Professional Documents
Culture Documents
June 2015
Building Information
Modelling and the
Value Dimension
rics.org/research
Building Information Modelling and the
Value Dimension
Amanprit Johal
Global Research and Policy Manager
ajohal@rics.org
Pratichi Chatterjee
Global Research & Policy Officer
pchatterjee@rics.org
Contents
Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 7
1.0 Introduction and scope of research ...............................................10
1.1 Rationale for the research ...............................................................10
1.2 Research question, aims and objectives.......................................10
1.3 Limitations...........................................................................................11
1.4 Structure of the report......................................................................11
2.0 BIM and the Value Dimension...............................................................12
2.1 Property Life Cycle ............................................................................13
2.2 Data Types and Needs........................................................................14
2.2.1 Property Information Requirements .............................................14
2.3 Education Issues ................................................................................16
2.3.1 BIM within AEC Education (project-level lifecycle).....................16
2.3.2 BIM within Property Education (property-level lifecycle).........17
2.3.3 Developing New Knowledge Competencies in RICS....................17
3.0 Research design and methodology..................................................19
3.1 Stage 1 Workshops ............................................................................19
3.2 Stage 2 Online Questionnaire Survey ............................................21
4.0 Workshop Analysis and Discussion ................................................22
4.1 Workshop 1 Identifying Data Types and Needs............................22
4.2 Workshop 2 Identifying the Challenges ........................................25
4.2.1 Technology-based Challenges.........................................................27
4.2.2 Socio-technical Challenges..............................................................27
4.3 Workshop 2 and 3 Identifying Timelines & Mapping
Data Needs Through Life ..................................................................29
5.0 Survey Data Analysis and Discussion.............................................31
5.1 Part 1 Respondent Profiles, Current Awareness and
Usage of BIM........................................................................................31
5.2 Part 2 Experience Working with Information Technologies...33
5.3 Part 3 Information Frequency and Need of Use........................35
5.4 Part 4 Challenges & Benefits of BIM............................................40
6.0 Overall conclusions and further research ..................................43
6.1 Data through-life................................................................................43
6.2 Challenges & Benefits of BIM...........................................................43
6.3 Integration of BIM in Property Education......................................44
6.4 Recommendations and further research......................................44
7.0 References.....................................................................................................45
Appendices ................................................................................................................47
Appendix 1 Property professionals data types and needs....................48
Appendix 2 Key to symbols used in figures 5 and 6 and Appendix 3......49
Appendix 3 Managing data through the property lifecycle
(Workshop 2 output). .......................................................................................50
Special Thanks .........................................................................................................52
List of Tables
Table 1 Information Categories Developed for Workshops and Survey......15
Table 2 Descending relative importance of data types for
Stakeholder Groups (highest to lowest)..............................................23
Table 3 Relative Importance of Five Main Information Types
& Stakeholder Groups...............................................................................23
Table 4 Challenges to through-life information management and
corresponding RII......................................................................................25
Table 5 Comparison between Australian and UK participants perspectives
regarding the key drivers and challenges when sourcing,
integrating and generating data through-life....................................28
Table 6 Frequency of use of data types by area of practice / discipline.....36
Table 7 Data need score by data type / area of practice................................37
Table 8 Tests of Professional Differences in Information Importance.......39
List of Figures
Figure 1 Property Development and Management processes compared
with Single Facility Project Processes (Source: Authors) ...............13
Figure 2 Selection of sort cards showing data types adapted from
Lutzendorf & Lorenz, 2011 ....................................................................20
Figure 3 Importance of Main Information Types according to
Stakeholders and Activities across CPDM/ Project
Lifecycle Phases........................................................................................24
Figure 4 Relative Importance of Challenges to Through-life
Information Management .......................................................................26
Figure 5 Data needs for a Buildings Surveyor Technical Due
Diligence survey ........................................................................................29
Figure 6 Data needs for Portfolio Management Surveyors through
the lifecycle ................................................................................................30
Figure 7 RICS region respondent work in ............................................................31
Figure 8 Respondents area of current practice ...............................................32
Figure 9 Land use types and sectors of property respondents work on ......32
Figure 10 Use of Information Technologies in the workplace ...........................33
Figure 11 Understanding of BIM ..............................................................................34
Figure 12 Experience of BIM .....................................................................................34
Figure 13 Source of BIM training .............................................................................34
Figure 14 Information Type Need versus Frequency ..........................................38
Figure 15 Key Challenges in information management through life ...............41
Figure 16 Key benefits of digital information through life ................................42
Glossary of Terms
Executive Summary
Building Information Modelling (BIM) offers rich
opportunities for RICS property professionals to use
Methods
information throughout the property lifecycle. However, the This research adopted a two-stage research design.
potential benefits of BIM for property professionals have The research had the characteristics of qualitative
been largely untapped to-date. BIM tools and processes research, in that it sought to investigate the potential
were originally developed by the architecture, engineering for property professionals to use BIM data. To do
and construction (AEC) sector to assist in managing this, it was necessary to ascertain and gain a deeper
design and construction data. As these technologies and understanding of their information / data needs and the
processes mature and evolve, so too does the opportunity type of data required. The first stage of the research
for other professional groups to utilise various types of data employed a Delphi approach, which seeks to aggregate
contained within, or linked to, BIM models. the opinions of a panel of experts through successive
This report outlines the findings from a research project rounds of questionnaires and interviews. The results
investigating the potential for RICS property professionals to from each round were collated and fed back to the panel
utilise BIM data. Workshops were carried out in Sydney and anonymously and then the panel was asked to provide
London with property professionals, and a global online further comment. Two groups of diverse and experienced
survey was conducted. From these, data types and needs property professionals were invited to share their
were identified and then mapped across the property knowledge and experiences in real time, in Sydney and
lifecycle. Alignment with BIM data was undertaken. London, over the course of three workshops. The scope
Following on from this, issues around training and of each workshop was as follows;
education for existing and future members were reviewed Workshop 1 Objectives: Identify the types of data that
along with the ways in which BIM can be integrated into each of the professional groups use in daily activities
property education on RICS accredited courses. and, the associated challenges of through-life information
management,
Research question and aims Workshop 2 Objective: Identify upstream and
downstream data requirements related to professional
The research question investigated was: what is the role property service tasks,
of the value dimension in BIM? This question is examined
relative to the activities and professional services performed Workshop 3 Objective: Analyse upstream and
by RICS property professionals. For example, could BIM downstream data requirements relative to data
help increase property income yields, by providing better characteristics, such as; quality and accessibility.
quality data on: minimising risk on investment returns; Following analysis of the data generated by the
increasing capital growth; and managing and optimising workshops, an online survey of RICS members globally
deprecation? As a scoping study, this project aimed; was undertaken. This stage of the research adopted a
a) to identify the specific types of data that various quantitative approach to validate the earlier qualitative
property professionals use throughout the property data collected in the workshops. The survey comprised
lifecycle, four parts to ascertain members knowledge and
understanding and discover how best BIM data can be
b) to evaluate the importance or need for these data types
used most effectively within the property professions.
to property professionals,
The survey allowed us to;
c) how information requirements compare with those of
AEC project level processes and the extent to which 1. Map the property information/data that members use
this data is generated in AEC focused BIM deliverables, currently,
d) to explore the potential to expand education about BIM 2. Understand the value and significance of those data
into property education, and; needs; and,
e) to identify steps that RICS can take to increase 3. Reveal what opportunities exist within BIM to enhance
knowledge, skills and competency of BIM within the professional practice.
membership of the property disciplines.
1.3 Limitations
The research is limited to the investigation of these
considerations from a property development,
management and valuation perspective. This perspective
encompasses a large range of professional property
service tasks surrounding property development,
property and portfolio management, property investment,
property transactions and real estate, property valuation,
property and facilities management, and building
surveying. Whilst the research study and methodology
sought representation across these different property
professionals, the researchers encountered some
difficulties in obtaining equal representation across
those dealing with commercial, retail, multi-residential,
health, and education properties. This research limitation
surrounding stakeholder representation was encountered
in the workshops, where commercial property interests
were more widely represented.
The lifecycles of complex, long-lived buildings mean that that 50% of the industry was using BIM, representing
it is important for property professionals to have robust a 75% increase in a two year period. A McGraw-Hill
and reliable through-life information about a buildings Construction report, titled, The Business Value of BIM
performance and value. Property professionals considered in Europe (McGraw-Hill 2010), shows construction
here include property and facilities managers, development professionals in France, Germany and U.K. have been
and asset managers, investment and valuation surveyors, using BIM longer, but overall BIM adoption is greater in
building surveyors. However, whilst the value of BIM has North America. The study shows that a little over a third
been addressed in the research literature relative to its return (36%) of Western European construction professionals are
on investment (ROI), these studies most often centre on the using BIM, where in a previous report McGraw-Hill found
project lifecycle and define value relative to AECO interests. that 49% of contractors, architects and engineers reported
BIM usage, (McGraw-Hill 2009). However, there is no clear
In the past five years more than 250 articles have
and consistent demand for adoption by clients. Currently
investigated the impacts of BIM relative to project
BIM adoption is largely in the larger AEC companies and
performance and its impact on business value (e.g. Carroll
within larger construction projects, buildings and estates.
2009, Becerik-Gerber & Kensek 2010, Rowlinson et al.
Furthermore given that typically only 1-2% is added to the
2010, Sebastian & van Berlo 2010). However they are
total stock of buildings annually (Wilkinson, 2015), it will be
limited in terms of their definition of value, which focuses on
many years before a majority of stock has BIM.
project and/or an AEC business level outcomes. Research
studies on the value of BIM relative to client-side and wider El-Gohary (2010) argued that potentially, BIM can add value
property interests are lacking. Most studies include client when assessing sustainability in a property development
perspectives on the perceived benefits, costs and risks of feasibility study, where the costs and the potential of
new technological, process and organisational change. different options can be assessed in respect of likely
For example, industry surveys undertaken in Australia, sustainability rating levels say, under BREEAM or Green
the UK and US (McGraw Hill 2014) have shown that most Star. Studies by Fuerst and McAllister (2012) and Newell
clients perceive a positive ROI when BIM is adopted. et al, (2011) have indicated that there is a value premium
However, these studies are limited to the project lifecycle, in sustainable commercial property in the UK, US and
and consider only single facility project processes Australia. Using BIM data and simulations, clients can be
neglecting the broader property perspective. advised of the social, environmental and economic costs
and benefits of various options allowing them to make
A number of studies undertaken across the U.K., Europe,
more informed decisions that optimise, or at least consider
the US and Australian/New Zealand AEC industries show
the impact on property value. However it is not known
that BIM uptake has in recent years been accelerating and
whether the information specified in AEC BIM models
is likely to accelerate over the next few years (McGraw Hill,
currently meets the needs of the property professionals.
2014). In the US in 2009, it was reported (Young et al., 2009)
2.1 Property life cycle When the two different levels of lifecycle are compared, the
requirements of information management is more complex
Property development and management activities and the opportunities to maintain and leverage the data
encompass more than the combination of single or contained within, or linked to, a BIM model is apparent.
multiple AEC projects and the application of BIM in this However there is a lack of literature reporting studies
wider scope of property services is not well understood. of well-defined property based or client-side strategy
Typically, at the level of an AEC project, the general surrounding the business case for deploying BIM either
lifecycle process of the design and construction project on single facility projects or relative to property portfolios.
is defined as: The recent increase in digital information generated
1) Pre-design (PD) in which the decision maker from the during AEC projects and throughout a propertys
client side evaluates project feasibility; operation and maintenance creates potential for a
new approach to information management within
2) Schematic Design (SD);
property. The development of new approaches must
3) Detailed Design (DD); consider the lengthy time periods that information must
4) Construction Documentation (CD); be managed over and complexities surrounding the
different consumers and generators of information, where
5) Construction (CO); and information must be able to be accessed and used by
6) Operation/Maintenance (OM). numerous property professionals. The established role for
BIM in managing information within AEC professions can
Only the client is involved in the entire process and
be extended to property professionals. Questions arise
other professionals join and depart from the project as
such as; what are the information needs, at what periods
required. When taking the wider property development
during the lifecycle is information needed and; what is
and management activities that surround the AEC project
the frequency of which such information is required? In
into consideration, a more extensive lifecycle process
seeking to provide answers to these questions the first
becomes evident. This property perspective of lifecycle
step was to identify and then make an assessment of
includes not only the AEC phases described above, but
relevant property data.
also activities that encompass property such as;
1) Conception;
2) Planning and Feasibility;
3) Preparation;
4) Execution;
5) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and
6) Recommissioning (see figure 1).
Commercial Property
Development Conception Planning & Preparation Execution Operation Recommissioning
& Management (C) Feasibility (P) (E) Maintenance (R)
Lifecycle Phases (SD) (OM)
Source: Authors
2.2 Data Types & Needs These information types are shown in the second column
of Table 1. The classification developed in Table 1 was
The data sources that are required to provide a description compiled on the basis of information traditionally sourced,
and assessment of a propertys performance and value organised and (re)used by property developers, property
are disparate, extensive, and correspond to the type and portfolio managers, property investment surveyors,
and variety of professional AECO and property activities valuers, property and facility manager, building surveyors
that span the building lifecycle. The data collected and in property transactions. This data can be sourced
encompasses market, property, building, financial, project, from building documentation, consultants reports, industry
operations and maintenance data. Together in various databases, building inspections, facility managers, a
combinations and at different lifecycle stages, this data variety of building reports, and documentation of the
is reused by a variety of property professionals to inform design and planning process typically created during the
performance and valuation tasks. design and planning stage for verification of conformity
with regulations. Each information type was identified
2.2.1 Property Information Requirements based on its mapping with property development and
management activities and its classification as either an
Currently a range of separate and distinct sources are economic, environmental or social indicator of value.
used to access property, development and management
information. Distinct data types may coexist in isolation and These attributes and characteristics formed the basis
the quality, completeness and accuracy of this information of workshop discussions. Based on outcomes and
is often unknown and sometimes unchecked (by those who learning from the workshops, the main categories and
generated the information or who may consume it), making sub-categories were modified to cover a wider range of
information management in property disciplines complex. property activities and were re-structured according to
Ltzendorf and Lorenz (2011) identified a comprehensive information and data formats that are readily available
list of descriptors to represent information types used by throughout the property lifecycle, and also re-worded into
property valuation and related professions. A list of 22 language more familiar to property professionals. The final
descriptor categories shown in the first column of Table categories developed for the survey are shown in the third
1, identified by Ltzendorf and Lorenz (2011) according to column of Table 1.
information traditionally gathered and used for property Sourcing data from BIM technologies and building
valuation and risk assessment purposes. Their sources management systems (BMS) is becoming more common
included The European Group of Valuers Associations in the delivery and operational stages of commercial
(TEGoVA 2003), RICS (2009) as well as a cross-section buildings (McGraw Hill 2014). This research is based
of sustainability assessment schemes such as the United on the premise that the same information management
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP 2009), and the capabilities that are being derived from a BIM-enabled
Green Property Alliance (GPA 2010). These studies were approach to benefit AECO stakeholders can be extended
examined to ascertain whether BIM might offer for the to serve property professionals and thereby add value to
broader scope of property development and management their services.
activities; in other words, the value dimension.
With the volume of data generated, it is necessary to
The researchers analysed each information requirement evaluate the relevance and importance of each data
relative to the scope and processes identified in Figure 1 type. The authors developed a method for identifying
and developed an information requirements framework and determining the importance of information types.
consisting of five main types of property, development and The first step was to prioritise information based on the
management descriptors, 25 sub-types and 90 individual need for the information, the frequency of use, the effort
attributes. The five main categories of information include of reacquisition, and finally, duration of reacquisition.
descriptors relevant to property development and Modifications of this method were used to analyse the
management of; workshop and survey findings.
1) Market and Location Data,
2) Property Data describing Plot of Land,
3) Property Data describing Economic information,
4) Building Information, and;
5) Process Qualities.
4.
Plot of land characteristics and 2. Property Information Types, describing 3 Property Site Data including;
configuration descriptors Plot of Land, including: Property Lot Attributes
5.
Plot of Land Surrounding Context Characteristics and Configuration, Utilities
Descriptors Surrounding Contextual Data) Environmental Attributes
Surrounding Building Context
Property Development Details
6.
Mechanisms / Instruments 3. Property Information Types, describing 4. Financial Data including;
Economic and Financial Data, including:: Payments In,
7. Economic Quality Payments In
Descriptors Payments In, Payments Out,
8. Economic Quality Payments Out Payments Out, Vacancy / Letting and
Descriptors Vacancy/Letting and Tenancy Occupier Data
9. Economic Quality Vacancy / Tenancy/Occupier Information
Letting Descriptors
10. Economic Quality / Cash Flow
Tenancy/Occupier Descriptors
11. Building Basic Building Quality 4. Building Information Types, including: 5. Building Data, including:
Descriptors Building design information Spatial attributes
12. Building Technical Quality Technical and building systems 3D model objects (elements) and
Descriptors information properties (parameters)
13. Building Functional Quality Functional information, Building Documentation and Images
Descriptors Environmental design information,
14. Building Environmental Quality Design/ Aesthetics information
Descriptors
Contribution to urban quality
15. Building Design / Aesthetics Quality 6. Real Estate Data (Added to incorporate
User comfort & Post-occupancy
Descriptors data typically collected that describes
evaluation information
16. Building Urban Quality Descriptors intangible value descriptors), including:
Cultural value information
Property Value Attributes
17. Building User Health / Comfort Image and reputation value
Quality Descriptors Property Imagery
information
18. Building Cultural Value Descriptors Property Activity
19. Building Brand Value Descriptors Property Insurance Attributes
Property Insurance Rate Variables
20. Process Quality Planning 5. Process Information Types, including: 7. Project Data, including:
Descriptors Planning process information Planning and Feasibility Data,
21. Process Quality Construction Design process information Design Management Data
Descriptors
Construction process information Construction Process and
Operations and Facilities Management Data
Management information
22. Process Quality Management 8. Operations and Maintenance Data,
Descriptors including;
Maintenance, Alteration and Repair,
Asset Monitoring and Tracking,
Space Management
2.3 Education Issues Teaching with virtual building models, and related BIM
technologies, has the potential to increase student
This section examines some key issues around understanding, not only of design and construction
the education of property students and existing processes, but also (perhaps most importantly) of how to
property professionals with respect to BIM knowledge collaborate and share information with other professionals
competencies. An overview of the integration of BIM across the property lifecycle (e.g. Macdonald & Mills, 2012;
within the AEC disciplines is provided and the potential Macdonald & Granroth 2013). Buildings can be analysed
to leverage off this experience is discussed. This section rigorously, simulations performed and design performance
considers; firstly, BIM models or virtual building models benchmarked, moving AEC students from abstract
(VBMs) as an integrated source of information for teaching concepts to applied knowledge. Model-based building data
and learning and the re-usability of building information can be shared, value-added and re-purposed according
generated to meet AEC deliverables for property education to subject content and requirements. Other educational
purposes. Secondly it considers, a potential roadmap for advantages are the engagement and exploration of building
the adoption of BIM for teaching and learning, and; finally products and process via simulation and, of particular
the needs of existing practitioners and the role of continuing import to property focused subjects, the simulation
professional development (CPD) and short courses. of integrated planning, feasibility and implementation
processes. From this perspective, utilising virtual building
Broadly, BIM provides an appropriate and potentially models within AEC and property programmes provides a
beneficial suite of technologies for the development of vehicle to introduce principles of teamwork, collaboration
new teaching and learning approaches that can enable and continuity across multiple lifecycle stages, including
the incorporation of valuable property related data that is
used through the property lifecycle for property investment, 1. BIM and preconstruction planning a BIM project,
property maintenance and property management purposes. defining responsibility and ownership, information
exchange, model coordination planning, digital
2.3.1 BIM within AEC Education (project- information transfer standards.
level lifecycle) 2. BIM and design management design coordination,
integration, inter-disciplinarity, inter-operability, clash
The adoption of BIM technologies and processes offers
detection and reporting, model coordination and
many benefits to educational programmes offered by
management.
universities. In particular where faculties, departments
or schools have Quantity Surveying, Construction and 3. BIM and construction scheduling, constructability,
Project Management and Property undergraduate trade coordination.
and post-graduate provision; there is the potential for 4. BIM and Assembly and Manufacture because
cross-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary projects (e.g. digital product data can be exploited for downstream
Macdonald, 2012). The benefits to students studying processes, students can engage with (automated)
the AEC disciplines that BIM offers include increases assembly and manufacturing problems.
in knowledge and understandings of:
5. BIM and updates pre-bid, estimate updates, model
1) More effective workflows for improved information updates, clash detection updates, budget management.
sharing between disciplines;
6. Cost and lifecycle analysis target cost modelling,
2) Digital methodologies for time and costs savings simulated construction timelines, requirements, design,
that translate into productivity gains; construction and operational information can be utilised
3) Digital methodologies to improve product and in Facility Management subjects.
process quality. 7. Production quality documentation output is flexible
4) Sustainability for the built environment; and and exploits automation, enabling students to quickly
and more easily analyse building solutions and propose
5) Greater transparency and accountability in
alternate construction technologies and methods.
decision-making
8. Customer focus often the customer or client is
A key benefit of BIM in education is the virtual building left out of the equation in the teaching environment.
models as a visual tool for learning. Due to its geometrical As virtual building models can be understood through
representation of the parts of a building in an integrated data accurate visualisation, students are able to gain
environment, virtual building models can allow students to a clients perspective.
understand design and construction technology with ease
and speed. Virtual building models, as visual teaching aids, Given the benefits highlighted by researchers in AEC
provide AEC subjects with a means of visually simulating education (e.g. Macdonald, 2012), the next section explores
design and construction details, component relationships, the potential and issues for the integration of BIM within
construction materials and activities. Geometric modelling Property education. With the property lifecycle extending
and virtual reality techniques can be used in the visualisation far beyond the project lifecycle, the property lifecycle forces
of typical and be-spoke AEC methods, allowing students to a broader more enterprise level view of BIM for information
access information in the classroom (Jupp and Awad 2012). management than the (AEC-based) project lifecycle.
2.3.2 BIM within Property Education The experiences of the BIM and Product Lifecycle
(property-level lifecycle) Management communities can be used to understand the
practice-based issues. The construction industry is in the
One approach to deliver education that could be adopted early phases of BIM adoption and stands to benefit most
in undergraduate and fast track post-graduate conversion in learning from PLM experiences of professional practice
courses, is to set up introductory BIM subjects to provide and cultural change. Moreover property professionals
initial understanding of the concepts of BIM, including within RICS can benefit from this experience also in the
its processes, technologies, protocols and jargon, which development of CPD courses that focus on the changes
could, where possible, possibly be co-taught with AEC to roles and responsibilities.
students. Thereafter the specialised application of BIM in
the various property knowledge fields, such as valuation, Product Lifecycle Management focuses on the whole
property management, property funds investment would lifecycle of a product and is not the responsibility of
see BIM-enabled teaching and learning embedded within one unit or department; but a whole organisation. At a
those subjects. Further opportunities lie in multi and general level Product Lifecycle Management deployment
cross-disciplinary subjects, as described in the framework requires greater levels of collaboration and communication
proposed by Macdonald (2012). between professionals. This approach to information
management requires the implementation team works
RICS may be able to learn from the integration of closely with business teams; for example, people from
Product Lifecycle Management in engineering systems purchasing, order management, sales and marketing, and
education. With the increasing uptake of BIM, some inventory management (Hewitt, 2009). Product Lifecycle
AEC professionals are experiencing significant changes Management implementation requirements dictate that
to their professional working practices (Jupp & Nepal, in manufacturing based industries, a broader lifecycle
2014), which may be experienced in due course by approach to information management is desirable.
some property professionals. BIM reflects many of the Similarly across some property service tasks there
changes, challenges and opportunities prompted by the would be a requirement for close integration of products,
introduction of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) data, applications, processes, people, work methods,
in the automotive and aerospace industries during the and equipment from across the supply chain. PLM
1990s. During the implementation of Product Lifecycle deployment in supply chains raises significant changes
Management, changes to professional practices relating to roles and responsibilities and it is vital that the roles
to new activities, roles/responsibilities, knowledge and responsibilities are determined at the outset (Stark,
competencies, and relationships was required; and many 2011). Likewise responsibilities in relation to partnering
characteristics reported on the adoption and deployment companies and their role in the process must be carefully
of BIM and Product Lifecycle Management information considered (Hewitt, 2009). Jupp and Nepal (2014)
systems are shared (Jupp & Nepal, 2014) and may be identified a number of new responsibilities within existing
applicable to the expansion of BIM into property. traditional roles in the Product Lifecycle Management
BIM and Product Lifecycle Management differ mostly literature as well as how these roles are shared between
around the capacity for technical and organisational administration executives (typically with an engineering
integration, leading to differences in approach to data background) and project engineers. Over time it is
governance and information management (Ford et al, possible new responsibilities and roles will emerge within
2013). The key differences lie in the information system some of the RICS property professions as a result of
and tools utilised by their different application domains, a BIM-enabled approach to information management
which are underpinned by vastly different BIM/ Product through the life of property assets.
Lifecycle Management platform specifications and data
requirements. BIM and PLM, share similarities such as 2.3.3 Developing New Knowledge
the approach to data sharing, project management, Competencies in RICS
organisation of teams around deliverables and timelines,
Hewitts study (2009) showed that the shift of perspective
and object-based visualisation activities. The challenges
from product delivery to a lifecycle approach represented
that follow from these shared characteristics provide fertile
a knowledge gap for many manufacturing companies;
grounds for sharing lessons learned. Issues surrounding
RICS can learn from this by adopting a proactive lead in
changes to professional practice and cultural change
the implementation of BIM in property education. Hewitt
affect the practical deployment of BIM and Product
(2009) found educational establishments and professional
Lifecycle Management concepts within their respective
bodies needed to align curriculums, assessments and
sectors. These challenges stem from various new
accreditation relative to PLM and manufacturing; and
activities that change the nature of professional roles and
RICS should consider starting this process with respect
responsibilities at practice and project level. The changes
to targeted areas of property education and professional
are predicated on the development of new technical skills,
competencies. RICS members need to be versatile, cross-
new knowledge fields and stakeholder relationships (Jupp
functional professionals who are up-to-date with emerging
& Nepal, 2014). To some degree, this would be the case
technologies; able to perform new professional services
also for property professionals.
associated with through-life requirements and activities.
Figure 2 Selection of sort cards showing data types adapted from Lutzendorf & Lorenz, 2011
Workshop two had the objective to: 3.2 Stage 2 Online Questionnaire
a) Identify upstream and downstream data requirements
related to professional property service tasks
Survey
The same respondents participated in the second Having ascertained the data types and data needs of
exercise, cards classified as essential and nice to know property professionals in the Stage 1 workshops, a
by participants were used as the basis for identifying questionnaire was designed to allow the researchers
challenges to the sourcing, organisation and reusing of to determine whether the workshop data types and
information throughout the building lifecycle. Participants needs identified by the participants matched those of
were asked to identify challenges on the basis of their the profession more broadly. This part of the research
cards so as to pinpoint individually problems in relation embodied the characteristics of quantitative research
to a BIM-enabled approach to information management, (Silverman, 2013) whereby a statistical analysis of data
before then discussing their findings within each group. reveals the characteristics and needs of a larger group
Participants were then asked to rank challenges deemed of practitioners.
most to least significant. As a result of the second An online survey was designed adopting best practice
workshop a timeline for managing data through the in survey design (Silverman, 2013) comprising four parts
property lifecycle was produced for each participant to and launched in April 2015. Part one asked respondents
explore in the final workshop (see Appendix 2 and 3 for about their area of practice across the RICS regions,
typical examples). their area of expertise, the stage of the property lifecycle
during which their expertise was required, their level
The objective of workshop three was to: of expertise, knowledge and usage of BIM in their
a) Analyse upstream and downstream data requirements professional services. Part two focussed on the value
relative to data characteristics, such as format, source, of data contained in BIM, and asked respondents about
quality, accessibility. the importance of different types of BIM data to their
professional services. The next section of the survey
In this workshop, participants reviewed their timeline chart
asked questions about non BIM enabled data and
for managing data through the property lifecycle and
respondents data needs in order to prioritise the data
commented on any changes that were required. In some
type property professionals would find most useful to
cases property practitioners required identical data at
access in a BIM. Part three focussed on the status of
various points in the property lifecycle for a task and had
information technologies in professional property tasks
complex data needs (see figure 5 and 6 and Appendices
and which land use types had the most requirements for
2 and 3), whereas others had data needs at a single point
BIM enabled data according to respondents. Finally part
only during the life cycle.
four examined the value of data sources and potential BIM
enabled information. Having identified the key challenges
from Workshops 2 and 3 in respect of data, respondents
were asked to rank the significance of different challenges
be they technical challenges or data quality and fidelity
challenges and so on. The survey was designed for
completion within a 10-minute period, and remained open
for a four-week period. The survey was distributed through
RICS channels and reminder emails were sent weekly to
encourage as good a response rate as possible.
Table 2 Descending relative importance of data types for Stakeholder Groups (highest to lowest)
Development
AEC & Asset Value & Cost Transaction
All Responses Professionals Managers Managers Managers
Information Types RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
1 Building Description 0.92 1 1.00 1 0.92 3 1.00 1 1.00 1
2 Functional Quality 0.87 1 1.00 2 0.83 8 0.92 3 1.00 1
3 Land Features 0.85 1 1.00 3 0.83 8 0.92 3 0.75 20
4 Technical Quality 0.85 1 1.00 3 0.92 3 0.83 12 0.75 20
5 Payments Out 0.85 21 0.44 3 1.00 1 0.92 3 1.00 1
6 Site Features 0.82 1 1.00 6 0.83 8 0.92 3 1.00 1
7 Environmental Quality 0.82 8 0.89 6 0.83 8 0.83 12 1.00 1
8 Operational Quality 0.79 8 0.89 8 0.83 8 0.75 17 1.00 1
9 Health & User Comfort 0.79 8 0.89 8 0.83 8 0.83 12 0.75 20
10 Payments In 0.79 22 0.33 8 0.92 3 0.92 3 1.00 1
11 FM Quality 0.77 19 0.67 11 0.83 8 0.88 8 1.00 1
12 National Market 0.74 19 0.67 12 0.83 8 0.75 17 1.00 1
13 Market & Letting Vacancy Situation 0.74 22 0.33 12 0.83 8 0.83 12 1.00 1
14 Planning Quality 0.74 14 0.78 12 0.75 18 0.75 17 1.00 1
15 Micro-Location 0.72 1 1.00 15 0.75 18 0.75 17 1.00 1
16 Environmental Context 0.72 14 0.78 15 0.88 7 0.83 12 1.00 1
17 Tenant & occupier Situation 0.72 22 0.33 15 0.92 3 0.67 23 1.00 1
18 Construction Quality 0.72 8 0.89 15 0.75 18 0.88 8 1.00 1
19 Surrounding Characteristics 0.67 1 1.00 19 1.00 1 0.88 8 1.00 1
20 Design/Aesthetic Quality 0.67 8 0.89 19 0.75 18 0.75 17 0.75 20
21 Design Process Quality 0.67 14 0.78 19 0.83 8 0.75 17 0.75 20
22 Macro-Location 0.62 14 0.78 22 0.75 18 1.00 1 0.83 19
23 Cultural/Image Value 0.59 8 0.89 23 0.63 23 0.88 8 0.75 20
24 Urban Design Quality 0.51 14 0.78 24 0.63 23 0.63 24 0.75 20
Table 3 Relative Importance of Five Main Information Types & Stakeholder Groups
Commercial Property
Development Conception Planning & Preparation Execution Operation Recommissioning
& Management (C) Feasibility (P) (E) Maintenance (R)
Lifecycle Phases (SD) (OM)
Location
Descriptors
Plot of land
Descriptors
Building
Descriptors
Process Quality
Descriptors
Economic Quality
Descriptors
Low significance
Low-Medium significance
Medium significance
Medium-High significance
High significance
4.2 Workshop 2 Identifying Post workshop analysis further classified these five
categories in terms of Technology based Challenges
the Challenges (category 1) and Socio-technical Challenges (categories
2-5). Far more socio-technical challenges (20 in total)
Participants brainstormed the challenges relating to through were identified as being significant by participants.
life information management and then ranked them in Participants were then asked to rank the importance of
the same way as exercise 1. A total of 23 challenges each of the 23 challenges. Figure 4 illustrates the results
were identified, that are divided in technology based and of RII analysis.
socio-technology challenges as shown in Table 4.
A number of issues will need addressing if the vast
The challenges identified by each group were then amounts of property data are to be a useful resource
discussed. Five categories (Table 4) identified by the over a building lifecycle. Whilst three technology-based
facilitators and reported back to participants include challenges identified by workshop participants as having
issues surrounding: a high level of agreed significance, the number and
1) Inter-operability and data standards, significance of socio-technical challenges identified were
greater overall.
2) Data quality and fidelity,
3) Context,
4) Security and privacy, and;
5) Digital skills and knowledge competencies.
Security & 15. Privacy preserving analytics and granular access control (RII 0.82)
Privacy 16. Secure data storage and data provenance (RII 0.81)
17. Intellectual property and information ownership (RII 0.90)
18. End-point validation and filtering (RII 0.82)
19. Lack of digital skill sets and domain knowledge (RII 0.85)
20. Complexity of incorporating operational simulations (RII 0.62)
Digital Skills
& Knowledge 21. Perceived black box and risk in loss of knowledge due to dynamic workforce (RII 0.54)
Competencies
22. Need for cultural change amid feelings of fear & loss of control (RII 0.73)
23. Continual reporting and justification of business case for on-going data collection (RII 0.72)
Importance
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Interoperability
Ensuring data can be sustained and
and Data updated over long timescales
Standards
Ensuring data can be organised such
that it can be discovered and exploited
Complexity of incorporating
operational simulations
Need for New Digital Skill Sets and their concern as to whether BIM, as an information
Knowledge Competencies management tool could replicate this level of real-life
experience, and what training would be required to use
There is a need for education and training in new BIM effectively for this purpose.
information systems and to develop new knowledge
competencies. Five challenges were identified and, of A similar process was undertaken in respect of the
these, the lack of digital skill sets combined with an London workshop and table 5 shows the similarities
inadequate level of domain knowledge was identified as and differences in perceptions of participants about the
the most significant. Participants highlighted the difficulty drivers and challenges faced with information needs and
in making sense of large amounts of data without a data management through the property lifecycle. Overall
good deal of intelligent processing and the knowledge/ Australia based practitioners perceived a greater range of
experience to interpret and drive this processing. For issues than their UK counterparts and this may reflect the
example, participants stated that an experienced different cultures predominating within the two markets,
property professional currently aggregates and interprets as well as the different areas of property represented in
many sources of data when making an assessment of both groups of workshops.
the state or value of an asset. Participants expressed
Aus
Aus
Aus
UK
UK
UK
UK
Fidelity Workflow Human Error Security and Privacy
Data consistency, Disjointed nature of Lack of combined Conflicts in interest
accuracy & reliability information flow domain-specific relative to data
across all lifecycle knowledge & digital transparency &
phases skill sets business interest
Data format and Differences in level of Lack of education IT infrastructure
interoperability availability of data to and training- both security in distributed
all users through-life institutional & networks & data stores
organisational
Data granularity & level Lack of automation & Black box systems Privacy preserving
of details (LoD) integration between & loss of corporate analytic & granular
information systems knowledge due to access control
dynamic workforce
Data quantity Vs Compressed Need for cultural Secure data storage &
quality timeframes for data change admit feelings data provenance
generation & analysis for fear & loss of
control
Objective Vs. subjective Uncertainty Communication End-point validation
data, information surrounding value of difficulties & and filtering
&knowledge data & its ongoing use differences in domain
through-life specific language
Data verification Lack of standards & Human error, Security of property
and validation: protocols for data use, cognitive limitations & and building metadata
GIGO (Garbage in entry, verification and information overload tags through-life
Garbage out) validation
Complexity of Continual reporting/
incorporating justification of
operational business case for
simulation data collection and
upgrading
GEO Indicative Tenancy Tenant and Tenant and Tenant and Basic
Technical
Occupier Occupier Occupier Building
Report Costs Schedule Quality
Situation Situation Situation Description
Flooding Health
Maps Design
and User SSPECS
Report Investment Maintenance Asset Building
Comfort
Model Schedule Documents
Topography
Facilities General
Brief Management FM Score Ledger
Quality Payments Agreements
Site Plan Out
Asset Plan
Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension
Reports
Audits
Operational
Quality Asset
ESD
Plans
Modelling
Property Valuation
Property Development
Construction
Design (AEC)
Property Investment
Other
FM
Commercial Offices
Retail buildings
Residential buildings
Health buildings
Other commercial
Education buildings
Industrial
Transport
Infrastructure
Other
5.2 Part 2 Experience Working be partly a result of the seniority and years of experience
of the respondents. Figure 10 summarises responses
with Information Technologies in respect of use of technologies in the workplace.
Not surprisingly, high usage of intranets was reported When asked about their understanding of BIM, 12.1%
in the survey. Also, given the high numbers working have no understanding and 48.3% report having limited
in the property sector there is a high use of online understanding, which shows a need to educate and up-
property databases, such as RP data in Australia. skill over 60% of respondents (see Figure 11). Conversely
Likewise, valuation systems and extranets have fair levels just under a quarter (24.1%) felt that they have a good
of usage. Less well used are 3D modelling systems, understanding whilst just 15.5% felt they have excellent
finance systems and 2D CAD systems. The lowest used understanding of BIM.
technologies by the respondents were building simulation Having said this when asked about experience of BIM
and analysis, 4D and 5D modelling, virtual data room (Figure 12) 67% record no experience which confirms
and BMS. Overall, the group is reasonably used to using the need to educate and up-skill RICS members. Only
IT, however the advanced and newest iterations of BIM 12% have experience of BIM exceeding 5 years. Nine of
technologies are less familiar to the sample. This may the 19 that had experience in BIM reported using it on a
daily basis in their current work activities.
Of the following information technologies, which do you use in your current work activities?
Percentage (%)
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Intranets
Extranets
Valuation Systems
3D Modelling Systems
Finance Systems
2D CAD Systems
4D or 5D Modelling Systems
Other
No
understanding
12.1%
Less than
1 year
Excellent
understanding 9%
12.1%
13 years
No experience 9%
Limited understanding
48.3% 67%
Good
understanding
5+ years
12.1%
12%
45 years
3%
Of the 19 respondents that have had hands-on This approach is understandable where there is a need to
experience, Figure 13 shows where they received their up-skill existing members of a workforce. However, there
training. Most received training on the job, followed by is a greater potential in the education system for people,
industry training courses, in-house training programmes future RICS members, to be exposed to the theories
and finally tertiary education. Clearly where training is underlying the technologies and to be exposed to a greater
delivered on the job, in house and via training courses range of systems. On this basis we strongly encourage
individuals are exposed to a limited range of systems and RICS to promote the adoption of BIM education into its
technologies already selected or adopted by their employers. accredited global property education provision.
Where did you receive your training in BIM? (select all that apply)
Percentage (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Tertiary institution 3
Industry training courses 8
In-house training programs 7
On the job 11
Information Category
Maintenance Data
Property Location
Spatial Attributes
Documentation &
3D Model Objects
Real Estate Data
Financial Data
& Properties
Project Data
Market Data
Operation &
Frequency
Images
of Use
Data
Average
Survey item Score
Property Insurance Claims 3.61
Variables Affecting Property Insurance Rates 3.52
Property Imagery 2.74
Property Activity 2.67
Property Value Attributes 2.55
Specifications 1.90
2D Documentation (plans, elevations, sections, etc.) 1.90
Area 1.88
Construction Attributes 1.87
Planning & Feasibility Attributes 1.75
State, Regional and Neighbourhood Market 1.73
Micro-location 1.63
Property development 1.59
Design management attributes 1.59
Certifications (Permits, Ratings, etc.) 1.55
2D geometry 1.54
National Market 1.53
Maintenance, Alteration and Repair 1.51
Macro-location 1.46
Property Lot Attributes 1.46
Tenant and Occupier Situation 1.45
Listings, Recent Sales and Auction 1.45
Vacancy and Letting Situation 1.44
Environmental Attributes 1.42
Surrounding Building Context 1.40
Marketing Statistics 1.38
Property transfers 1.36
3D rendered perspectives 1.36
Utilities 1.36
Asset Monitoring & Tracking 1.34
Volume 1.32
Orientation 1.27
Operations and Maintenance Manuals 1.23
Architectural Components 1.23
3D geometry 1.21
Space management 1.21
Structural components 1.20
Heating, ventilation & air conditioning components 1.03
Electrical and lighting components 1.00
Mechanical & plant components 0.98
Internal fittings, furnishings and fixtures 0.95
External fittings, furnishings & fixtures 0.95
Hard & soft landscaping components 0.92
Payments Out 0.88
Payments In 0.87
Information Category
Maintenance Data
Property Location
Spatial Attributes
Documentation &
3D Model Objects
Real Estate Data
Financial Data
& Properties
Project Data
Market Data
Operation &
Images
Need
Data
Average
Survey item Score
Space Management 2.38
Asset Monitoring & Tracking 2.32
Maintenance, alteration & repair 2.26
Planning & feasibility attributes 1.97
Specifications 1.90
2D Documentation (plans, elevations, sections, etc.) 1.85
Environmental Attributes 1.84
National Market 1.83
Area 1.83
Design management attributes 1.83
Utilities 1.78
Certifications (Permits, Ratings, etc.) 1.78
Property Lot Attributes 1.76
Property development 1.76
Micro-location 1.76
State, regional and neighbourhood market 1.74
Surrounding Building Context 1.73
2D geometry 1.70
Architectural Components 1.70
Operation and Maintenance Manuals 1.69
Macro-Location 1.69
Property Value Attributes 1.69
3D Rendered Perspectives 1.68
Orientation 1.66
Tenant and Occupier Situation 1.64
Volume 1.63
Structural Components 1.63
Property Activity 1.60
Listings, Recent Sales and Auction 1.60
Vacancy and Letting Situation 1.58
Property Transfers 1.57
Property Imagery 1.57
Marketing Statistics 1.56
3D geometry 1.55
Mechanical & Plant Components 1.55
External Fittings, Furnishings & FIxtures 1.55
Hard & Soft Landscaping Components 1.55
Internal Fittings, Furnishings & Fixtures 1.54
Electrical and lighting components 1.54
Heating, ventilation & air conditioning components 1.53
Payments In 1.43
Payments Out 1.40
Variables Affecting Property Insurance Rates 1.22
Property Insurance Claims 1.22
Construction Attributes 1.93
Figure 14 shows information types plotted by their ranking Specifications Documentation & Images
on need and frequency of use. Of particular note, is the Property Marketing Statistics Market Data
disparity between the frequency and need rankings of the
real estate data. Although the real estate information types Maintenance, Alteration & Repair Operations
were amongst the highest in ranking for frequency, they & Maintenance Data
have relatively low rankings for need. This suggests that Construction Attributes Project Data
these are used with great frequency by a small proportion
Design Management Attributes Project Data
of the respondents for non-legal reasons, but that a large
proportion of the respondents do not use them. The Planning & Feasibility Attributes Project Data
specific information types that rank as highest in terms of Micro-Location Property location Data
frequency and need (top right quadrant) are:
Property Development Property Site Data
2D Documentation (plans, elevations, sections, etc.)
Property Lot Attributes Property Site Data
Documentation & Images
2D geometry Spatial Attributes
Certifications (Permits, Ratings, etc.) Documentation
& Images Area Spatial Attributes.
3D Model Objects & Properties Documentation & Images Market Data Operations & Maintenance Data Project Data
Property Location Data Property Site Data Real Estate Data Spatial Attributes Financial Data
Although the response rate to the survey was not professionals than to property professionals. Building
high enough to make a lot of cross-tabs or subgroup descriptors were found to be more important to AEC
comparisons, the responses of the property professionals stakeholders (construction and design professionals) in
were compared to those of the construction professionals. both the workshops and survey. Financial data is of more
A number of statistically significant differences were importance to property professionals.
found between the two groups when it came to ranking
Several of the information types that were identified as
information types. Table 8 shows the information types for
being more important to property professionals also
which there was a statistically significant difference in the
ranked in the highest quadrant of information types (Figure
median scores between the two professional groups.
14), including micro-location, property development,
These survey results are consistent with the differences property lot attributes and property marketing statistics.
found in the workshops. The workshop Location These items might be indicative of a gap for property
category was found to be less important to AEC professionals where these items have been relatively less
stakeholders (refer to Table 3), which is equivalent important to AEC stakeholders but are of high frequency
to the above result that Market and Property and need for work activities.
Location categories are less important to construction
5.4 Part 4 Challenges are the industry benefits of potential for performance
improvements and increased transparency and open data
& Benefits of BIM sharing across sectors. Of equal highest significance
is the benefit of having data that can be re-used and
In this part of the survey, respondents were asked to re-purposed, which again can save time and costs and
rank how significant they saw challenges and benefits enable good design and construction to be replicated.
of an integrated approach to information management Other notable significant benefits are improvements
throughout the life of the property. Options were: to the assessment of building performance which is
Not significant potentially very significant in terms of buildings rated under
sustainability rating tools, which aim to measure in-use
Slightly significant
performance. Respondents also ranked new abilities to
Moderately significant provide value added services which reflects members
Significant desires to maintain the highest standards possible in highly
competitive markets. However when we examine the
Very significant lowest ranked benefits, there appear to be contradictions
Figure 15 shows the percentage of respondents that evident as improvements to information availability and
ranked each challenge as Very significant. The top completeness ranked the lowest of all whereas earlier
three challenges, indicated by dark bars, are (1) Data in the survey respondents had said data accuracy and
accuracy, consistency and reliability issues (36%) (2) reliability was a concern. There seems to be little point in
Lack of protocols to verify and validate data (33%) having an increased availability of data available to industry,
and (3) Secure data authorship and storage (32%). which may be incomplete and thus unreliable and out of
These responses echo the concerns of the workshop date. Second lowest ranked benefit is the potential for
participants, particularly with respect to data accuracy, greater levels of innovation in industry practice and third
consistency and reliability, which was the top challenge in lowest ranked item was improvements to the assessment
both the workshop and the survey. Of note is that the top of property value. It appears that members currently
two challenges fall within the category of Data Quality and do not perceive a great level of benefit to valuers and
Protocols. Human Factors seem to be less of a concern, the valuation process from data contained in BIM. More
with several items of the lowest concern falling in this benefit may lie in the benefits to portfolio managers and
category, including lack of training at an organisational investment management surveyors to assess the ongoing
level and communication difficulties. value of properties within their portfolios based on building
performance and property maintenance costs over time.
Finally the significance of the perceived key benefits of an Building Surveyors and Facilities Managers will benefit from
integrated approach to information management through access to data related to building performance in delivering
the life of property are considered. Of highest significance some of their professional services.
Percentage (%)
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Human error
Percentage (%)
0.0 5 .0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Improvements to organisational
performance and operational efficiency
Improvements to information
availability & completeness
5. Process qualities (planning information, construction Largely, the survey responses echoed concerns raised by
information and FM information). the workshop participants. There is a danger that in some
cases there will be Building Information Models which are
Data needs were also found to vary from relatively not well maintained and have inaccurate data entry that will,
simple at a single point in time, for example the Building if relied upon by those unable to interrogate and understand
Surveyors Technical Due Diligence report (figure 5) to the data, lead to poor decision making and professional
very complex needs of Portfolio Management Surveyors judgements. This is a major challenge and the property
over a whole of life timeframe (figure 6). The workshops profession need reassurance that the data they do access
and survey revealed good potential to use some of the and use to base their professional judgements on is sound
data already in BIM for property professional practices and reliable. Protocols needs to established as the range of
for example, FM and Property Management tasks, professionals accessing BIM data widens, as the key benefit
Building Surveyors Technical Due Diligence reporting, perceived by survey respondents of improved performance
and property portfolio management. The opportunities may not be realised in practice. Furthermore the opportunity
lie largely in respect of the data on building performance to provide clients with value added services may not be
in use. However, such data is typically found in the BMS realised if data is not perceived to be reliable, up to date and
as much as the BIM. Therefore RICS should investigate sound. Overall the survey respondents felt there would be
the opportunities within BMS technology to inform some little benefit at this point in time to valuers in using BIM data,
property tasks, as many buildings may not have BIM but however it is considered that more benefit lies in the area
may have a BMS. of property portfolio managers who will seek to rationalise
properties within the portfolio based on performance
amongst other variables.
6.3 BIM in Property Education would identify those data needs and types that are
outside of BIM that could be digitised and incorporated
Given the low levels of understanding and practical due to the extent of potential usage within the property
experience of using BIM, there is considerable scope for profession. In all cases issues identified in section 5.4
incorporating some understanding of BIM technology into data quality and fidelity, context, security and privacy
RICS accredited property courses at undergraduate and should be considered. In particular details on data format
post graduate level. Clearly the obvious place to introduce and source are needed. The full list should be categorised
student to the concept would in construction technology and prioritised, and where necessary negotiations with
subjects, however it should also be referenced in property third parties should be initiated.
management, property investment, valuation, building
surveying and facility management subjects as a potential 2. Introduce BIM professional competency
source of information. In this way property students will in RICS APC for property professionals
start to see the potential for the use of BIM data across
The RICS APC group should develop appropriate property
a range of their professional tasks. Macdonald (2012)
discipline BIM competencies with the APC structure so
has proposed a framework to assist AEC academics in
that property professionals can obtain recognition for
implementing collaborative education programs with the
knowledge, skill and competency with the application of
aid of BIM tools and processes, and this could be adapted
this knowledge in their professional practice. Given the
to incorporate property education.
innovation in the RICS BIM Certified Manager qualification,
Clearly property education is not restricted to the tertiary there may be some aspects which are transferable to the
sector and this research concludes that a broad program property disciplines.
across all RICS disciplines at all levels of membership is
desirable. Such a program should encompass provision 3. Develop a set of CPD events to raise
of CPD for existing members, training short courses and awareness among property professionals
provision of Information Papers and Best Practice Guidance
Notes. A comprehensive strategy should be established
of BIM
to deliver a roll out of resources to members, under the As a priority RICS should develop some online education
leadership of an Education Task Force. This could build resources for members to raise awareness and knowledge
on the work already carried out to develop the RICS BIM in respect of BIM and how property professionals could
Manager certification. There are various initiatives in this use data within the models.
area being undertaken by professional bodies and other
groups, and a unified, industry-wide approach may be 4. Develop RICS training courses for existing
worth considering, rather than separate task forces being members of the property disciplines in BIM
set up that essentially have the same aims.
Concurrent with the roll out of CPD courses for members
and the development of online education resources, RICS
6.4 Recommendations and should develop a series of training courses for existing
further research members globally to realise the potential of BIM data in
their professional practices.
From this research, it is apparent that great potential exists
to enhance the quality and accuracy of many aspects of 5. RICS BIM & Property Education Task Force
property professional practice with the adoption and use With regards to the integration of BIM into property
of BIM in some tasks. There are five key recommendations education, RICS could consider updating accreditation
that arise out of this research. criteria for universities to include requirement for
collaborative working with other disciplines/using BIM
1. Mapping of data needs and types across data effectively. Furthermore RICS could form an
all RICS disciplines Education Task Force to champion the roll out of BIM
across property courses globally to ensure new members
One of the key priorities is to undertake a comprehensive
have the requisite awareness, knowledge and skills with
mapping of data needs and types across all RICS
respect to BIM and property; or the value dimension.
disciplines to identify (a) what is currently within BIM
that could be used by property professionals, (b) data
needs and types currently in a digital format but found
in databases outside of BIM that could be easily made
compatible to BIM. At this point an assessment of the
demand for the data would determine whether it is
desirable to implement such a change. Thirdly this review
7.0 References
Australian Construction Industry Forum (ACIF), 2015. A Framework for the The European Group of Valuers Associations (TEGoVA). (2003), European
Adoption of Project Team Integration and Building information Modelling. Property and Market Rating. TEGoVA. Brussels.
Retrieved on 31st May 2015 from; http://www.apcc.gov.au/ALLAPCC/
Framework_WEB.pdf Fillman, S.A., Wilde, K. L., Kochert, J.F., Homan, S.R., & Tomovic, C.L.
(2010). Entry-level engineering professionals and product lifecycle
Australian Institute of Architects. 2015. BIM & IPD working Groups. management: a competency model, Int. J. of Manufacturing Technology
Retrieved on 31sy May 2015 from http://wp.architecture.com.au/bim/ and Management, 13(3/4), 306-311.
groups/
Ford, G, Bartley, T, Igba, J, Turner, A, & McMahon, C (2013), Product Life
Azhar, S. (2011). Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, Cycle Data Management: A Cross-Sectoral Review, in B. Alain, R. Louis,
risks, and challenges for the AEC industry. Leadership and Management D. Debasish, (eds.) Product Lifecycle Management for Society, FIP Adv in
in Engineering., 11(3), 241-252. Inf. and Comm. Tech., Vol. 409, pp. 58-67.
BAF 2013. Embedding Building Infomration Modelling (BIM) within the Fuerst, F. & McAllister, P. 2012. Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring
taught curriculum. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved on 31st May the effects of environmental certification in commercial office values. Real
2015 from http://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Embed_ Estate Economics. 39 (1) pp45-69.
BIM_in_curriculum_UK.pdf
Green Property Alliance (2010). Establishing the Ground Rules for
Ball A, Darlington M, Howard T, McMahon C, & Culley S. (2012). Visualizing Property: Industry-wide Sustainability Metrics, GPA, London.
research data records for their better management. Journal of Digital
Information, 13. Hewett, A, (2009) Product Lifecycle Management (PLM): Critical Issues
and Challenges in Implementation, Inf. Tech. and Product Dev., Annals
Becerik-Gerber, B. and Kensek K. 2010. Building Information Modeling of Inf. Sys., Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.81-105.
in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction: Emerging Research
Directions and Trends, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Hutchins, G. (2004). SME Speaks: Manufacturing Engineers Must
Education and Practice 136(3): 139-147. Reduce Competency Gaps. Manufacturing Engineering magazine
132(2). Retrieved (Feb. 2014) from www.sme.org/MEMagazine/
Becerik-Gerber, B., Jazizadeh, F., Li, N., & Calis, G. (2011), Application Article.aspx?id=31088&taxid=1427
areas and data requirements for BIM-enabled facilities management.
Journal of construction engineering and management, 138(3), 431-442. Holness, G. V.R.: 2008. BIM Gaining Momentum. ASHRAE Journal,
June 28-29
Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. (2013), The project benefits
of building information modelling (BIM). Intl. Journal of Project Mgmt., Jupp, J., & Awad, R. (2013). Developing digital literacy in construction
31(7), 971-980. management education: a design thinking led approach. Journal of
pedagogic development.
BSI (2010), Constructing the business case for BIM, BSi, London, 2010.
Jupp, J. R. (2013), Incomplete BIM implementation: Challenges and
BSI (2014), BS 1192-4:2014, the Collaborative production of information role of product lifecycle management functions, in B. Alain, R. Louis,
Part 4: Fulfilling employers information exchange requirements using D. Debasish, (eds.) Product Lifecycle Management for Society, IFIP
COBie, URL: http://shop.bsigroup.com/forms/BS-1192-4/ (accessed 14 Advances in Information and Communications Technologies. Vol. 409,
Jan. 2015). pp. 630-640, Springer Berlin Heidelberg
BSI (2015), PAS 1192-5: Specification for security-minded building Jupp, J. R., & Nepal, M. (2014). BIM and PLM: Comparing and Learning
information modelling, digital built environments and smart asset from Changes to Professional Practice Across Sectors. In Product
management: Retrieved on 31st May 2015 from http://shop.bsigroup.com/ Lifecycle Management for a Global Market (pp. 41-50). Springer
upload/271469/PAS1192-5-BSI.pdf Berlin Heidelberg.
BuildingSMART, (2012). MVD Process. Retrieved on 14th January 2015 Jupp, J. R. & Singh, V. 2014, Similar Concepts, Distinct Solutions,
from: http://buildingsmart.com/ standards/mvd/mvd-process. Common Problems: Learning from PLM and BIM, Intl. Conf. on Product
Lifecycle Management, 9-11 July, Japan
Cambridge Semantics. 2015. Introduction to the Semantic Web. Retrieved
on May 24th 2015 from http://www.cambridgesemantics.com/semantic- Jupp, J., & Wilkinson, S. 2015. Challenges of Through-Life Property Data
university/introduction-semantic-web Management. In the proceedings of the RICS COBRA Conference UTS
Sydney July 8-10th 2015. ISBN 978-1-78321-071-8. To appear.
Carroll, S. (2009). A well-kept secret: BIM in preconstruction wins clients.
Constructor the magazine of the Association of General Contractors of Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques
America. Retrieved on 14th January 2015 from http://constructor.agc.org and applications (Vol. 29). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Corry, E., ODonnell, J., Curry, E., Coakley, D., Pauwels, P., & Keane, Ltzkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D. (2011). Capturing sustainability-related
M. (2014). Using semantic web technologies to access soft AEC data. information for property valuation. Building Research & Information, 39(3),
Advanced Engineering Informatics, 28 (4), 370-380. 256-273.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi Macdonald, J.A. and Mills, J.E. (2013) An IPD approach to construction
method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467. education, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building,
13 (2) 93-103
de Souza, L.L.A., de Amorim, S.R.L., & de Magalhes Lyrio Filho,
A (2009). Impact from the use of BIM in Architectural Design Offices: Macdonald, J.A. and Granroth, M. (2013), Multidisciplinary AEC
Real Estate Market Opportunities, Gesto & Tecnologia de Projetos, Education Utilising BIM / PLIM Tools and Processes, in Product
Vol. 4, N 2, Nov, pp 26-53. Lifecycle Management for Society IFIP Advances in Information and
Communication Technology (Proc. of 10th IFIP WG 5.1 International
East, W.E (2007), Construction Operation Building Information Exchange. Conference, PLM 2013, Nantes, France, July 6-10, 2013), Vol. 409, 2013,
USACE ERDC. pp 663-674.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R & Liston, K, (2008). BIM Handbook: Macdonald, J.A. (2012), A Framework for collaborative BIM education
A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, across the AEC disciplines, in Proc. of the 37th Annual Conference of
Designers, Engineers and Contractors. Wiley & Sons Inc, New Jersey. the Australasian Universities Building Educators Association (AUBEA),
4-6 July, Melbourne, pp223-230.
Mason H. ISO 10303 STEP, A key standard for the global market, ISO Singh, V., Gu, N., & Wang, X. (2011). A theoretical framework of a BIM-
Bulletin 2002 4:9-13. based multi-disciplinary collaboration platform. Automation in Const.,
20(2), 134-144.
McGraw Hill. (2008). Smart Market Report, Building information modeling:
Transforming design and construction to achieve greater industry Stark, J. (2011). Product lifecycle management: 21st century paradigm for
productivity. McGraw Hill, NY. product realisation, 2nd ed., Decision engineering, Springer.
McGraw Hill. (2009). Smart Market Report: The business value of building Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2013). An integrated approach to
information modeling: Getting building information modeling to the bottom BIM competency assessment, acquisition and application. Automation in
line, McGraw Hill, NY. Construction, 35, 174-189.
McGraw Hill. (2010). Smart Market Report, The Business Value of BIM in Teicholz, P. (Ed.). (2013). BIM for facility managers. John Wiley & Sons.
Europe. McGraw Hill, NY.
Trm, S. & Granholm, L., 2011. Managing building information as a set of
McGraw Hill. (2014). Smart Market Report: Business value of BIM for interrelated partial models, Espoo: Working paper
construction in major global markets: How contractors around the world
are driving innovation with building information modelling. McGraw Hill United Nations Environment Programme (2009) UNEPFI/SBCIS Financial
Construction. & Sustainability Metrics Report, UNEP. Retrieved on 15th January 2-15
from: www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/metrics_ report_01.pdf
Millington, A. F., 2014. 5th ed. An Introduction to Property Valuation.
Routledge, Oxon, UK. Vanlande, R., Nicolle, C., & Cruz, C. (2008), IFC and building lifecycle
management. Automation in Construction, 18(1), 7078.
Newell, G., MacFarlane, J., & Kok, N. (2011) Buildings Better Returns.
API, Australia. Retrieved on May 23rd 2015 from http://www.api.org.au/ Wilkinson, S.J., 2015. Building approval data and the quantification of the
assets/media_library/000/000/219/original.pdf uptake of sustainability measures: A case study of Australia and England.
Structural Survey. Vol. 33, issue 2. ISBN 0263-080X.
NIBS (2007), US National BIM Standard: Version 1 Part 1: Overview,
Principles and Methodologies, National Institute of Building Sciences, Wilkinson, S., & Jupp, J. 2015. Managing property data through life: BIM
URL: www.wbdg.org/bim/nbims.php (accessed 14 Jan. 2015). and the value dimension. In proceedings of RICS COBRA Conference
UTS Sydney July 8-10th 2015. ISBN 978-1-78321-071-8. (to appear).
Redmond, A., Hore, A., Alshawi, M., & West, R. (2012). Exploring
how information exchanges can be enhanced through Cloud BIM. Young, N., Jones, S., Bernstein, H. M., & Gudgel, J. E.: 2009. The
Automation in Const. 24, 175-183. Business Value of BIM: Getting Building Information Modeling to the
Bottom Line, Smart Market Report: McGraw Hill Construction
RICS, 2015. BIM Manager Certification. Retrieved on 31st May 2015
from http://www.rics.org/uk/join/member-accreditations-list/bim- Yu, K., Froese, T., & Grobler, F. (2000). A development framework for data
manager-certification/ models for computer-integrated facilities management. Automation in
construction, 9(2), 145-167.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2009) 6th Ed. RICS Valuation
Standards. RICS, London.
Useful web sites
Rowlinson, S., Collins, R., Tuuli, M. M., & Jia, Y. 2010. Implementation
HM Government BIM Task Group main website
of building information modeling (BIM) in construction: a comparative
http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/
case study. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1233 (PART 1), pp. 572 577
AEC UK CAD and BIM Standards Site
Sebastian, R. & Berlo, L. van 2010. Tool for Benchmarking BIM
http://aecuk.wordpress.com/
Performance of Design, Engineering and Construction Firms
in The Netherlands. Architectural engineering and design Construction Industry Council website
management 6: 254263. http://cic.org.uk/
Silverman, D. 2013. Doing Qualitative Research. A Practical
Handbook. Sage Publications. London.
8.0 Appendices
Appendix 1 Property professionals data types and needs.............................48
Appendix 2 Key to symbols used in figures 5 and 6 and Appendix 3.............49
Appendix 3 Managing data through the property lifecycle
(Workshop 2 output)..........................................................................50
Market Data
National Market E.g. Overall national economic situation, political, legal and administrative conditions
State, Regional and E.g. Economic situation, political, legal and administrative conditions, investment data (annual
Neighbourhood Market growth, median price, median rent, rental yield and rent demand)
Listings, Recent Sales and E.g. Property listings, sale transactions and records, national auction results and clearance
Auction rates, rental listings and applications
E.g. Property sales & transfers from Valuer General, real estate industry data on annual
Property Transfers transfers
Property Marketing Statistics E.g. Online, print and phone marketing data
Financial Data
Tenant and Occupier Situation E.g. Number of tenants, tenants image and solvency, duration and structure of rental contracts
E.g. Vacancy rate, tenant retention, tenant fluctuation, duration of letting process, general
Vacancy and Letting Situation letting prospects, investment volume, expected rates of return
E.g. Rental payments, advance payments for utilities, rental growth potential, and inflation
Payments-In expectations, other payments-in (e.g. facade advertising, energy-feed-in)
E.g. Payments for construction, acquisition, disposal, payments for operating costs, payments
Payments Out attributable/non-attributable to tenants,marketing/letting (e.g. estate agents fee), payments
for modernisation, payments for operations
Appendix 3A
Asset
Planning Design management Asset planning/Repositioning/H&BU
National Committee
Programming Market Research Investment
(Workshop 2 output)
Reports Paper
Inspections Growth
Rates
Tenant and
Occupier
Situation Lefting up
assumptions
Marketing
and Letting Capex
Vacancy Tenant and Marketing Forecast
Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension
Payments Development
Out manager
Tenancy Project
DFC manager
Schedule
Assets
Payments manager
In Fund
Payments Payments Concept manager
out in forecast/
Tech.due
diligence
report
Outgoings Other
Appendix 3 Managing data through the property lifecycle
Income
Settlement
Adjustments
Handover
Conceptual Pre-construction Construction and Use,
Planning and Feasibility Design and site maintenance Redevelopment, sale, demolition Redevelopment/ strategic optioneering
Design and defects operations
Example of a Transactions Managers participants data needs at various stages of the
GEO Indicative Tenancy Tenant and Tenant and Tenant and Basic
Technical
Occupier Occupier Occupier Building
Report Costs Schedule Quality
property lifecycle
Flooding Health
Maps Design
and User SSPECS
Report Investment Maintenance Asset Building
Comfort
Model Schedule Documents
Topography
Facilities General
Brief Management FM Score Ledger
Quality Payments Agreements
Site Plan Out
Asset Plan
Titles and Conceptual
Easements ESD Report Facilities
Investment
Management
Model Quality
Conceptual
Report Accountant
Environmental Receivable
Quality Payments
BIM
In
Costs
Asset Plan
Audits
Operational
Quality Asset
ESD
Plans
Modelling
rics.org/research
51
Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension
Special Thanks
Special thanks to the following people:
Andrew Hannel
Opus, Sydney, Australia
Andrew Partridge
Eureka Funds Management, Sydney
Ben Elder
RICS, London, UK
Christopher Stokes
ESurv, Mid Anglia, UK
Clinton Ostwald
Urbis, Sydney, Australia
David Wagstaff
Pembroke, London, UK
Doug Rayment
AECOM, Sydney, Australia
Hernan Jerrez Guerrero
Ridley and Co Sydney Australia
Jack Moseley
Civic Valuations, Sydney
Jennifer Macdonald
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
John Kavanagh
RICS, London, UK
Kath Fontana
BAM FM, Hemel Hempstead, UK
Leon Carroll
AMP, Sydney, Australia
Paul Zahara
Cranleigh, Sydney, Australia
Phil Boyne
Lend Lease, London, UK
Richard Quartermaine
Hammerson Plc, London, UK
Richard Stacey
Calibre Capital, Sydney, Australia
Sarah Sayce
University of Kingston, London, UK