دانلود رایگان مقاله تصویب مقررات BIM: تجزیه و تحلیل بازار رقابتی

abstract

The adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) across markets is a pertinent topic for academic discourse and industry attention. This is evidenced by the unrelenting release of national BIM initiatives; new BIM protocols; and candidate international standards. This paper is the second part of an ongoing Macro BIM Adoption study: the first paper “Macro BIM Adoption: Conceptual Structures” (Succar and Kassem, 2015) introduced five conceptual models for assessing macro BIM adoption across markets and informing the development of BIM adoption policies. This second paper clarifies how these models are validated through capturing the input of 99 experts from 21 countries using a survey tool; highlights the commonalities and differences between sample countries with respect to BIM adoption; and introduces sample tools and templates for either developing or calibrating BIM adoption policies. Survey data collected indicate that all five conceptual models demonstrate high levels of ‘clarity’, ‘accuracy’ and ‘usefulness’, the three metrics measured. They also indicate (1) varying rates of BIM diffusion across countries with BIM capability near the lower-end of the spectrum; (2) varying levels of BIM maturity with - the mean of - most macro BIM components falling below the medium level; (3) varying diffusion dynamics across countries with the prevalence of the middle-out diffusion dynamic; (4) varying policy actions across countries with a predominance of the passive policy approach; and (5) varying distribution of diffusion responsibilities among player groups with no detectable dominant pattern across countries. The two papers provide an opportunity to improve our understanding of BIM adoption dynamics across countries. Future research can build upon the models and tools introduced to enable (a) an expansion of benchmarking data through surveying additional countries; (b) identifying BIM adoption changes in surveyed countries over time; (c) correlating changes in adoption rates/patterns with policy interventions; (d) identifying BIM policy variations within the same country; (e) establishing statistical correlations between the conceptual models; and (f) developing new tools to facilitate BIM policy development and encouraging BIM adoption.

6. Conclusion

Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption across markets is of increasing interest to policy makers researchers and other construction industry stakeholders. The three key challenges in this area are: the lack of models and tools that support policy makers in developing adoption policies, the lack of benchmarks to assess and comparing whole markets, and the dearth of guides for macro-BIM policy development. Paper A [43] addressed the first challenge by providing the five conceptual Macro-BIM adoption models that help policy makers to assess an existing policy effort or develop a new one. This paper (paper B) addressed the remaining two challenges by (i) validating the five models with the participation of 99 experts from 21 countries and (ii) applying the five models in assessing and comparing the national BIM policies across 21 countries. As the data revealed, the five models enjoy high levels of ‘clarity’, ‘accuracy’ and ‘usefulness’. More specifically, Model A (Diffusion Areas model) showed varying rates for its nine diffusion areas within the same country and across countries. It also demonstrated that, in most countries, diffusion occurs according to a staged approach where high diffusion rates were concentrated in modelling capabilities followed by collaboration and integration capabilities. This empirically demonstrated the concept of progression across the revolutionary stages (object-based modelling, model-based collaboration, and networkbased integration) presented in Succar [39,40]. Model B (Macro Maturity Components model) showed that there is not any individual country that has higher maturity than the other countries in more than three topics of the eight macro adoption topics. It also identified specific gaps – or topics – in the national BIM policy of several countries that would have remained uncovered by survey approaches that have been used to date in academia and practice.