论文信息 - A Framework for Measuring Building Information Modeling Maturity based on Perception of Practitioners and Academics Outside the USA

A Framework for Measuring Building Information Modeling Maturity based on Perception of Practitioners and Academics Outside the USA

With the wide and quick adoption of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry, a benchmark is needed to evaluate and compare the BIM Maturity at the project level. Although there have been some efforts in proposing models for measuring BIM Maturity (BIMM), few empirical studies have been conducted to quantitatively develop and test the proposed framework. What is more, there is no quantitative research about BIMM based on the perception from BIM-related experts outside the USA. This research was conducted to fill these gaps and to develop a comprehensive and precise framework for measuring BIMM based on literature review and empirical analysis of perception of academic and industry BIM-related experts outside the USA. First, by reviewing previous maturity models about software development process, construction supply chain, virtual design and construction (VDC), and BIM, 27 indices were adopted for measuring BIMM. And then a survey based on the identified indices was conducted to BIM-related professional to gain their perception about the importance of each index in measuring BIM Maturity. Five underlying constructs of similar areas was then identified by analyzing the collected data by Principal Component Factor Analysis (PCFA), including Planning and Management of Process and Technology, Team Structure, Hardware, Process Definition, and Information Management. Though Process Definition ranked the first while Hardware ranked the last, the factor scores were quite close. It was therefore concluded that the focus of BIM has shifted from technical factor to the factors of information, process, and people, all of which were comparatively equally important for measuring BIMM. Finally, it was found that both the structure of the framework and the ranking of the factors were consistent with the related research efforts, which further confirmed the comprehension of the framework and the related results.

[1] Brad Hardin,et al. BIM and Construction Management: Proven Tools, Methods, and Workflows , 2009 .

[2] Kalyan Vaidyanathan,et al. CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CHAIN MATURITY MODEL - CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK , 2007 .

[3] H. Ashcraft. Building Information Modeling : A Framework for Collaboration , 2008 .

[4] Charles M. Eastman,et al. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors , 2008 .

[5] P Shekpuiwong. Trust in construction partnering: views from parties of the partnering dance , 2004 .

[6] C. William Ibbs,et al. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCESS MATURITY (PM)2 MODEL , 2002 .

[7] Mark C. Paulk,et al. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process , 1994 .

[8] Bilal Succar,et al. Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix , 2010 .

[9] Edward R. Fisk. Construction Project Administration , 1978 .

[10] Rolph E. Anderson,et al. Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed. , 2009 .

[11] Marjan Sarshar,et al. SPICE: a business process diagnostics tool for construction projects , 2000 .

[12] Dana K. Smith,et al. Building Information Modeling: A Strategic Implementation Guide for Architects, Engineers, Constructors, and Real Estate Asset Managers , 2009 .