Building Information

Modeling (BIM): Trends,

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Benefits, Risks, and

Challenges for the
AEC Industry
SALMAN AZHAR, PH.D., A.M.ASCE

ABSTRACT: Building information modeling (BIM) is one of the most promising recent
developments in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. With
BIM technology, an accurate virtual model of a building is digitally constructed. This
model, known as a building information model, can be used for planning, design, con-
struction, and operation of the facility. It helps architects, engineers, and constructors
visualize what is to be built in a simulated environment to identify any potential design,
construction, or operational issues. BIM represents a new paradigm within AEC, one
that encourages integration of the roles of all stakeholders on a project. In this paper,
current trends, benefits, possible risks, and future challenges of BIM for the AEC industry
are discussed. The findings of this study provide useful information for AEC industry
practitioners considering implementing BIM technology in their projects.

T
he architecture, engineering, and con-
struction (AEC) industry has long
sought techniques to decrease project
cost, increase productivity and quality,
and reduce project delivery time.
Building information modeling (BIM)
offers the potential to achieve these objectives (Azhar,
Nadeem et al. 2008). BIM simulates the construction
project in a virtual environment. With BIM technol-
ogy, an accurate virtual model of a building, known as
a building information model, is digitally constructed.
When completed, the building information model
contains precise geometry and relevant data needed
to support the design, procurement, fabrication,
and construction activities required to realize the
building (Eastman et al. 2008). After completion, this
model can be used for operations and maintenance
purposes. Fig. 1 depicts the typical applications of
BIM at different stages of the project life cycle.
A building information model characterizes the
geometry, spatial relationships, geographic informa-
tion, quantities and properties of building elements,
cost estimates, material inventories, and project sched-
ule. The model can be used to demonstrate the entire
building life cycle (Bazjanac 2006). As a result, quan-
tities and shared properties of materials can be readily
extracted. Scopes of work can be easily isolated and
defined. Systems, assemblies, and sequences can be

Leadership and Management in Engineering 241 JULY 2011

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Figure 1. Different components of a building information model: MEP = mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (Courtesy of
Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).
shown in a relative scale within the entire facility or
group of facilities. Construction documents such as
drawings, procurement details, submittal processes,
and other specifications can be easily interrelated
(Khemlani et al. 2006).
BIM can be viewed as a virtual process that encom-
passes all aspects, disciplines, and systems of a facility
within a single, virtual model, allowing all design
team members (owners, architects, engineers, contrac-
tors, subcontractors, and suppliers) to collaborate more
accurately and efficiently than using traditional proc-
esses. As the model is being created, team members
are constantly refining and adjusting their portions
according to project specifications and design changes
to ensure the model is as accurate as possible before
the project physically breaks ground (Carmona and
Irwin 2007).
It is important to note that BIM is not just software;
it is a process and software. BIM means not only using
three-dimensional intelligent models but also making
significant changes in the workflow and project
delivery processes (Hardin 2009). BIM represents a
new paradigm within AEC, one that encourages
integration of the roles of all stakeholders on a project.
It has the potential to promote greater efficiency
and harmony among players who, in the past, saw
JULY 2011
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252
themselves as adversaries (Azhar, Hein et al. 2008).
BIM also supports the concept of integrated project de-
livery, which is a novel project delivery approach to
integrate people, systems, and business structures
and practices into a collaborative process to reduce
waste and optimize efficiency through all phases of
the project life cycle (Glick and Guggemos 2009).
APPLICATIONS OF BUILDING INFORMATION
MODELING
A building information model can be used for the
following purposes:
Visualization: 3D renderings can be easily generated
in house with little additional effort.
Fabrication/shop drawings: It is easy to generate
shop drawings for various building systems. For ex-
ample, the sheet metal ductwork shop drawings can
be quickly produced once the model is complete.
Code reviews: Fire departments and other officials
may use these models for their review of building
projects.
Cost estimating: BIM software has built-in cost
estimating features. Material quantities are automa-
tically extracted and updated when any changes are
made in the model.
242 Leadership and Management in Engineering
 Construction sequencing: A building information A savings of up to 10% of the contract value
model can be effectively used to coordinate material
ordering, fabrication, and delivery schedules for all
building components.
Conflict, interference, and collision detection:
Because building information models are created
to scale in 3D space, all major systems can be in-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
stantly and automatically checked for interferences.
For example, this process can verify that piping does
not intersect with steel beams, ducts, or walls.
Forensic analysis: A building information model can
be easily adapted to graphically illustrate potential
failures, leaks, evacuation plans, and so forth.
Facilities management: Facilities management de-
partments can use it for renovations, space planning,
and maintenance operations.
The key benefit of a building information model is
its accurate geometrical representation of the parts of
a building in an integrated data environment (CRC
Construction Innovation 2007). Other related benefits
are as follows:
Faster and more effective processes: Information is
more easily shared and can be value-added and
reused.
Better design: Building proposals can be rigorously
analyzed, simulations performed quickly, and per-
formance benchmarked, enabling improved and
innovative solutions.
Controlled whole-life costs and environmental data:
Environmental performance is more predictable,
and lifecycle costs are better understood.
Better production quality: Documentation output is
flexible and exploits automation.
Automated assembly: Digital product data can be
exploited in downstream processes and used for
manufacturing and assembly of structural systems.
Better customer service: Proposals are better under-
stood through accurate visualization.
Lifecycle data: Requirements, design, construction,
and operational information can be used in facilities
management.
After gathering data on 32 major projects, Stanford
Universitys Center for Integrated Facilities Engineer-
ing reported the following benefits of BIM (cited in
CRC Construction Innovation 2007):
Up to 40% elimination of unbudgeted change,
Cost estimation accuracy within 3% as compared to
traditional estimates,
Up to 80% reduction in time taken to generate a
cost estimate,
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252
through clash detections, and
Up to 7% reduction in project time.
ROLE OF BIM IN THE AEC INDUSTRY:
CURRENT AND FUTURE TRENDS
In this section, the role of BIM in the AEC industry
and its current and future trends are discussed based
on the results of two questionnaire surveys. McGraw-
Hill Construction (2008) published a comprehensive
market report of BIMs use in the AEC industry in
2008 and projections for 2009 based on the findings
of a questionnaire survey completed by 82 architects,
101 engineers, 80 contractors, and 39 owners (total
sample size of 302) in the United States. Some of
the key findings are as follows:
Architects were the heaviest users of BIM43%
used it on more than 60% of their projectswhile
contractors were the lightest users, with nearly half
(45%) using it on less than 15% of projects and only
a quarter (23%) using it on more than 60% of
projects.
Eighty-two percent of BIM users believed that
BIM had a very positive impact on their companys
productivity.
Seventy-nine percent of BIM users indicated that
the use of BIM improved project outcomes, such
as fewer requests for information (RFIs) and de-
creased field coordination problems.
Sixty-six percent of those surveyed believed
use of BIM increased their chances of winning
projects.
Two-third of users mentioned that BIM had at
least a moderate impact on their external project
practices.
Sixty-two percent of BIM users planned to use it on
more than 30% of their projects in 2009.
The report predicted that prefabrication capabilities of
BIM would be widely used to reduce costs and im-
prove the quality of work put in place. As a whole,
BIM adoption was expected to expand within firms
and across the AEC industry.
Kunz and Gilligan (2007) conducted a question-
naire survey to determine the value from BIM use
and factors that contribute to success. The main find-
ings of their study are as follows:
The use of BIM had significantly increased across all
phases of design and construction during the
past year.
243 JULY 2011
 BIM users represented all segments of the design realized in developing and using a building informa-
and construction industry, and they operated
throughout the United States.
The major application areas of BIM were construc-
tion document development, conceptual design
support, and preproject planning services.
The use of BIM lowered overall risk distributed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with a similar contract structure.
At the time of the survey, most companies used
BIM for 3D and 4D clash detections and for plan-
ning and visualization services.
The use of BIM led to increased productivity,
better engagement of project staff, and reduced
contingencies.
A shortage was noted of competent building infor-
mation modelers in the construction industry, and
demand was expected to grow exponentially with
time.
The results of these surveys indicate that the AEC
industry still relies very much on traditional drawings
and practices for conducting its business. At the same
time, AEC professionals are realizing the power of
BIM for more efficient and intelligent modeling. Most
of the companies using BIM reported in strong favor of
this technology. The survey findings indicate that
users want a BIM application that not only leverages
the powerful documentation and visualization capabil-
ities of a CAD platform but also supports multiple
design and management operations. BIM as a technol-
ogy is still in its formative stage, and solutions in the
market are continuing to evolve as they respond to
users specific needs.
BIM BENEFITS: CASE STUDIES
In the above-mentioned surveys, the AEC industry
participants indicated that BIM use resulted in time
and cost savings. However, no data were provided
to quantify and support these facts. The following
four case studies illustrate the cost and time savings
Figure 2. Building information models of the Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn Project (Courtesy of Holder Construction
Company, Atlanta, GA).
JULY 2011
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252
tion model for the project planning, design, precon-
struction, and construction phases. All the data
reported in this section were collected from the
Holder Construction Company (HCC), a midsize gen-
eral contracting company based in Atlanta, Georgia
(hereinafter referred to as the general contractor,
or GC).
Case Study 1: Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn,
Atlanta, Georgia
The Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn project comprised a
mixed-use hotel, retail shops, and a parking deck.
Brief project details are as follows:
Project scope: $46 million, 484,000-square-foot
hotel and parking structure
Delivery method: Construction manager at-risk
(CM at-risk)
Contract type: Guaranteed maximum price
BIM scope: Design coordination, clash detection,
and work sequencing
BIM cost to project: $90,000, or 0.2% of project
budget ($40,000 paid by owner)
Cost benefit: Over $200,000 attributed to elimina-
tion of clashes
Schedule benefit: 1,143 hours saved
Although the project had not been initially de-
signed using BIM technology, beginning in the
design development phase, the GC led the project
team to develop architectural; structural; and
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing models of the
proposed facility, as shown in Fig. 2. These models
were created using detail-level information from sub-
contractors based on drawings from the designers.
After the initial visualization uses, the GC began to
use these models for clash detection analysis. This BIM
application enabled the GC to identify potential col-
lisions or clashes between various structural and
mechanical systems. During the design development
phase, 55 clashes were identified, which resulted in a
244 Leadership and Management in Engineering
 cost avoidance of $124,500. Just this stage alone
yielded a net savings of $34,500 based on the original
building information model development cost of
$90,000. At the construction documents phase, the
model was updated and resolved collisions were
tracked. Each critical clash was shared with the design
team via the model viewer and a numbered collision
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tables) before actual construction begins. Thus, the
net adjusted cost savings was roughly considered to
be $200,392.
During the construction phase, subcontractors also
made use of these models for various installations.
Finally, the GCs commitment to updating the model
to reflect as-built conditions provided the owner a dig-

log with a record of individual images of each collision
per the architectural or structural discipline. The col-
lision cost savings values were based on estimates for
making design changes or field modifications had the
collision not been detected earlier. More than 590
clashes were detected before actual construction be-
gan. The overall cost savings based on the 590 colli-
sions detected throughout the project was estimated at
$801,565, as shown in Table 1. For calculating net
cost savings, a conservative approach was adopted
by assuming that 75% of the identified collisions
can be detected through conventional practices (e.g.,
sequential composite overlay process using light
ital 3D model of the building and its various systems
to help aid operation and maintenance procedures
down the road.
In a nutshell, the Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn
project realized some excellent benefits through the
use of BIM technology and certainly exceeded the
expectations of the owner and other project team
members. The cost benefits to the owner were signifi-
cant, and the unknown costs that were avoided
through collaboration, visualization, understanding,
and identification of conflicts early were in addition
to the reported savings. After this project, the archi-
tect and GC began to use BIM technology on all major

Table 1. An Illustration of Cost and Time Savings via Building Information Modeling in the Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn Project
Collision phase Collisions Estimated cost avoidance Estimated crew hours Coordination date
100% design development conflicts 55 $124,500 n/a 30-Jun-06
Construction (MEP collisions)
Basement 41 $21,211 50 hrs 28-Mar-07
Level 1 51 $34,714 79 hrs 3-Apr-07
Level 2 49 $23,250 57 hrs 3-Apr-07
Level 3 72 $40,187 86 hrs 12-Apr-07
Level 4 28 $35,276 68 hrs 14-May-07
Level 5 42 $43,351 88 hrs 29-May-07
Level 6 70 $57,735 112 hrs 19-Jun-07
Level 7 83 $78,898 162 hrs 12-Apr-07
Level 8 29 $37,397 74 hrs 3-Jul-07
Level 9 30 $37,397 74 hrs 3-Jul-07
Level 10 31 $33,546 67 hrs 5-Jul-07
Level 11 30 $45,144 75 hrs 5-Jul-07
Level 12 28 $36,589 72 hrs 5-Jul-07
Level 13 34 $38,557 77 hrs 13-Jul-07
Level 14 1 $484 1 hrs 13-Jul-07
Level 15 1 $484 1 hrs 13-Jul-07
Subtotal construction labor 590 $564,220 1,143 hrs
20% MEP material value $112,844
Subtotal cost avoidance $801,565
Deduct 75% assumed resolved via conventional methods ($601,173)
Net adjusted direct cost avoidance $200,392
Source: Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA.
Note. MEP = mechanical, electrical, and plumbing.

Leadership and Management in Engineering 245 JULY 2011

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

 projects, and the owner used the developed building
information model for sales and marketing presenta-
tions (Azhar and Richter 2009).
Case Study 2: Savannah State University,
Savannah, Georgia
This case study illustrates the use of BIM at the project
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
planning phase to perform options analysis (value
analysis) for selecting the most economical and work-
able building layout. The project details are as follows:
Project: Higher education facility, Savannah State
University, Savannah, Georgia
Cost: $12 million
Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maxi-
mum price
BIM scope: Planning, value analysis
BIM cost to project: $5,000
Cost benefit: $1,995,000
Figure 3. Scope and budget options for the Savannah State Academic Building: GSF = gross square foot; sf = square foot
(Courtesy of Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).
JULY 2011
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252
For this project, the GC coordinated with the
architect and the owner at the predesign phase to pre-
pare building information models of three different
design options. For each option, the BIM-based cost
estimates were also prepared using three different cost
scenarios (budgeted, midrange, and high range), as
shown in Fig. 3. The owner was able to walk through
all the virtual models to decide the best option that fit
his requirements. Several collaborative 3D viewing
sessions were arranged for this purpose. These collabo-
rative viewing sessions also improved communications
and trust between stakeholders and enabled rapid
decision making early in the process. The entire pro-
cess took 2 weeks, and the owner achieved roughly
$1,995,000 cost savings at the predesign stage by se-
lecting the most economical design option. Although
it could be argued that the owner may have reached
the same conclusion using traditional drawings, the
246 Leadership and Management in Engineering
 use of BIM technology helped him make a quick,
definitive, and well-informed decision.
Case Study 3: The Mansion on Peachtree,
Atlanta, Georgia
The Mansion on Peachtree is a five-star mixed-use
hotel in Atlanta, Georgia. The project details are as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Case Study 4: Emory Psychology Building,
Atlanta, GA
The Emory Psychology Building is a LEED-certified,
110,000-square-foot facility on the campus of Emory
University in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a multipurpose
structure designed to provide instructional and re-
search space. The project details are as follows:

follows:
Cost: $35 million
Schedule: 16 months
Cost: $111 million Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maxi-
Schedule: 29 months (construction) mum price
Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maxi- BIM scope: Sustainability analyses
mum price BIM cost to project and cost benefit: n/a
BIM scope: Planning, construction documentation The project architect developed the building infor-
BIM cost to project: $1,440 mation model of the facility at the early design phase
Cost benefit: $15,000 to determine the best building orientation and evalu-
It was a fast-track project, and the GC identified ate various skin options such as masonry, curtain wall,
the following issues at the project planning phase: and window styles, as shown in Fig. 5. The building
information model was also used to perform daylight
Incomplete design and documents, studies, which, in effect, helped to decide the final
Multiple uncoordinated consultants, positioning of the building on the site. To achieve
Field construction ahead of design, this, views of the facility were established within
Constant design development, and BIM software using the softwares sun positioning fea-
Owners frequent scope changes. ture. Subsequently, shading and lighting studies and
The biggest challenge was how to maintain sched- right-to-light studies were conducted to determine
ule and ensure quality with incomplete and uncoordi- the effects of the sun throughout the year and the ef-
nated design and how to minimize risk and rework. fects of the facility on surrounding buildings. Right-
The project team decided to use BIM for project plan- to-light studies were also conducted to evaluate light-
ning and coordination. First, contract documents were ing conditions at the proposed facilitys courtyard
space and those spaces adjacent to the courtyard.
analyzed to flush out discrepancies and identify miss-
As a direct result of these studies, the buildings
ing items. Then coordinated shop drawings were pre- design was adjusted as follows:
pared via model extractions. These shop drawings
were reviewed with the design team to resolve any Window openings on the west faade were reduced.
conflicts and issue a field use set to subcontractors The penthouse, which is located on the roof of the
for coordination and construction. building, was reduced in overall square footage.
Initially, the project designers presented two finish- The overall height of the building was reduced.
ing options (brick vs. precast) to the owner, as shown As all of these design adjustments were able to be in-
in Fig. 4(a). Via BIM viewer software, the owner corporated during the design phase, the analyses pre-
visually compared both options and selected the pre- vented costly and time-consuming redesign at later
cast one based on appearance and cost. Then, based on stages in the project life cycle.
the project drawings, the GC prepared the 3D interior
elevations to clarify interior details, as illustrated in
BIM RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
Fig. 4(b). If any component was found missing or con-
The return on investment (ROI) analysis is one of
flicting with the other component, an RFI was issued
the many ways to evaluate a proposed investment. It
to the designer to resolve this conflict before construc- compares the gain anticipated (or achieved) from an
tion. Finally, a 4D scheduling model was prepared investment against the cost of the investment (i.e.,
(Fig. 4(c)) to decide the construction sequence and ROI = earning/cost). ROI is typically used to evaluate
align all resources. Through these measures, the pro- many types of corporate investments, from research
ject team was able to complete the project on time and and development projects to training programs to
within budget. fixed asset purchases (Autodesk 2007).

Leadership and Management in Engineering 247 JULY 2011

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 4. Use of BIM in the Mansion on Peachtree Project (Courtesy of Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).

The McGraw-Hill Construction (2008) survey of level or above. It also found that the initial system cost
AEC industry participants indicated that 48% of did not seem to be a problem. Doubling the system
respondents were tracking BIM ROI at a moderate cost could reduce ROI only by up to 20% (Autodesk

JULY 2011 248 Leadership and Management in Engineering

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 5. Use of BIM for options analysis and sun studies in the Emory Psychology Building (Courtesy of Holder
Construction Company, Atlanta, GA).

2007). For this study, detailed cost data from 10 proj-
ects were acquired from HCC to perform the BIM ROI
analysis. The results are shown in Table 2.
As evident from Table 2, the BIM ROI for different
projects varied from 140% to 39,900%. On average, it
was 1,633% for all projects and 634% for projects
without a planning or value analysis phase. Because
of the large data spread, it is hard to conclude a specific
range for BIM ROI. The probable reason for this
spread is the varying scope of BIM in different
projects. In some projects, BIM savings were measured
using real construction phase direct collision de-
tection cost avoidance, and in other projects, savings
were computed using planning or value analysis
phase cost avoidance. Also, none of these cost figures
account for indirect, design, construction, or owner
administrative or other second wave cost savings
that were realized as a result of BIM implementation.
Hence, the actual BIM ROI can be far greater than
reported here.

Table 2. Building Information Modeling Return on Investment Analysis

Year Cost ($M) Project BIM scope BIM cost ($) Direct BIM savings ($) Net BIM savings ($) BIM ROI (%)
2005 30 Ashley Overlook P/PC/CD 5,000 (135,000) (130,000) 2600
2006 54 Progressive Data Center F/CD/FM 120,000 (395,000) (232,000) 140
2006 47 Raleigh Marriott P/PC/VA 4,288 (500,000) (495,712) 11560
2006 16 GSU Library P/PC/CD 10,000 (74,120) (64,120) 640
2006 88 Mansion on Peachtree P/CD 1,440 (15,000) (6,850) 940
2007 47 Aquarium Hilton F/D/PC/CD 90,000 (800,000) (710,000) 780
2007 58 1515 Wynkoop P/D/VA 3,800 (200,000) (196,200) 5160
2007 82 HP Data Center F/D/CD 20,000 (67,500) (47,500) 240
2007 14 Savannah State F/D/PC/VA/CD 5,000 (2,000,000) (1,995,000) 39900
2007 32 NAU Sciences Lab P/CD 1,000 (330,000) (329,000) 32900
Total all types 260,528 4,516,620 4,256,092 1633%
Totals without planning/VA phase 247,440 1,816,620 1,569,180 634%
Source: Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA.
Note: CD = construction documentation; D = design; F = feasibility analysis; FM = facilities management; GSU = Georgia State University;
NAU = Northern Arizona University; P = planning; PC = preconstruction services; ROI = return on investment; VA = value analysis.

Leadership and Management in Engineering 249 JULY 2011

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252

 BIM RISKS
BIM risks can be divided into two broad categories: le-
gal (or contractual) and technical. In the following para-
graphs, key risks in each category are briefly discussed.
The first risk is the lack of determination of owner-
ship of the BIM data and the need to protect it through
copyright laws and other legal channels. For example,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
if the owner is paying for the design, then the owner
may feel entitled to own it, but if team members
are providing proprietary information for use on the
project, their proprietary information needs to be pro-
tected as well. Thus, there is no simple answer to the
question of data ownership; it requires a unique re-
sponse for every project depending on the participants
needs. The goal is to avoid inhibitions or disincentives
that discourage participants from fully realizing the
models potential (Thompson 2001). To prevent dis-
agreement over copyright issues, the best solution is
to set forth in the contract documents ownership rights
and responsibilities (Rosenberg 2007).
When project team members other than the owner
and architect/engineer contribute data that are inte-
grated into the building information model, licensing
issues can arise. For example, equipment and material
vendors offer designs associated with their products for
the convenience of the lead designer in hopes of induc-
ing the designer to specify the vendors equipment.
While this practice might be good for business, licens-
ing issues can arise if the designs were not produced by
a designer licensed in the location of the project
(Thompson and Miner 2007).
Another contractual issue to address is who will con-
trol the entry of data into the model and be responsible
for any inaccuracies. Taking responsibility for updat-
ing building information model data and ensuring its
accuracy entails a great deal of risk. Requests for com-
plicated indemnities by BIM users and the offer of lim-
ited warranties and disclaimers of liability by designers
are essential negotiation points that need to be resolved
before BIM technology is used. It also requires more
time spent inputting and reviewing BIM data, which
is a new cost in the design and project administration
process. Although these new costs may be dramatically
offset by efficiency and schedule gains, they are still a
cost that someone on the project team will incur. Thus,
before BIM technology can be fully used, not only must
the risks of its use be identified and allocated, but the
cost of its implementation must be paid for as well
(Thompson and Miner 2007).
The integrated concept of BIM blurs the level of
responsibility so much that risk and liability are likely
to be enhanced. Consider the scenario in which the
JULY 2011
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252
owner of the building files suit over a perceived design
error. The architect, engineers, and other contributors
to the BIM process look to each other in an effort to try
to determine who had responsibility for the matter
raised. If disagreement ensues, the lead professional
not only will be responsible as a matter of law to
the claimant but may have difficulty proving fault
with others such as the engineers (Rosenberg 2007).
As the dimensions of cost and schedule are layered
onto the building information model, responsibility
for the proper technological interface among various
programs becomes an issue. Many sophisticated
contracting teams require subcontractors to submit
detailed critical path method schedules and cost
breakdowns itemized by line items of work prior to
the start of the project. The general contractor then
compiles the data, creating a master schedule and cost
breakdown for the entire project. When the subcon-
tractors and prime contractor use the same software,
the integration can be fluid. In cases where the data
are incomplete or are submitted in a variety of sched-
uling and costing programs, a team memberusually
a general contractor or construction managermust
re-enter and update a master scheduling and costing
program. That program may be a BIM module or an-
other program that is integrated with the building in-
formation model. At present, most of these project
management tools have been developed in isolation.
Responsibility for the accuracy and coordination of
cost and scheduling data must be contractually
addressed (Thompson and Miner 2007).
One of the most effective ways to deal with these
risks is to have collaborative, integrated project deliv-
ery contracts in which the risks of using BIM are shared
among the project participants along with the rewards.
Recently, the American Institute of Architects released
an exhibit on BIM to help project participants define
their BIM development plan for integrated project de-
livery (Building Design and Construction 2008). This
exhibit may assist project participants in defining
model management arrangements, as well as author-
ship, ownership, and level-of-development require-
ments, at various project phases.
BIM FUTURE CHALLENGES
The productivity and economic benefits of BIM to
the AEC industry are widely acknowledged and
increasingly well understood. Further, the technology
to implement BIM is readily available and rapidly ma-
turing. Yet BIM adoption has been much slower than
anticipated (Azhar, Hein et al. 2008). There are two
main reasons, technical and managerial.
250 Leadership and Management in Engineering
 The technical reasons can be broadly classified into
three categories (Bernstein and Pittman 2005):
1. The need for well-defined transactional construc-
tion process models to eliminate data interoper-
ability issues,
2. The requirement that digital design data be
computable, and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
3. The need for well-developed practical strategies
for the purposeful exchange and integration of
meaningful information among the building
information model components.
The management issues cluster around the imple-
mentation and use of BIM. Right now, there is no
clear consensus on how to implement or use BIM.
Unlike many other construction practices, there is no
single BIM document providing instruction on its
application and use (Associated General Contractors
of America 2005). Furthermore, little progress has
been made in establishing model BIM contract docu-
ments (Post 2009). Several software firms are cashing
in on the buzz of BIM and have programs to address
certain quantitative aspects of it, but they do not treat
the process as a whole. There is a need to standardize
the BIM process and to define guidelines for its im-
plementation. Another contentious issue among the
AEC industry stakeholders (i.e., owners, designers,
and constructors) is who should develop and operate
the building information models and how the devel-
opmental and operational costs should be distributed.
To optimize BIM performance, either companies or
vendors, or both, will have to find a way to lessen the
learning curve of BIM trainees. Software vendors have
a larger hurdle of producing a quality product that
customers will find reliable and manageable and that
will meet the expectations set by the advertisements.
Additionally, the industry will have to develop
acceptable processes and policies that promote BIM
use and govern todays issues of ownership and risk
management (Post 2009).
Researchers and practitioners have to develop suit-
able solutions to overcome these challenges and other
associated risks. As a number of researchers, practi-
tioners, software vendors, and professional organiza-
tions are working hard to resolve these challenges,
it is expected that the use of BIM will continue to
increase in the AEC industry.
In the past, facilities managers have been included
in the building planning process in a very limited
way, implementing maintenance strategies based on
the as-built condition at the time the owner takes
possession. In the future, BIM modeling may allow
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252
facilities managers to enter the picture at a much ear-
lier stage, in which they can influence the design and
construction. The visual nature of BIM allows all
stakeholders to get important information, including
tenants, service agents, and maintenance personnel,
before the building is completed. Finding the right
time to include these people will undoubtedly be a
challenge for owners.
CONCLUSIONS
Building information modeling is emerging as an in-
novative way to virtually design and manage projects.
Predictability of building performance and operation
is greatly improved by adopting BIM. As the use of
BIM accelerates, collaboration within project teams
should increase, which will lead to improved profit-
ability, reduced costs, better time management, and
improved customerclient relationships. As shown
in this paper, average BIM ROI for projects under
study was 634%, which clearly depicts its potential
economic benefits. At the same time, teams imple-
menting BIM should be very careful about the legal
pitfalls, which include data ownership and associated
proprietary issues and risk sharing. Such issues must
be addressed up front in the contract documents.
BIM represents a new paradigm within AEC, one
that encourages integration of the roles of all stake-
holders on a project. This integration has the potential
to bring about greater efficiency and harmony among
players who all too often in the past saw themselves as
adversaries. As in most paradigm shifts, there will
undoubtedly be risks. Perhaps one of the greatest risks
is the potential elimination of an important check and
balance mechanism inherent in the current paradigm.
An adversarial stance often brings a more critical
review of the project in a kind of mutual guarding of
each participants own interests. In the early stages of
BIM, constructors worked from architectural plans
since digital models were not shared by architects with
contractors. The construction modelers inevitably
discovered errors and inconsistencies in the plans as
they created the building information models.
This brought about a natural redundancy as the con-
struction model put the design to this virtual building
test. With a more trustful sharing of architectural
drawings, which can easily be imported and serve
as the basis for the building information model, there
may be a loss of this critical checking phase. In other
words, when all players see themselves as being on the
same team, they may cease to look for and find mis-
takes in each others work. In the past, a lack of critical
251 JULY 2011
 review has been at least one of the component ingre-
dients of building failure.
The future of BIM is both exciting and challeng-
ing. It is hoped that the increasing use of BIM will
enhance collaboration and reduce fragmentation in
the AEC industry and eventually lead to improved
performance and reduced project costs.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
REFERENCES
Associated General Contractors of America. (2005).
The contractors guide to BIM, 1st Ed., AGC
Research Foundation, Las Vegas, NV.
Autodesk. (2007). BIMs return on investment.
http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/bim_roi
_jan07_1_.pdf (August 30, 2009).
Azhar, S., Hein, M., and Sketo, B. (2008). Building
information modeling: Benefits, risks and chal-
lenges. Proc., 44th Associated Schools of Construction
National Conference, Auburn, AL.
Azhar, S., Nadeem, A., Mok, J. Y. N., and Leung, B.
H. Y. (2008). Building information modeling
(BIM): A new paradigm for visual interactive
modeling and simulation for construction proj-
ects. Proc., First International Conference on Construc-
tion in Developing Countries, Karachi, Pakistan,
435446.
Azhar, S., and Richter, S. (2009). Building informa-
tion modeling (BIM): Case studies and return-
on-investment analysis. Proc., Fifth International
Conference on Construction in the 21st Century,
Istanbul, Turkey, 13781386.
Bazjanac, V. (2006). Virtual building environments
(VBE)Applying information modeling to
buildings. http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/
LBNL-56072 (August 29, 2009).
Bernstein, P. G., and Pittman, J. H. (2005). Barriers
to the adoption of building information modeling
in the building industry. Autodesk Building Solu-
tions Whitepaper, Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA.
Building Design and Construction. (2008). New AIA
documents include BIM agreement and two new
IPD contracts. http://www.bdcnetwork.com/
article/CA6600255.html (August 29, 2009).
Carmona, J., and Irwin, K. (2007). BIM: Who, what,
how and why. Building Operating Management.
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/software/article/
BIM-Who-What-How-and-Why7546 (Au-
gust 21, 2009).
CRC Construction Innovation. (2007). Adopting BIM
for facilities management: Solutions for managing the
Sydney Opera House, Cooperative Research Center
for Construction Innovation, Brisbane, Australia.
JULY 2011
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 241-252
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., and Liston, K.
(2008). BIM handbook: A guide to building informa-
tion modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers
and contractors, Wiley, New York.
Glick, S., and Guggemos, A. (2009). IPD and BIM:
Benefits and opportunities for regulatory agen-
cies. Proc., 45th Associated Schools of Construction
National Conference, Gainesville, FL.
Hardin, B. (2009). BIM and construction management,
Wiley, Indianapolis, IN.
Khemlani, L., Papamichael, K., and Harfmann, A.
(2006). The potential of digital building
modeling. http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/
potentialofdigital.pdf (August 11, 2009).
Kunz, J., and Gilligan, B. (2007). Values from VDC/
BIM use. http://cife.stanford.edu/VDCsurvey
.pdf (August 22, 2009).
McGraw-Hill Construction. (2008). Building informa-
tion modeling: Transforming design and construction to
achieve greater industry productivity, New York.
Post, N. (2009). Building team members see progress
and problems. Eng. News-Rec., 262(12), 28.
Rosenberg, T. L. (2007). Building information
modeling. http://www.ralaw.com/resources/
documents/Building%20Information%20
Modeling%20-%20Rosenberg.pdf (August 22,
2009).
Thompson, D. B. (2001). e-Construction: Dont get
soaked by the next wave. Construction Law Brief-
ing Paper. http://www.minnlaw.com/Articles/
68553.pdf (August 29, 2009).
Thompson, D. B., and Miner, R. G. (2007). Building
information modelingBIM: Contractual risks
are changing with technology. http://www
.aepronet.org/ge/no35.html (August 22, 2009).
Salman Azhar is assistant professor,
McWhorter School of Building Science, College of
Architecture, Design and Construction, Auburn
University, Auburn, AL. The author expresses
his gratitude to Mr. Michael Lefevre, Vice Presi-
dent, Holder Construction Company, Atlanta,
GA, for providing necessary data and feedback.
Appreciation is also due to undergraduate stu-
dents Mr. Blake Sketo, Ms. Sara Richter, and
Mr. Russell Glass for collecting the necessary lit-
erature and compiling the presented information.
This study was supported by Seed Grant 2008
provided by the College of Architecture, Design
and Construction, Auburn University. Dr. Azhar
can be contacted at salman@auburn.edu. LME
252 Leadership and Management in Engineering