CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

2.1 Overview

The objective of the literature review was to provide the background information required for comprehensive development of an ROI tool to support transportation agency decision-making. The literature review also includes information that can be used to communicate benefits and overall impact to decision-makers. To support these goals, the literature review includes a summary of the status of BIM adoption in infrastructure, along with various BIM use cases for infrastructure. Previous studies on BIM ROI are also presented, including an analysis of ROI studies from both infrastructure and the vertical building sector.

These studies were used to develop the BIM ROI tool. BIM assessment approaches that have been used for both organizational and project-level adoption are analyzed in terms of the best approaches for assessing an overall level of BIM adoption for both organizations and projects. This chapter concludes with representative BIM adoption case studies, along with overall recommendations and lessons learned from the literature review.

2.2 BIM Adoption in Infrastructure

BIM has been widely implemented within some sectors of the design and construction industry. BIM is a collaborative process that covers business drivers, automated process capabilities, and open information standards. It is a facility lifecycle management tool of well-understood information exchanges, workflows, and procedures (National Institute of Building Sciences 2015). BIM includes a wide variety of tools encompassing emerging technologies and practices that can be applied to infrastructure projects to improve predictability, performance, and transparency during stages of planning, operation, and maintenance. However, few infrastructure projects or agencies have broadly adopted BIM to date.

While BIM has gained significant adoption within the vertical building sector of the construction industry, adoption levels within the infrastructure sector are more varied. This section outlines literature related to the current level of BIM adoption within the infrastructure sector and the driving forces and challenges within this adoption. For example, McGraw-Hill Construction reported great variability in BIM usage among project stakeholders in the 2017 SmartMarket Report.

Level of BIM Adoption in Infrastructure

It is somewhat difficult to define the exact implementation levels for BIM within the infrastructure sector of the construction industry because levels of BIM adoption can vary significantly from project to project and organization to organization. The adoption of BIM is not a singular

item; instead, increasing the level of digital modeling within projects and organizations is an ongoing journey. Within the literature, some of the most interesting data associated with BIM adoption levels originate from the McGraw-Hill SmartMarket reports, now called Dodge Data & Analytics SmartMarket reports, which are freely available.

These reports are developed through survey data collection from individuals within the construction industry, and they capture current implementation data along with industry perception of the future. A number of the BIM SmartMarket reports are from before 2017, but they still provide valuable context for understanding BIM adoption. The 2012 and 2017 SmartMarket reports are focused on BIM adoption specifically for the infrastructure sector and show the trends for adoption. However, it is important to note that BIM use in the transportation sector is growing at a rapid pace, so relying on 2017 data may not provide an accurate indication of current market status.

According to published SmartMarket reports, organizations of all sizes predicted that their level of BIM implementation would increase to more than 50 percent of their infrastructure projects between 2009 and 2013. However, the size of the organization affected the pattern of high BIM usage in infrastructure over the five-year span (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012). Midsize organizations show a pattern of greatest growth, more than quadrupling the percentage of high-level implementers from 2009 to 2013, with the small-medium groups expanding from 11 percent to 47 percent and medium-large organizations rising from 13 percent to 58 percent. The report predicted that small organizations would lead the way in high-level implementation by 2013, with almost two-thirds (65 percent) of small organizations predicting they would be practicing at a high level by then. Almost half (46 percent) of the firms reported using BIM on their infrastructure projects, up from 27 percent in 2010 (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012).

Architectural/engineering (A/E) firms and infrastructure owners reported the fastest adoption growth rates (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012). In 2010, 73 percent of BIM users in A/E were either not using BIM for infrastructure or using it at a low level. The expectation was that by 2013 the trend would be reversed, with 78 percent expecting to use it on more than 25 percent of their projects. A/E owners went from 74 percent with low/no levels of use in 2009 to 84 percent using BIM on 25 percent or more of their projects by 2013.

Few infrastructure projects or agencies have broadly implemented BIM throughout multiple phases of their project delivery or across multiple departments within their organizations. In general, there is a growing level of BIM adoption for infrastructure with the development and advancement of technologies in recent years. According to Dodge Data & Analytics (2017), there has been a significant growth rate of BIM adoption globally; in 2017, 55 percent of infrastructure projects in the United States used BIM compared to 27 percent in 2015. In addition, the state of BIM adoption varies widely among agencies; while some agencies are using BIM technology for most of the project delivery process, others are adopting BIM only for a few use cases.

State DOTs have widely used near real-time geospatial data within Geographic Information Systems (GISs) as a result of the integration of advanced communication networks, information technology (IT) infrastructure, and geospatial technology (Mallela et al. 2019). GIS data is one essential aspect of the information required to support the built infrastructure project. Although some DOTs have implemented Civil Integrated Management tools and functions in several projects, agencywide implementation still has a long way to go (O’Brien et al. 2016). From the asset management perspective, transportation asset management (TAM) has been a focus area of the U.S. transportation community for more than two decades and it has received increased attention (Spy Pond Partners et al. 2018). BIM can play a significant role in providing the data and information needed to support effective TAM.

DOTs have adopted BIM for targeted use cases. Some documented implementation approaches include the following:

• Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) has used 3D models for visualization and constructability reviews.
• Michigan Department of Transportation and Oregon Department of Transportation (Oregon DOT) have statewide 3D engineered model development programs, which aim to use 3D models for visualization and constructability reviews as well as surface modeling for automated machine guidance (AMG).
• New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has applied 3D models on some projects, such as the NY-17/I-81 interchange and Kosciuszko Bridge.
• Texas DOT has applied 3D visualization on several projects, with the Horse Project I-35/I-30 interchange as an example.
• Connecticut DOT has also used discipline-specific 3D models for visualization in projects, including the I-95 New Haven Harbor Crossing (Federal Highway Administration 2018).
• Oregon DOT implemented five BIM-related technologies, including an upgraded lidar (light detection and ranging) mobile mapping system, 3D Engineered Models (3D-EM), AMG, Engineering Data Management, and e-construction (Sillars et al. 2017).
• Indiana DOT used Intelligent Design and Construction, which involves intelligent 3D computer-aided design (CAD) models, to support the lifecycle of transportation assets for roads and bridges (Fuller et al. 2019).

These are several examples of implementation of BIM use cases within DOTs, and there are many more examples that may not be well-documented throughout the literature.

Despite rapid growth, it is difficult to measure the specific levels of adoption of particular BIM use cases within these data. For example, a project could adopt BIM throughout the entire design and construction process, or the implementation may be limited to a more targeted number of BIM use cases within the project, such as 3D coordination or quantity take-offs (QTOs). This was also found in a study by Mostafa and Leite (2018) that analyzed 28 representative case studies and found that, on average, projects have used BIM for four use cases. This study suggests an increase from a previous study conducted a decade earlier, which found projects were using BIM for one to two use cases. This level of detail for the level of BIM adoption is not always clearly presented, and it is important to consider that the data collected are survey data, with limited validation of the actual implementation levels.

Drivers and Challenges to BIM Adoption

The advancement of BIM in the construction industry is transforming the process of project delivery. Arayici et al. (2011) indicates that government policies have placed the industry under pressure to provide more value for the invested funds and deliver higher levels of sustainable design and construction, all of which are directly related to the use of BIM. Current clients are putting pressure on contractors to increase their BIM capabilities and deliver successfully managed BIM projects (Eadie et al. 2013).

Ruikar et al. (2005) concluded that although historically there is no industry requirement for BIM adoption, the main driver is the aspiration to be at the forefront of this aspect of industry. Project stakeholders use the most advanced BIM products to deliver real whole-life value to clients by delivering environmental, energy, schedule, cost, and spatial analysis (Azhar 2011). BIM models can offer walk-through visualizations to assist clients in the decision-making process; and real-time, online contributions from designers can streamline design activities and improve design quality (Eadie et al. 2013). BIM models allow visualization of the construction sequence, and the construction process can be made intrinsically safer (Kiviniemi et al. 2011).

BIM offers contractors an additional means of communicating with their workforce. Sacks et al. (2009) have shown that designers and construction planners are able to communicate the sequence of operations because of the capability of 4D BIM to display animated construction sequences on-screen. A report on the Mortenson Group found that the use of BIM reduced requests for information (RFIs) by 32 percent (Applied Software Technology 2009), which can lead to efficiency and cost savings through adoption of BIM. A study by Azhar et al. (2008) revealed that BIM can produce up to an 80 percent reduction in the time taken to generate a cost estimate. In addition, 4D BIM offers detailed scheduling tools that can accurately predict the duration of each construction task as well as plan upcoming tasks and the associated resource requirements. Azhar et al. (2008) found that clash detection can offer savings of up to 10 percent of construction contract value and reduce project duration by up to 7 percent. BIM enables the team to generate new delivery schedules for each scenario enacted, therefore creating efficiencies in document generation and distribution (Azhar 2011).

Despite many perceived benefits of using BIM technology, several studies have shown that the rates of adoption in the AEC industry still seem to vary greatly among stakeholders and the different phases of a project cycle. Challenges still exist and deter the adoption of BIM in projects. As a new technology, costs and training issues have been the greatest hurdles on the path to adoption. The SmartMarket reports consistently show that obstacles facing BIM adoption include finding adequate training, obtaining senior management buy-in, and the overall cost of software and hardware (Dodge Data & Analytics 2017; McGraw-Hill Construction 2008). Design and construction firms are also concerned about the lack of demand by clients. For owners, poor internal understanding of BIM has been identified as the top reason for delaying the use of BIM on projects (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012).

From the previous literature, some researchers identified additional challenges in adopting BIM. Common challenges include the cost and benefit of implementation; lack of standards, training, and education; and selection of software and hardware (Both 2012). Bosch-Sijtsema et al. (2017) share similar perspectives with Both and found a few adoption challenges, such as lack of client demand, limitations in information availability, and not understanding the legal aspects of implementation. In addition, Matarneh and Hamed (2017) highlighted culture change and its effect on the business environment. Moreover, Chan (2014) identified the lack of supply chain, contractual agreements that consider BIM, and professional indemnity insurance limitations as BIM adoption challenges. Kekana et al. (2014) discovered staff resistance, lack of knowledge of BIM, ownership and intellectual property, and product liability risks as the greatest challenges of BIM adoption. Lindblad (2013) found authenticity and legal uncertainties. In addition, Eadie et al. (2014) identified the lack of senior management support as a BIM adoption challenge. Finally, Hamdi and Leite (2014) point out that BIM implementation presents a set of challenges, ranging from technical to contractual and personal challenges, that extend beyond the design and construction phases to the post-delivery phase. They provide evidence of those challenges, with a focus on BIM-related contractual challenges and sources of disagreements.

BIM Use Cases for Infrastructure

The implementation of BIM on a project is not a simple decision of whether to implement; instead, the project team must clearly identify the use cases they will implement and be intentional about their implementation to better plan for it. There have been significant efforts made to define BIM use cases, with a heavier emphasis on vertical buildings than transportation infrastructure. From the literature, one example BIM use case is to author 4D modeling, which focuses on linking individual components of the BIM model with the corresponding processes of the construction schedule. This allows for visualization of the schedule. Another example is to author a cost estimate, which refers to BIM-based QTO as a basis for cost estimation.

As shown in Figure 2-1, different BIM uses can be mapped to different project phases within a project lifecycle (i.e., plan, design, construct, and operate).

While there have been varying approaches to categorizing BIM use cases, currently there is not a generally accepted list of BIM uses that specifically apply to infrastructure or, more specifically, highway projects. There are some resources that do identify a series of these BIM uses, such as the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) Roads project within buildingSMART International. This IFC Roads project focused on defining a standard process (Figure 2-2) with identified information exchanges for road projects, and then defining the information exchange specifications. Therefore, the process highlights common use cases considered within the IFC Roads interoperability project. A series of 30 use cases were defined within the IFC Roads project, and each was categorized as Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, or Won’t Have within the IFC Roads project. Table 2-1 summarizes IFC Roads “Must Have and Should Have” use cases. A table for all 30 use cases was identified by the buildingSMART International team, and the categories are identified within the table; Figure 2-3 shows part of that table (Moon et al. 2018).

It is important to note that the IFC Roads project is focused on strategic briefing and design processes, which emphasize design within their stages. IFC Roads documents seven stages, but most use cases are defined within the initial four stages.

The seven stages include

• Strategic Briefing,
• Preliminary Design,
• Detailed Design,

Table 2-1. IFC Roads project “Must Have and Should Have” use cases.

• Final Design,
• Bidding,
• Construction, and
• Asset Management and Maintenance.

It is also important to note that the IFC Roads process does not aim to be comprehensive in the identification of all use cases for BIM, and it does not focus on the construction and operations phase of road assets. Instead, its purpose is to identify and define fundamental information exchanges. The process identifies 11 information exchanges or models, including initial state model, survey model, corridor model, environmental model, traffic model, and roadway design model.

After reviewing the various use case approaches, the research team developed a simplified list of use cases for evaluating the case study projects within an ROI analysis. These use cases were divided into four categories: project delivery core, asset management core, project delivery extensions, and asset management extensions. Then the use cases were mapped against four project lifecycle phases: plan, design, construct, and operate (Figure 2-4).

BIM Uses by Project Phase for Infrastructure

These use cases do not aim to be comprehensive; instead they focus on the primary uses documented throughout the literature at a level of detail that can be analyzed within the case study projects. In the project delivery core, BIM use cases include capture existing conditions, author design model, analyze engineering performance, coordinate design models, and review design models. The asset management core includes compile record model, maintain roads/bridges, and inventory roads/bridges. Project delivery extensions include create quantities and cost estimate, author 4D model, layout construction work, and automate equipment guidance. The asset management extensions currently include inspect assets, although there are potentially many more BIM use extensions.

The following bullets provide concise definitions of each of the BIM uses identified in Figure 2-4.

• Analyze Engineering Performance: a process in which intelligent modeling software uses the BIM model to determine the most effective engineering method based on design specifications (Messner et al. 2021).
• Author 4D Model: a process in which a 4D model (3D model with the added dimension of time) is utilized to effectively plan the phased occupancy in a renovation, retrofit, or addition, or to show the construction sequence and space requirements on a building site (Messner et al. 2021).

• Author Design Model: using BIM authoring software to develop a model with 3D and additional attribute information for a road/bridge design, leveraging a library of parametric design elements (Messner et al. 2021).
• Automate Equipment Guidance: using information from a model to guide or control excavation for road and bridge construction equipment on the jobsite.
• Capture Existing Conditions: using 3D information-capture approaches and BIM authoring software to develop a 3D model of the existing conditions for a site, roads/bridges on a site, or a specific area within a road or bridge (Messner et al. 2021).
• Compile Record Model/Digital As-Built Model: a process for obtaining information about the elements, surrounding conditions, and assets of a road or bridge (adapted from Messner et al. 2021).
• Coordinate Design Models: using 3D coordination software to compile a federated model of design models for performing automated 3D collision detection to identify potential coordination issues, and performing a visual analysis to identify potential spatial design issues (Messner et al. 2021).
• Create Quantities and Cost Estimate: a process in which BIM can be used to assist in the generation of accurate QTOs and cost estimates throughout the lifecycle of a project (Messner et al. 2021).
• Inspect Assets: using the model to inform the inspection of bridges and roads during the operational phase of the assets.
• Inspect Constructed Assets: using 3D models to verify location, elevation, and quantities of installed assets against contract requirements.

• Inventory Roads/Bridges: using information extracted from a model to document and track conditions and quantities assets.
• Layout Construction Work: using model information to lay out road/bridge assemblies or automate control of automated equipment on a construction project (adapted from Messner et al. 2021).
• Maintain Roads/Bridges: using information from road or bridges models to monitor status and schedule maintenance activities for a road or bridge (adapted from Messner et al. 2021).
• Review Design Models: reviewing a building information model with project stakeholders to gain their feedback and to validate the design, construction, or operational aspects of a project (Messner et al. 2021).

In summary, there has been a clear increase in BIM adoption throughout the infrastructure sector of the construction industry. For transportation agencies, there are significant challenges that would need to be overcome to broadly implement BIM. It is also important to recognize that BIM is adopted at the level of BIM use cases, with varying approaches to defining such use cases. A systematic approach toward understanding the ROI in adopting use cases is important. The next section focuses on previous studies that have investigated ROI for targeted BIM uses.

2.3 ROI Analysis for BIM Adoption

As described later in Chapter 4, there is no industry consensus on what constitutes ROI analysis for transportation programs. Generally, ROI measures the amount of financial return on an investment relative to the investment’s cost. The returns may be a single payment or a stream of payments (Spy Pond Partners et al. 2018). Within this report, the research team focuses on the ROI for transitioning from a more analog approach to implementing an activity within a project lifecycle to a more digital (or model-based) approach to performing that activity.

The following sections discuss previous studies that clearly identify the benefits and costs of adopting BIM. These categories were developed from a detailed content analysis of BIM literature for all sectors of the construction industry, not just infrastructure. The goal of this analysis was to identify benefits and investments for developing the BIM ROI Tool. The final parts of this section focus on published ROI studies for the adoption of BIM for various use cases.

Benefits of Adopting BIM

Previous studies demonstrate that BIM can provide many benefits to a project by improving asset data and information sharing between all project stakeholders during the design, construction, and operations phases of assets. Moreover, BIM adoption promotes communication and collaboration because it brings people, processes, information, and technology together. This section first focuses on benefits that have been identified for owner organizations, followed by benefits identified for the end users and project delivery team.

Benefits in Asset Management by Owners

BIM can provide benefits for managing the capital facility assets of an organization. The use of data and digital models for asset management can enable organizations to optimize cost, risk, and performance over the lifecycle of their assets. Analysis of the literature shows that BIM adoption can offer significant benefits for asset management in cost savings, staff time savings, ancillary organizational benefits, and benefits for end users. BIM benefits in asset management are summarized in Table 2-2, Table 2-3, and Table 2-4.

Table 2-2. BIM cost-savings benefits in asset management by owner.

Table 2-3. BIM staff time-savings benefits in asset management by owner.

Table 2-4. BIM ancillary organizational benefits in asset management by owner.

Benefits for End Users of Facilities

Implementation of BIM in infrastructure has been shown to improve comfort management by promoting improved productivity (Love et al. 2014); enhance fuel and material savings by facilitating less travel and waste (Love et al. 2014); provide clearer facility management (FM) requirement definitions for design and construction (Terreno et al. 2015); and improve monitoring and management of related health and safety issues for users (Fanning et al. 2015). For highway projects, it is assumed that there would be additional end user and society benefits related to reduced emissions. These benefits are due to efficient maintenance and construction processes, although no specific studies were identified in this area.

Benefits in Project Delivery: Design and Construction

The benefits of BIM adoption are apparent in project delivery, and more studies have focused on project delivery than on asset management. Implementing BIM enables project stakeholders to reap the maximum benefits for effective project management in the design and construction processes. Previous studies demonstrate the BIM benefits in design and construction, specific to project costs (see Table 2-5, Table 2-6, Table 2-7, and Table 2-8). These benefits include

• Shorter delivery time,
• Design process efficiency,
• Construction process efficiency,
• Reduced field conflicts,
• Improved visualization for planning,
• Improved safety,
• Reduced waste,
• Project delivery cost savings,
• Clear process definition, and
• Asset turnover efficiency.

Literature analysis also revealed the following ancillary benefits:

• Increased quality (Barlish and Sullivan 2012; Newton and Chileshe 2012).
• Increased quality management (Shah et al. 2017).

Table 2-5. Project cost savings due to shorter delivery times, process efficiencies in design, and construction.

Table 2-6. Project cost savings due to reduced field conflicts and improved visualization for planning.

Table 2-7. Project cost savings due to improved safety and reduced waste.

Table 2-8. Project cost savings due to project delivery method cost savings, clear process definitions, and asset turnover efficiency.

• Improved design and engineering quality (Barlish and Sullivan 2012).
• Improved plan quality (Mitchell et al. 2019).
• Scope clarification (Bryde et al. 2013).
• Better-performing completed infrastructure (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012).
• Integration of project systems (Love et al. 2014).
• Improved accuracy (Sillars et al. 2017; Newton and Chileshe 2012).
• Risk reduction (Bryde et al. 2013).
• Lower risk and better predictability of outcomes (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012).
• Coordination between different disciplines’ documentation and the discovery of major contradictions during pre-construction (Bryde et al. 2013; Giel and Issa 2013; Leite 2019).
• Improved communication (Barlish and Sullivan 2012; Bryde et al. 2013; Guerra and Leite 2020).
• More collaborative approach to projects and problem-solving (Sacks et al. 2018; Terreno et al. 2015).

• Improved sustainability (Guerra et al. 2020; Newton and Chileshe 2012).
• Improved energy efficiency (Walasek and Barszcz 2017).
• Enabled use of information for maintenance (Barlish and Sullivan 2012).
• Improved competitiveness (Newton and Chileshe 2012).

Investment to Adopt BIM

In an ROI analysis, the benefits of a proposed investment are compared with its costs. BIM investments can potentially have direct and indirect effects on organizational and asset management costs as well as direct and indirect effects on project delivery. These effects include reductions in staff time and maintenance expenditures. Investment costs are required inputs to any ROI assessment and should include costs over the entire analysis period (Spy Pond Partners et al. 2018).

BIM investment costs fall into two categories: investment in organizational and asset management, and investment in project delivery. Both types of costs can be broken into two primary categories: 1) non-recurring costs, which may be initial or renewal investments, and 2) recurring costs that are part of operating and maintaining the BIM investment.

Table 2-9 lists costs that may occur over the lifecycle of BIM investments in organizational and asset management (Spy Pond Partners et al. 2018). Table 2-10 lists costs that may occur over the lifecycle of BIM investments in project delivery.

Return for Adopting BIM

For transportation assets, initial costs are monetary expenditures that are invested in the near term. In contrast, returns can accrue over years and may produce benefits such as improved organizational image, which would ultimately have a positive influence on a highway agency in the long term. The particular characteristics of agencies and their level of experience with

Table 2-9. Costs for lifecycle BIM investments in organizational and asset management.

Table 2-10. Costs for lifecycle BIM investments in project delivery.

computer-based decision support will influence the returns realized on their investments (Spy Pond Partners et al. 2018). In the literature review, returns that can be realized because of BIM are divided into two categories: organizational level and project level. The following list provides examples from both categories.

• Organizational level.
  • Improved collaboration with owner or design firms (McGraw-Hill Construction 2014; Sacks et al. 2018).
  • Enhanced organizational image (McGraw-Hill Construction 2014).
• Project level.
  • Productivity gain (Poirier et al. 2015).
  • Reduced printing use costs (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010).
  • Reduced document shipping costs (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010).
  • Reduced travel costs (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010).
  • Fewer approved change orders (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010; Hoffer et al. 2013; Lee et al. 2013).
  • Reduced claims and disputes (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010).
  • Reduced errors and omissions (Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010).
  • Improved information control and communications (Qian 2012).
  • Reduced rework (Hoffer et al. 2013; McGraw-Hill Construction 2014; Qian 2012).
  • Improved collaboration (Hoffer et al. 2013).
  • Reduced RFIs (Barlish and Sullivan 2012; Giel et al. 2009).
  • Reduced project delay (Giel et al. 2009).
  • Capability for clash detection (Azhar 2011; Leite 2019).
  • Reduced contractor costs (Barlish and Sullivan 2012).
  • Reduced direct and indirect costs (Lee et al. 2012; Salih 2012).
  • Duration improvement (Barlish and Sullivan 2012).

Quantitative Performance Metrics

There have been significant disparities between the ROI figures with BIM adoption, as there is no standard approach for collecting and evaluating the data used to calculate ROI. To address the issue, Love et al. (2013) identified the following quantitative performance indicators when measuring ROI for BIM:

• Quality control (QC) (rework reduction).
• On-time completion (reduction in delay).
• Overall cost (cost reduction).

• Units (square feet or meters) per person or per hour.
• Dollars per unit (square feet or meters) per person or per hour.
• Safety (reduction in lost person-hours).

Barlish and Sullivan (2012) also identified a few tracking metrics for ongoing projects to consistently compare similar projects with and without BIM carried out under the same owner and contractor:

• Change orders as a percent of standard costs.
• Avoidance log and associated costs.
• RFI quantities in non-BIM versus BIM projects.
• Offsite prefabrication person-hours from contractors.
• Owner Controlled Insurance Program (insurance headcount dollar savings as a percent of offsite hours).
• Reconciliations of savings from contractors/designers using BIM.
• Actual durations as a percent of standard duration.

Varying degrees of visibility and availability of information limit individual project stakeholders’ abilities. For example, it is difficult for owners to be aware of a contractor’s field productivity rates; therefore, the contractor’s savings may seem lower than the actual savings. Nevertheless, contractors know how much they spend or save due to BIM and how much of the savings they will pass on to the owner. These performance indicators help stakeholders track a project’s progress status and know the benefits introduced by BIM adoption quantitatively, allowing all stakeholders to make better decisions.

Previous ROI Analysis Results in Literature

Azhar (2011) investigated four case studies that quantify BIM benefits in different projects. The data used in these case studies were collected from Holder Construction Company, a general contractor based in Atlanta, Georgia. General information regarding these case studies is summarized in Table 2-11.

Table 2-11. General information on four ROI calculation case studies.

Note: CMAR = Construction Manager at Risk; LEED = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; N/A = not applicable.

Source: Adapted from Azhar 2011.

In the first case study, cost and time savings were calculated using clash detections that could be avoided by using BIM. In the second case study, BIM was implemented during the planning phase to choose the most economical building layout. For each building layout, the BIM-based cost estimate was calculated in three cost scenarios, including budgeted, midrange, and high range. In the third case study, the design team was able to finish the project on time and within budget because of using BIM. In the fourth, the architect used BIM to choose the best building orientation and envelope and to conduct daylight analysis. These measures helped save costs by avoiding redesign.

Azhar (2011) also presented different BIM ROIs for several projects, which varied from 140 percent to 39,900 percent. However, these numbers cannot be extended to other projects because BIM was implemented under varying conditions and different use cases. Also, different methods were used to calculate ROI. For instance, ROI was calculated based on cost avoidance from clash detection in some projects, while savings from planning or value analysis were considered in others. Moreover, none took into consideration the indirect cost savings.

In another study, Barlish and Sullivan (2012) proposed a framework to calculate BIM benefits. They used different return metrics, including RFIs, change orders, and duration improvements. Investment Cases included costs for design, A/E, 3D background model creator, construction, and contractor. To build the BIM benefit business case, non-BIM and BIM project metrics were compared in three cases from a company. In case one, returns were calculated based on two non-BIM historical projects and two BIM pilot projects in similar functional areas. In case two, investments were calculated based on a current project utilizing both non-BIM and BIM in the same three functional areas. In case three, both returns and investments were investigated in only one functional area, based on two historical non-BIM and BIM projects. This case provides a baseline for both investments and returns. According to the findings, in the first case, there was a 42 percent decrease in standard costs due to reduced change orders. In the second case, there was a 5 percent saving in contractor costs. In the third case, there was a 29 percent increase in A/E costs, a 47 percent increase in 3D model creator costs, and a 6 percent decrease in construction and contractor costs. When totaled in dollar value, there was 1 percent savings in design and construction costs.

Giel and Issa (2013) studied three case studies on three sets of similar projects, each one including one recently constructed BIM-assisted project and one earlier, similar project that did not implement BIM. They used several return metrics, such as schedule changes, RFIs, and change orders. The first case study compared two small commercial warehouse projects that used tilt-up wall construction. The second case study comprised two assisted-living facility projects, and the third case study focused on two large mid-rise commercial condominium projects. The BIM ROI calculated in these case studies varied between 16 percent and 1,654 percent. The main reason behind this wide range of ROI was the different levels of BIM implementation on these projects.

Lee et al. (2012) present the D³ project in Seoul, South Korea, as a case study, which included six mid- and high-rise buildings. They calculated BIM ROI based on prevented costs of rework caused by design errors and discrepancies. To analyze the impact of design errors, the direct costs caused by each design error were estimated. Afterward, ROI was calculated based on savings from reduced direct costs and indirect costs, which was considered as 11.4 percent of direct costs. Using a probabilistic approach, the BIM ROI was calculated to be from 22 percent to 29 percent.

According to the results, the BIM ROI increases if the impact of design errors on the schedule intensifies. For instance, if a one-week schedule delay (caused by rework) is prevented, the overall ROI is 172 percent to 247 percent. Similarly, if a monthly delay is prevented, the overall ROI is 624 percent to 699 percent.

Lee and Lee (2020) propose a framework for BIM ROI calculation. Their proposed framework comprises three phases, including assessment planning, primary BIM ROI calculation based on prevented rework, and integrated BIM ROI calculation. The first phase, assessment planning, aims to assess project location, construction type, and duration of BIM application as well as identify BIM uses and their impact on the project. During the second phase, primary BIM ROI is calculated based on preventing rework. This phase implements the method presented in Lee et al. (2012) and makes it more accurate by categorizing the error detection probability into three levels: Level 1 is 25 percent or below, Level 2 is between 25 percent and 75 percent, and Level 3 is 75 percent or above. In the third phase, integrated BIM ROI is calculated. Quantifiable BIM impacts are identified first, then the weighting value of the impacts is estimated through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) questionnaire. AHP is a decision-making tool that breaks down a problem into smaller issues and prioritizes those issues based on expert knowledge. Afterward, the identified economic impacts are monetized, considering the weighted value. Finally, the integrated BIM ROI is calculated by dividing net profit by investment costs. Their framework was utilized to calculate the BIM ROI for a case study, a public sports facility in South Korea, in which BIM was implemented only in the construction phase. According to the findings, primary BIM ROI was 168 percent and the integrated BIM ROI was 477 percent.

Stowe et al. (2015) conducted 51 workshops with BIM user participants in eight countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Sweden. The participants included project teams, companies, and agencies that use BIM on their projects. The main objective of the workshops was to help project teams identify economic impacts of implementing BIM on their projects and assess BIM ROI. During the workshops, participants estimated BIM ROI of their projects using actual project case study data. They took five steps to measure BIM ROI. First, the waste in their workflow (without using BIM) was identified. Second, teamwork and collaboration benefits were analyzed. Afterward, they assessed how the monetary benefits would be divided among the stakeholders. Then the benefits were prioritized and the calculation process was modified. Finally, the ROI was calculated. According to the results, the more a company leverages BIM on projects, the higher the BIM ROI, which can create cost savings of up to 10 percent.

2.4 Measuring BIM Adoption in Organization and Projects

There have been several efforts to quantitatively evaluate the degree of BIM adoption at various levels within the industry. These efforts include assessment matrices for organizations, projects, teams, and individuals. This section outlines several important assessment approaches for organizations and projects. These have been analyzed for consideration within the ROI framework. This evaluation focuses on assessment tools that have been highly rated in previous research efforts, along with tools that may be particularly helpful in measuring BIM adoption for ROI calculations. Team and individual levels are not specifically addressed in this section.

Organizational Level

Several valuable efforts have been made to measure the level of BIM adoption within an organization. In this section, the following organizational BIM maturity tools are introduced:

• BIM Excellence Online Platform (BIMe OP) by ChangeAgents AEC.
• BIM Compass by BIM Supporters.
• BIM Compass developed by Constructing Excellence, hosted by the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT).

• BIM Online Maturity Assessment by the National Federation of Builders (NFB) and Construction Industry Training Board (CITB).
• Construction Project Information Xchange (CPIx) BIM Assessment Form by the Construction Project Information (CPI) Committee.
• Maturity Matrix: Self-Assessment Questionnaire by Project 13, Institution of Civil Engineers.
• National Building Information Modeling Standard (NBIMS) Capability Maturity Model (CMM) by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS).
• Organizational BIM Assessment by Pennsylvania State University.
• Supply Chain BIM Capability Assessment by Wates.
• Vico BIM Scorecard by Vico Software (now part of Trimble).
• Slimgim-T CMM.

BIMe OP

BIMe OP is used to assess the BIM maturity of organizations. This tool contains 57 competency items within eight categories: managerial, administration, functional, operation, technical, implementation, supportive, research and development. While this assessment approach contains valuable items, it is not openly published, and it is used for consulting service delivery for clients of ChangeAgents AEC (Succar et al. 2013). Therefore, the research team did not consider this assessment tool for use in evaluating adoption within the ROI framework.

BIM Compass by BIM Supporters

The BIM Compass developed by BIM Supporters is an online questionnaire used to assess BIM capacities and compare industry benchmarks. It is intended to assess organizations over four chapters, including organization and management; mentality and culture; information structure and information flow; and tools and applications. In addition, there are 10 “aspects”: company culture, employee education, employee mentality, internal information flow, organization, partners, resources, strategy, use and application of open standards, and use of tools (BIM Supporters n.d.). Organization capability is the focus for most of these assessment areas and items. The BIM Compass is often used along with the BIM Execution Plan (BEP) Generator, a tool that assists with creating a BEP (Kassem and Li 2020).

BIM Compass by Constructing Excellence

The BIM Compass developed by Constructing Excellence and hosted by the SFT assesses BIM compliance and adoption in eight capacity areas across five unlabeled but progressive levels (Sebastian and van Berlo 2010).

BIM Online Maturity Assessment

BIM Online Maturity Assessment, developed by NFB and CITB, measures the maturity of an organization around collaborative work and BIM, and it provides an action plan for the organization to progress. The assessment focuses on an organization’s level of BIM awareness and the competencies and knowledge of people and processes, systems, and technology to support collaborative work with BIM (CITB 2016).

CPIx BIM Assessment Form

CPIx BIM Assessment Form, developed by CPI Committee, is a self-assessment tool that offers a meaningful approach for company BIM representatives to assess the BIM competence and maturity of a project member. The form is structured in two stages: The first stage is to ask “BIM Gateway Questions” focusing on what the company does with BIM, such as training, qualifications, compliance with British Standard BS 1192, etc. The second stage involves “12 Areas of BIM,” requiring respondents to describe their understanding of model uses and provide evidence (CPI Committee 2011).

Maturity Matrix: Self-Assessment Questionnaire

Maturity Matrix: Self-Assessment Questionnaire was developed by Project 13, Institution of Civil Engineers. It is an online self-assessment questionnaire that assesses five areas, including governance, organization, integration, digital transformation, and capable owner. The self-assessment enables infrastructure project and program partners to know the collaborative maturity (Institution of Civil Engineers 2018).

NBIMS CMM

The U.S. National BIM Standard (NBIMS) includes a CMM (NIBS 2015). This model was developed to measure a “minimum BIM” score for a project, but it is important to note that the elements within the CMM focus on organization-level implementation items. This tool includes 11 assessment categories: data richness, lifecycle views, change management, roles or disciplines, business process, timeliness of response, delivery method, graphical information, spatial capability, information accuracy, and interoperability or IFC support. The tool contains quantitative values to weight the ratings for each of the categories. While this tool can provide insights into project implementation, it does not directly relate to the ROI approach being developed in this research.

Organizational BIM Assessment

Organizational BIM Assessment is a CMM developed by Pennsylvania State University to measure the level of BIM adoption and readiness in an organization (Messner et al. 2012). It includes six categories: strategy, BIM uses, process, information, infrastructure, and personnel. A user rates each item on a 0–5 scale (0 = nonexistent, 1 = initial, 2 = managed, 3 = defined, 4 = quantitatively managed, and 5 = optimizing), as shown in Figure 2-5. Kassem and Li (2020) noted in their review that the level of detail is sufficient for an organization to be able to select a consistent score with different assessors. This relatively brief assessment tool could allow an organization to measure adoption within the ROI framework, although the tool would need to be modified for use within the transportation sector.

Supply Chain BIM Capability Assessment

Supply Chain BIM Capability Assessment was developed by Wates to assess organizations wanting to become a member of its supply chain for BIM projects (Wates n.d.). As this assessment tool is not typically used in the infrastructure sector, the research team did not use this approach for the ROI analysis.

Vico BIM Scorecard

Vico BIM Scorecard, developed by Vico Software, is an online survey designed to determine how many BIM capacities organizations are using in daily operations, with a focus on general contractors (Vico 2019).

Slimgim-T CMM

The Slimgim-T CMM was developed to assess GIS maturity capability. The standard framework offered by the Slimgim-T Maturity Model allows for comparing and evaluating best practices identified from the GIS literature. The Slimgim-T model was created to allow a transportation agency to review each category and complete the maturity matrix. Users completed their assessment by using a spreadsheet. There are five assessment areas within the Slimgim-T model: 1) organizational structure and leadership (Figure 2-6), 2) corporate culture, 3) organizational capability, 4) enterprise GIS sustainability, and 5) foundational data and technologies, with each category containing between four and eight specific factors that an organization rates

on a maturity level from a score of one (ad hoc) to five (optimized). The assessment also includes a rating for the likelihood of the agency improving the factor, with a rating scale from one (extremely unlikely) to five (extremely likely). The overall ratings can be used by an agency to inform the development of a plan for increasing GIS adoption (Abrams 2018).

In summary, after reviewing the 11 organizational assessment tools and performing a detailed review of the comparative report from Kassem and Li (2020), development of a modified Organizational BIM Assessment tool for transportation organizations may be the most appropriate tool for measuring BIM adoption within a transportation agency. There are aspects of other assessment tools that could be considered if modifications are made to the assessment tool. The Organizational BIM Assessment tool was developed and released under a Creative Commons license that would allow for modifications to be made and freely distributed.

Project Level

In addition to measuring adoption at an organizational level, several assessment approaches have been adopted for quantifying the level of BIM integration at a project level (Kassem and Li 2020). The following six project BIM maturity tools were evaluated:

1. BIMe OP by ChangeAgents AEC. (An explanation of BIMe OP can be found in the previous section.)
2. BIM Maturity Assessment Tool (BMAT) by the University of Cambridge.

3. BIM Maturity Measure by Arup/Institution of Civil Engineers.
4. BIM Working Group BMAT by the Public Sector Working Group.
5. Dstl BIM Maturity Measurement Tool by Dstl.
6. Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) Scorecard by the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), Stanford University.

BMAT

BMAT was developed by the University of Cambridge. The tool measures BIM development maturity and supporting processes and offers separate assessment for different stakeholders; it is intended for tracking the evolution of the BIM maturity construction phase to handover (Institute for Manufacturing 2023). The tool is not mainly focused on infrastructure, so the research team did not cover much of this assessment tool in this BIM ROI framework.

BIM Maturity Measure

BIM Maturity Measure, by Arup, can be used to assess the BIM maturity of projects within different disciplines. This tool is intended to assess a wide range of projects and highlight good practices and areas for improvement (Arup 2012). Of all the tools evaluated, this tool is most consistent with the desired measurement while also being publicly available and published. The tool would need to be customized for transportation projects if it is used to evaluate the level of BIM adoption on a road/bridge project.

BIM Working Group BMAT

BIM Working Group BMAT, by the Public Sector Working Group, assesses BIM procurement/employer engagement; BIM delivery; data verification and validation; collaborative working; visualization/stakeholder engagement; discipline-based model authoring; construction; and model-based estimating and change management (Kassem and Li 2020). This assessment tool is not available publicly, so the research team did not use this tool in this ROI framework.

Dstl BIM Maturity Measurement Tool

Dstl BIM Maturity Measurement Tool is amended from the U.S. government’s BMAT tool and follows the same method of assessment. It uses a questionnaire to ask project teams about the same eight areas assessed by the BIM Working Group BMAT assessment tool (Wu et al. 2017).

VDC Scorecard

CIFE of Stanford University developed VDC Scorecard to evaluate the maturity of VDC based on an industry performing rate framework. It measures the degree of VDC performance in four areas: planning, adoption, technology, and performance (Stanford University n.d.). However, the current VDC innovation and its assessment are primarily focused on the building sector, so this assessment approach may not apply to the BIM ROI analysis for infrastructure.

2.5 BIM Adoption in Published Case Studies

Case studies in previous literature that implemented BIM were identified, including both domestic and international cases. This section presents a review of select case studies with BIM adoption from previous publications. It is important to note that there are many case studies that include BIM for various use cases; this section does not aim to be comprehensive in the identification of case studies, but instead to provide a representative sampling of interesting projects.

Domestic

In the United States, stakeholders seek ways to merge BIM into their workflows, from complex megaprojects to standard roadway work.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) used design and construction BIM models to reduce costs, compress schedules, improve plans quality, and streamline collaborative workflows for its Southeast Freeways projects. This approach was applied as a pilot in 2011–2012 to construct the $162.5 million Mitchell Interchange, and then fully throughout the project during 2012–2018 to design and construct the $1.7 billion Zoo Interchange. On the Mitchell project, BIM modeling was done pre-construction award primarily for visualization and visual clash detection. WisDOT identified a percentage of potential cost reductions through comparison of the developed 3D model and traditional 2D plans during construction and 3D modeling results where a majority of cost gains were found in roadway/drainage and general structure components and not earthwork and excavation alone.

The success of this pilot led WisDOT to use BIM on a majority of Southeast Freeways megaprojects and major projects, as well as smaller projects less than $100 million. On the Zoo Interchange project, the team was able to start earlier and create a robust multidisciplinary BIM model, including all major disciplines used for design-construction review, clash detection, constructability staged models, 4D simulations, contractor bidding, AMG, e-construction, and reuse of BIM models available for as-builts. The Zoo Interchange project only had a change order value of 3.43 percent, which yielded an estimated cost savings of $28.2 million, whereas similar projects using traditional non-BIM construction typically have change order percentages greater than 7 percent, such as Marquette Interchange at 7.09 percent and I-94 North–South/Mitchell Interchange at 7.20 percent (Parve 2013; Parve 2020).

Massachusetts Department of Transportation applied BIM innovation on the Fore River Bridge Replacement in Quincy. The design calls for a vertical-lift bridge with towers that are nearly 300 feet high. BIM technology allowed for real-time feedback of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) replacement; streamlined the process; and helped speed up the process internally (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012).

While large, complex roadway projects potentially benefit more from BIM use, some firms adopt BIM on small projects. Clark Nexsen used 3D modeling on two intersection projects for the City of Chesapeake, with combined design and engineering fees of less than $100,000 (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012). The team first modeled the roadway and performed storm-water design analysis based on the engineering model. Modeling the project improved visualization of what needed to be built, enabled faster design reviews, enhanced coordination, ensured better constructability, and increased collaboration.

A case study by Fanning et al. (2015) compares two bridge construction projects under Kiewit Construction for asset owner Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT): Fort Lyon Canal Bridge (did not implement BIM) and Pecos Street over I-70 Bridge (implemented BIM). RFIs and change order metrics evaluating cost, area, and traffic information decreased in the ranges of 12–87 percent and 22–89 percent between the two projects. Findings suggest that BIM may have provided cost savings of approximately 5 percent during construction by contributing to reduced change orders and rework. Specifically, the ability to provide accurate and realistic visualizations of the project to the public before the construction phase enabled the level of public engagement and support necessary for success. Performance metrics—including investment construction costs and return indicators of RFI, change orders, and schedule—were used to track the project status and evaluate ROI.

To manage projects better, many airport authorities encourage designers and contractors to collaborate in BIM. Satterfield & Pontikes (S&P) offered project-control services for the

$1.2 billion Delta Air Lines Redevelopment project at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. To better monitor all contracts and keep stakeholders informed, S&P modeled the project, providing estimate and scheduling analysis and cost controls. The teams were able to conduct visualization, coordination, and constructability reviews, with 4D scheduling capabilities and 5D cost estimates, which allowed the team to better track production (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012). On the $1.2 billion Green Build project at San Diego International Airport, major contractors on separate contracts worked in harmony through BIM. The BIM use process significantly accelerated the program, trimming costs and keeping more of the airport open for business. The team was able to start foundations at the 30 percent construction documents phase with the assistance of BIM tools (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012).

BIM is of more interest to public entities that own, operate, and maintain dams, canals, and levees. Panama Canal Authority added BIM to the workflow for its ongoing $6 billion expansion project. The team’s primary focus for modeling was the reinforced concrete structures that retain the water, as well as earth dam components. All mechanical systems and electrical controls for the complex were also modeled. BIM models enabled the team to create construction documents and provide rough QTOs for estimating (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012).

Primary design and construction firms explore ways to maximize model use within the design-bid-build (DBB) delivery system on water and wastewater projects. The Okaloosa County Water and Sewer Department in Florida selected CDM Smith to design, construct, and outfit, as well as conduct performance tests and obtain permits for, the new Arbennie Pritchett Water Reclamation Facility, which can process 10 million gallons per day. The team used BIM throughout the project lifecycle, including the delivery of a model for operations and maintenance (O&M). Through a design-build (DB) process, the team used BIM to help compress the design schedule to just over five months, reviewing models with the client throughout. The construction team was provided with an early start-package generated from the model, which consisted of building foundations, plumbing, and electrical underground utilities. This enabled the team to start site work two and a half months before construction documents were complete. The model was used to create bid packages for subcontractors, who also used it in the field to aid in construction and coordination efforts. Upon completion, the model was connected to an electronic O&M system that helps manage data equipment, datasheets, and manuals. It was also used for training staff at the new plant (McGraw-Hill Construction 2012).

International

BIM can also be implemented in road projects, as a road use case in Australia demonstrates (Chong et al. 2016). In this example, BIM was used on a project to upgrade an existing highway. The scope of the project was the expansion of approximately 4.2 kilometers of the highway from four to six lanes; construction of a central median along the length of the upgraded section; upgrading major intersections to allow for wider circles of turning movements; and addition of bus lanes, on-road cycling facilities, and a continuous pedestrian path. The project was completed approximately three months ahead of the target completion date with implementation of BIM.

BIM tools used in this road use case example include Autodesk AutoCAD Civil 3D, Navisworks, and 12D Model and Bentley MXRoad. BIM uses in the pre-construction stage included engineering analysis, QTO, clash detection, transportation management/traffic impact simulation to predict the volume, and saturation on the highway. BIM uses in the construction stage included conducting field survey and quality management. BIM uses in the post-construction stage included road management and geospatial issue tracking.

BIM has been actively used in numerous types of infrastructure projects in China as well. In a 2016 study, Chong et al. (2016) highlighted a project located in Shanghai due to its high profile

and media coverage. BIM tools used in this project include Autodesk Revit, Navisworks, Robot Structural, Ecotect Analysis, and Infrastructure Modeler. The new road was constructed for four lanes in each direction. BIM uses in the pre-construction stage included 3D modeling, QTO, and clash detection. BIM uses in the construction stage included tracking on-site construction progress. This was the first infrastructure road project in which BIM was used by the contractors involved. Some BIM uses were not applied, particularly in operation and maintenance following completion and handover of the project data, such as subsequent traffic management.

BIM has also been widely used in transportation projects in Sweden; an example reviewed in the literature is the Slussen project. The project scope was to construct an effective and safe junction for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport with the capability to accommodate 480,000 travelers per day, including the construction of a steel bridge over Söderström (140 meters long, 45 meters wide). Clients made performance requirements for BIM and VDC innovation on this project, which included coordination and visualization in 3D, review of the design in 3D, procurements with 3D models, simulation of construction schedule, calculating cost estimate, and handover to FM (Foster + Partners 2022).

Another project that was reviewed involved a road improvement for Regional Road 22 (Rv22) in Norway. It was a large transportation route expansion, including a new bridge. BIM was implemented for the early stage of design, and the team was able to use BIM for 3D visualization, which resulted in better collaboration among stakeholders and significant cost savings (Autodesk n.d., accessed 2020).

2.6 Conclusions and Observations

Currently, the AEC industry around the world is attempting to adopt BIM as the future standard for building design, construction, and operation. Drivers of adopting BIM technology include owner requirements, aspiration to be at the forefront of BIM in industry, ability of BIM to streamline design activities, improved efficiency and cost savings, and reduction of disputes prevalent within the construction industry.

Despite many perceived benefits of using BIM technology, several studies have shown that the rate of adoption in the AEC industry still seems to be lower than expected and varies greatly among stakeholders and different phases of a project lifecycle. There are problems and challenges that deter the adoption of BIM in projects. Barriers of BIM adoption in the AEC industry include legal issues, the high cost of BIM software and hardware, the high cost of training on BIM tools, lack of skilled personnel, lack of skills and knowledge for company staff, resistance to change, lack of demand from owners, lack of awareness about BIM benefits, lack of expertise, current shortage of BIM applications, and lack of support from governments. It is important to note that no single barrier is solely responsible for hampering BIM adoption. Instead, the potential for these barriers to be able to impact adoption is project specific (Walasek and Barszcz 2017).

Cost is an important factor taken into consideration when an owner is determining whether to implement BIM tools. ROI analysis is often used to compare the returns from multiple investments. BIM offers the management of information through the whole lifecycle of a built asset; it delivers value by underpinning the creation, collation, and exchange of shared models and corresponding intelligent structured data. Benefits of implementing BIM are summarized in this report, including benefits in asset management by owners (e.g., cost savings, staff time savings, and ancillary organizational benefits), benefits for end users, and benefits in project delivery (e.g., project cost savings and ancillary project benefits). The investment to adopt BIM is also analyzed, including investment in organizational and asset management and investment in project delivery. The return on adopting BIM tools is also summarized from literature on both the organizational and project levels.

Walasek and Barszcz (2017) found that design fees will most likely increase for companies working with BIM, as a result of the greater workload occurring during the earlier phases of a project designed using collaborative tools. The owner can potentially gain the most from deciding to implement BIM in a project, and therefore, should be encouraged to implement it. In many countries, local governments are committing to BIM by requiring that all new public projects be completed using BIM at a specific level.

Giel and Issa (2013) recommend improvements for better benchmark BIM-assisted projects, including keeping accurate VDC RFI logs that document problems discovered with the assistance of BIM and tracking the corresponding resolution of those problems and their costs. According to Giel et al. (2009), a greater ROI was achieved on the larger and more complex construction projects, while the smaller projects benefit greatly from BIM implementation but had lower direct savings. Therefore, it is suggested that when deciding to invest in BIM, owners should consider the size and scope of their projects.