Departments of Transportation
10.2.7. AASHTO GIS for Transportation Symposium, BIM Workshop (April 13-17, 2020)
10.2.7.1. Event was cancelled
10.2.8. FHWA-HIF-13-050: 3D Engineered Models for Construction – Understanding the Benefits of 3D Modeling in Construction. The Wisconsin Case Study
10.2.9. FHWA-HIF-19-075: e-Construction & Partnering Case Study – Minnesota and Iowa DOT Solutions for Capturing Asset Information during Construction
10.2.10. Effective Use of Geospatial Tools in Highway Construction
10.2.11. UK Strategy Paper for the Government Construction Client Group From the BIM Industry Working Group – March 2011
10.2.12. KTC-20-06/SPR19-576-1F: Construction-Ready Digital Terrain Models
10.2.13. Need to request drafts of
10.2.13.1. ACRP Project 09-15, "Building Information Modeling (BIM) Beyond Design."
10.2.13.2. Federal Highway Administration Identifying Data Frameworks and Governance for Establishing Future Civil Integrated Management (CIM) Standards.
10.2.13.3. Federal Highway Administration Integrating 3D Digital Models into Asset Management (FHWA-PROJ-14-0014).
10.2.13.4. Federal Highway Administration Construction Inspection for Digital Project Delivery
10.3. Market Research
10.3.1. McGraw-Hill, The business value of BIM infrastructure, Smart Market Report, McGraw-Hill Construction, 2012.
10.3.1.1. Business Value of BIM for Infrastructure (A/E, Contractors, and Owners Perceptions) (McGraw-Hill 2012)
10.3.1.1.1. At 77%, more contractors report a positive ROI than any other industry player.
10.3.1.1.2. Top internal benefits for A/E firms and contractors
10.3.1.1.3. Top internal benefits for owners
10.3.1.1.4. BIM capabilities that benefits infrastructure projects
10.3.1.1.5. Top benefits by phase
10.3.1.1.6. Top benefits by project process
10.3.1.1.7. Most important project factors that add value to BIM use
10.3.1.1.8. Top current benefits
10.3.1.1.9. Top benefits in 5 years
10.3.1.1.10. Top investments
10.3.1.1.11. Perceived ROI on Infrastructure BIM Investment
10.3.1.1.12. Measuring ROI of BIM for Infrastructure
10.3.1.1.13. Means to Improve ROI of BIM for Infrastructure
10.3.1.1.14. Non-User Attitude toward BIM for Infrastructure
10.3.1.1.15. AEC Perception: BIM Usage for Infrastructure by Competitors
10.3.1.1.16. AEC Perception: BIM Usage for Infrastructure by Clients
10.3.1.1.17. Owner Perception of BIM Usage for Infrastructure
10.3.1.1.18. Why BIM is not being adopted for infrastructure?
10.3.1.1.19. Factors influencing lack of BIM adoption for infrastructure
10.3.1.1.20. Benefits that would encourage BIM adoption for infrastructure
10.3.1.1.21. Most important factor of increasing BIM value on infrastructure projects
10.3.1.1.22. Areas requiring assistance in implementing BIM for infrastructure
10.3.2. N.W. Young Jr., S.A. Jones, H.M. Bernstein, J.E. Gudgel, The business value of BIM, SmartMarket Report, McGraw Hill Construction, Bedford, MA, 2009, p. 52.
10.4. Presentations
10.4.1. Nettmann, M., BIM in infrastructure - case study: Swedish road projects, January 2018
10.4.2. BIM for infrastructure in Sweden, Sweden BIM Alliance, 2014
10.4.3. Stribeck, J., Slussen, drawingless design and production in a €1.2BN infrastructure all-in-BIM project, 2019.
11. Notes
11.1. Smaller project focus as well as large projects
11.2. which data will be particularly more or less difficult to collect for monetizing benefits?
11.2.1. Quantitive Performance Indicators/Metrics