4.6 Article

Empirical Study of BIM Implementation-Based Perceptions among Chinese Practitioners

Journal

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000538

Keywords

Building information modeling; Architectural; engineering; and construction (AEC) industries; Interoperability; Subgroup differences; Statistical analysis; Developing countries

Funding

  1. Ningbo Science and Technology Bureau through University of Nottingham Ningbo China [2015B11011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The global movement of building information modeling (BIM) is spreading the implementation of BIM from developed countries to other developing countries. Practitioners' perceptions of BIM implementation in these developing countries, such as China, a giant building market that is increasing the application of BIM in the industry, have not been thoroughly understood. This research used the questionnaire method to survey 94 randomly recruited Chinese BIM professionals to investigate BIM practice and its related perceptions. Reductions in design errors and resultant construction rework were considered the top benefits of using BIM. The most important factor in achieving BIM value was noted as interoperability among various BIM tools. A comprehensive evaluation of BIM at the company level was considered a major difficulty of implementing BIM. The owner was considered the party that received the most benefits from BIM. Subgroup differences based on two major categories (i.e., participants' profession and BIM proficiency level) were analyzed in the survey sections related to BIM implementation. Statistical analysis revealed that, generally, neither the profession nor BIM proficiency level affected participants' perceptions of the benefits, factors, challenges, or benefited parties in BIM implementation. (C) 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

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