4.5 Article

Mapping the managerial areas of Building Information Modeling (BIM) using scientometric analysis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 670-685

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.001

Keywords

Construction project management; Building Information Modeling (BIM); Scientometrics; Literature analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science foundation of China [71571137, 71390523]
  2. International Exchange Program for Graduate Students in Tongji University [2016020014]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province in China [20161BAB211009]
  4. Science and Technology Research Project from Education Department of Jiangxi Province in China [GJJ150073]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The successful adoption of Building Information Modeling (BIM) leads to the subsequent need for improving management practices and stakeholders' relationships. Previous studies have attempted to explore solutions for non-technical issues; however, a systematic and quantitative review of the details of non-technical field, namely, the managerial areas of BIM (MA BIM), seems to be missing. Hence, a scientometric approach is used to construct knowledge maps in MA BIM, thereby allowing bibliometric data to provide an objective and accurate perspective in the field as a whole. Through keyword and abstract term analysis of 126 related papers published from 2007 to 2015, an integrated conceptual framework is proposed to summarize current status and structure future directions of MA BIM based on five principal research areas. This study shows the transformation of MA BIM from an individual approach to a wide-ranging organizational strategy. It provides new insights into managing BIM projects by referring to the accurate representation and analysis of previous research efforts. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available