4.6 Article

Immersive VR versus BIM for AEC Team Collaboration in Remote 3D Coordination Processes

Journal

BUILDINGS
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/buildings12101548

Keywords

virtual reality (VR); building information modeling (BIM); 3D coordination; clash resolution; remote collaboration; multidisciplinary AEC team

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper examines the collaboration efficiency of Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) teams using BIM and VR in remote asynchronous and synchronous communication. The findings suggest that VR with its immersive experience and markup tool supports team communication better than BIM. However, efficient team collaboration in VR requires proper guidance in the 360-degree environment.
Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Virtual Reality (VR) are both tools for collaboration and communication, yet questions still exist as to how and in what ways these tools support technical communication and team decision-making. This paper presents the results of an experimental research study that examined multidisciplinary Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) team collaboration efficiency in remote asynchronous and synchronous communication methods for 3D coordination processes by comparing BIM and immersive VR both with markup tools. Team collaboration efficiency was measured by Shared Understanding, a psychological method based on Mental Models. The findings revealed that the immersive experience in VR and its markup tool capabilities, which enabled users to draw in a 360-degree environment, supported team communication more than the BIM markup tool features, which allowed only one user to draw on a shared 2D screenshot of the model. However, efficient team collaboration in VR required the members to properly guide each other in the 360-degree environment; otherwise, some members were not able to follow the conversations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available