BIM Implementation Issues (Barriers)

There are some significant challenges and disadvantages to implementing BIM in construction work practices, which are still prevalent even in light of recent global developments and trends in BIM adoption (Arayici et al., 2011; Arensman & Ozbek, 2012; Eastman et al., 2011). Eastman et al. (2011) and Arensman & Ozbek (2012) divide these issues into a number of themes such as changes in work practices; challenges regarding running BIM applications (hardware, software and training); legal concerns with respect to who owns the multi-disciplined model and challenges with increased collaboration, integration and interoperability across the construction supply chain.

Focusing firstly on changing work practices, Smith (2014) and NBS (2014) emphasise that BIM requires a new way of working, a new mind-set and change of culture. The reason for this, Fung et al. (2014) claim, is that BIM presents a very different approach to traditional work practices, where a collaborative environment under a common framework is a necessity from the outset. Arayici et al. (2011) stress for this to be achieved every aspect of a company’s business requires significant changes. Smith (2014) suggests that this may require changing the mind- set of the staff that are accustomed to 2D work practices and traditional procurement systems. Bylund & Magnusson (2011) elaborate that this should be facilitated from a top down approach, where a move to BIM in a construction organisation is driven from strategic implementation at a management level. Other changing work practices can occur on the roles of members of the design and construction team working under new conditions (Sawhney, 2014). For example, Redmond et al. (2012) outline that questions may arise relating to who is in charge of the total quality of design on a collaborative model.

Another issue is working in a collaborative environment and on a collaborative model, which causes various complications in terms of legal impediments (Arayici et

78

al., 2011; Arensman & Ozbek, 2012; Eastman et al., 2011). Azhar et al. (2008) indicate that the main legal issue is to establish who owns the model and how to protect it through copyright laws. Redmond et al. (2011) note that the major problem is that no one can really take responsibility for a model that is essentially collective. Another legal problem is that BIM blurs the level of responsibility between parties leaving it unclear who is responsible for any inaccuracies (Arensman & Ozbek, 2012). This permeates by creating problems for insurers in relation to establishing responsibility and insuring the stakeholders (Eastman et al., 2011; Smith, 2014). Smith (2014) and Azhar et al. (2008) agree that these issues have yet to be resolved effectively and what is required is a unique response to every project, depending on the owner’s needs. Eastman et al. (2011) and Forgues et al. (2012) contend that a new approach is necessary where professional groups and state organisations must develop new guidelines for contractual language to cover copyright issues raised in using a BIM approach. As discussed previously, this can be facilitated through IPD promoting a collaborative framework and contractual environment (Eastman et al., 2011; LCI, 2013). It is yet to be determined whether this can be achieved or how quickly. Redmond et al. (2012, p.5) note “particular contract terms should be

considered as additional clauses; establishing partnering and legal entity of enterprise; for roles & responsibilities; agreement of payment features, and dispute resolution using BIM”.

BIM applications and BIM files require higher-end hardware resources than traditional 2D applications. BIM technologies, in contrast to office applications and traditional CAD technologies, require more memory, a larger hard drive, a better graphics card and often a larger screen. (Azhar et al., 2008; Eastman et al., 2011; Howell & Batcheler, 2005). Smith (2014) and McGraw Hill (2014) note that whilst there is an acknowledgement that companies will benefit in the longer term from investing in BIM, the costs associated with upgrading their software and purchasing BIM tools are significant. Zhou et al. (2012) adds that this is even more problematic for Small to Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) especially during an economic recession where just keeping their business going is difficult. Even if organisations spend the required resources on software and hardware they may not have the skills necessary amongst their staff to utilise these applications and realise the benefits from BIM (Azhar et al., 2008; Cheung, Rihan, Tah, Duce, & Kurul, 2012). Training

79

staff to use BIM software adds additional expense to hardware and software upgrades (Azhar et al., 2008; Forgues et al., 2012).

Working in a collaborative environment may give rise to further issues other than the legal problems regarding copyright. Eastman et al. (2011) provide an example where designers use traditional 2D practices and thus downstream other consultants and contractors will not be supplied with the necessary outputs to utilise BIM. However, Eastman et al. (2011) clarifies, that in many instances other members of the supply chain may utilise their own models to increase efficiencies in their work practices, even if a BIM is not available.

Presuming that all of the parties in the construction supply chain have committed to working on a collaborative BIM, ‘interoperability’ problems regarding software applications can arise (Cheung et al., 2012). A number of authors have raised this as one of the most significant issues in effective BIM implementation (Cheung et al., 2012; Goucher & Thurairajah, 2012; Taylor & Bailey, 2011). NIST (2004) reported that 15.8 billion is lost annually by interoperability problems in the construction industry in US. Furthermore, McGraw-Hill outline that interoperability is deemed an important consideration by contractors considering investing in BIM (McGraw-Hill, 2014).