Next Article in Journal
Policy Mixes to Achieve Absolute Decoupling: An Ex Ante Assessment
Previous Article in Journal
Energy Efficient Networks for Monitoring Water Quality in Subterranean Rivers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

BIM and Sustainability Education: Incorporating Instructional Needs into Curriculum Planning in CEM Programs Accredited by ACCE

1
School of Civil Engineering, Chang’an University, No. 161, Chang’an Road, Xi’an 710061, China
2
College of Engineering and Technology, Xi’an Fanyi University, No. 161, Taiyigong Road, Chang’an District, Xi’an 710105, China
3
Technology Department, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2016, 8(6), 525; https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060525
Submission received: 6 February 2016 / Revised: 20 April 2016 / Accepted: 9 May 2016 / Published: 31 May 2016

Abstract

:
Higher education ought to support the identification of training needs for industrial building information modelling (BIM) curriculum development and sustainability education in the fields of civil engineering and management (CEM). This paper proposes a framework based on a four-phase step-by-step quality function deployment (QFD) application for CEM curriculum planning and quality management. The framework attempts to respond to requests collected from 17 professionals and professors in order to integrate BIM into the higher education curriculum in China with a specific focus on construction management programs accredited by the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE). The entropy method and a K1–K6 scale adapted from Bloom’s revised cognitive process were employed to evaluate the CEM curriculum in QFD. The proposed framework was successfully applied to CEM curriculum planning, which included two curriculums of the four main knowledge areas provided by the Chinese CEM guidelines: construction cost and flow construction. Two curriculum areas showed that content should focus on knowledge such as (a) Program evaluation and review technique(PERT) planning; (b) construction optimization in flow construction; (c) principles of bill of quantities and (d) construction consumption in construction costs. As for teaching quality management in China, the higher education curriculum should focus on three aspects to promote curriculum integration: (a) pedagogical design; (b) teaching resource and material and (c) curriculum assessment. This research sheds light on the pedagogical shift to a similar context that has established guidelines accredited by the ACCE, with respect to reviewing curriculum planning from a knowledge system perspective in order to meet industrial demands at the operational level.

1. Introduction

Architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) industries use indicator terms such as life cycle costing, ecological footprint and carbon footprint to implement sustainable green-building design approaches [1,2] in an effort to improve the energy efficiency of construction projects. Building information modelling (BIM) is increasingly being applied throughout a building’s lifecycle, including in building renovation, energy simulation, and building system analysis throughout all processes of AEC and facility management (FM) domains. The United Kingdom, for example, is making BIM mandatory on all public projects from 2016 in order to cut waste and monitor sustainability [3] (p. 80). The innovation of BIM technology provides a new means of predicting, managing and monitoring the environmental impacts of a project’s construction and development phases through a “one-stop-shop”. BIM is helpful for environmental sustainability monitoring and management over a building’s full life cycle. Furthermore, BIM presents the opportunity by the information embedded in a building project to expand its scope within sustainability [4]. BIM would also be most beneficial at the conceptual design stage so that sustainability is built into the design solution starting from its inception. BIM allows for sustainability to become a key component of the design, construction and delivery of a building and enables the corresponding decisions that affect its environmental performance, to avoid costly redesign or engineering waste [5] (p. 268).
It could be argued that without BIM talent development, no real progress toward AEC sustainability could be made. Civil engineering and management (CEM) in higher education curriculum planning provides a sound foundation to train BIM talent to meet the AEC industrial needs. Throughout this process, it may be further argued that it is imperative to intelligently convert AEC industrial BIM needs into the corresponding curriculum development. Thus, at present, the rising concern about the lack of BIM education in higher education has been a focus of research around the world as the demand for talent will promote the AEC industrial sustainability [6]. These challenges may be addressed by modifying curriculum content and setting new priorities for CEM in higher education.
Research showed that CEM education has traditionally been delivered based on specific CEM undergraduate student guidelines [7,8], in which BIM-driven knowledge domains are logically infused and supported by the required knowledge areas which are derived from a variety of quality management related curricula. Numerous studies also reviewed the current status of BIM training and its respective elements to meet the needs of industry and align with the expectations of new and challenging job demands [7,9,10,11,12,13,14].Those elements include single BIM curriculum integration, BIM curriculum guidelines, and BIM teaching methods. Therefore, BIM-driven knowledge domains may require a pedagogical shift by way of integrating training of industrial BIM capabilities with related business and management curricula, and include supportive insights from both university faculty and industrial professionals. This is to say, addressing BIM industrial needs in academic curriculum development is therefore imperative in all related curriculum planning efforts. Only then can CEM graduates quickly overcome the gap between industrial sustainable requirements and traditional university curricula and swiftly adapt to the AEC workplace [15,16].
In the meantime, quality deployment function (QFD) may provide a foundation from both educational and industrial perspectives and from a knowledge system view point [17,18,19,20,21,22], and QFD is applied in engineering education in order to translate key requirements for the field into an effective curriculum and to enhance instructional quality [17,23,24,25]. The same research may have identified a lack of integration between BIM and other supportive curriculum areas [8]. For example, Kamvysi et al. [13] proposed and tested the use of an alternative framework for prioritizing students’ requirements within QFD; Liu et al. [20] proposed an industrial design curriculum that meets practical workplace needs by applying QFD.
The purpose of this research is to systematically identify priorities for successful curriculum development in CEM using QFD as a guideline, and to respond to the increased need for talent development in the area of BIM in China. There are four main knowledge areas in the Chinese CEM guidelines: (a) management; (b) contract and law; (c) civil technology and (d) information technology and management. These knowledge areas cover the comprehensive curriculum such as construction cost, flow construction management, engineering graphics, building technology, construction law, and civil engineering [26].
This research could stimulate a pedagogical shift in China and other countries that have guidelines accredited by the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE), towards giving more attention to BIM related curriculum planning and thus moving away from the current CEM approach in order to better meet BIM talent training demands. The research further identifies a more flexible and advanced development of BIM related curriculum in CEM which is prepared specifically by both faculty and industrial professionals using newer didactic criteria and case application [27,28,29].
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 includes a brief review of related literature such as QFD applications in curriculum development and the need to enhance industrial BIM capability. Section 3 provides the methodology. Section 4 implements the procedure and measurement to analyze two of the six existing curriculum areas in CEM. Section 5 presents the conclusions and summarizes the results to highlight the similar curriculum development attempts in CEM.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Sustainablity Education and BIM

In order to address challenges faced by continuously moving toward sustainability in China, higher education in China should be regarded as a marketable service with qualified, knowledgeable graduates who will contribute positively to society [30]. For students, higher education is a means to employment. In the construction world, engineers must be flexible and able to respond to sudden changes weather these changes are introduced through international and local government demands, sustainability policies, or construction needs. Engineers of the future must be able to function in a team environment, often globally, and be able to relate their technical expertise to societal needs. Higher education has to focus on market demand and stop defending obsolete programs. In order to prepare engineers to meet these new challenges, engineering training and education in China must be revised and modernized. The researchers of this paper will look at the contributions that can be made to CEM education, and will place emphasis on establishing teaching at the university level with an attempt to integrate the industrial capability needs to improve the overall quality of curriculum and education in construction [9].
Construction is rapidly moving towards sustainability. Due to the demands of the environment, more sustainable buildings will need to be constructed. These buildings will use materials that could decrease negative environmental impacts during the lifecycle of the building. For example, the UK government’s Construction 2025 strategy targets a 33% reduction in the whole-life cost of built assets and a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 [3]. The construction industry will benefit from an integrated tool that helps optimize the selection process of material, equipment and system at every stage of a proposed building’s life-cycle.
BIM is one of the most promising recent developments in the AEC industries. BIM represents a new paradigm within AEC and helps architects, engineers, and constructors visualize and simulate to the project to identify any potential design, construction, or operational issues and helps furthermore to integrate sustainability regulations and assessment measures [4,31,32]. For example, BIM technology provides an accurate automated sustainability compliance checking virtual modelling tool of a proposed building. BIM is intrinsic to sustainable design and assists with the design and measurement of a building’s environmental performance. However, perhaps its most important contribution to sustainability is the elimination of waste throughout a building’s life-cycle. In the case of Britain, BIM is a vital mechanism to achieve the goal of lowering carbon production by 80% by 2050 (compared with 1990 levels) [3].
As shown in Figure 1, the overlapping aspects of sustainability education and AEC industrial sustainability needs requires institutes of higher education accredited by the ACCE to understand how to best utilize BIM to meet the increased demand on sustainability in AEC industries. At the same time, in a globalized world, the basis of engineering education is made up of unique experiences, traditions and everlasting values of specialist training at universities. Therefore, CEM education should adopt new and innovative industrial skills (such as BIM) into curriculum design along with opportunities and the flexibility to include important trends and advances in sustainable development, such as cutting construction waste or carbon emissions. Thus, CEM programs should consider introducing industrial BIM concepts and tools that enable students to apply relevant skills, and make them aware of potential BIM applications to prepare them for their future careers. These curricula advances would then in turn also improve industrial sustainability overall.
Higher education should therefore integrate industrial BIM concepts and technologies into CEM supporting curricula, and then help to meet industrial sustainable development in those respective industries. This integration will equip CEM students with relevant preparation for industrial demands. Only if students utilize BIM effectively will sustainable construction succeed in the future.

2.2. Industrial BIM Capacity

Implementing BIM concepts and tools into the construction industry heavily relies on the knowledge that new construction employees bring into the labor market. Only then can BIM continue to gain momentum and successfully change the industry. A thorough understanding of the opportunities that BIM applications provide constitutes essential drivers for its adoption throughout the entire construction process [31]. Industrial demand for BIM education around the world continues to increase. AEC industrial benefits of BIM have included: (a) fully integrated projects; (b) buildings that are fully designed before construction commences; (c) fully coordinated cost models and building programs; (d) increased likelihood of the finished building conforming to the agreed design; and (e) significant cost reductions due to improved effectiveness and productivity [33,34]. Thus, there is a need for integrating BIM knowledge and skills into the curriculum. Higher education therefore plays an important role to provide the necessary conditions for the implementation of BIM in the construction industry. However, market demand for graduates with a workable BIM skill set has not been able to keep pace with this apparent and rising demand for BIM capability in industry [31]. Therefore, BIM capacity building has become one of the key skills of AEC practitioners (architects, engineers, contractors), manufacturers, and other professionals [35]. The synergistic modeling characteristics of BIM make it an effective tool for all practitioners in the construction industry. However, one deficiency of BIM technology is its slow adaptation to the demands of AEC industries. For example, newer and more modern professional BIM software tools should be developed to address the needs of different building types. Barlish and Traylor highlighted that:
the students should not be considered as stakeholder by reasoning that students use the curriculum but often lack information regarding the competencies needed in their vocations and are unable to assess the curriculum from a customer’s point of view. However, the school faculty should have the competency to evaluate the vocational and technical courses to be taken by the students. [36]
Based on BIM related literature, industry-academic partnerships [10,12,37,38,39], BIM education guidelines [7,8] and the 2015 National BIM Standards for the United States [37] provide a basic structure to align BIM education with industrial demands. Figure 2 is an overview of BIM industrial capability based on the above studies.
The operation ability of BIM software (OA-BIM) requires that BIM professionals must have abilities to operate one or several BIM software applications. This ability should be the essential and basic ability of engineers for BIM model production, BIM information application, and BIM professional analysis. The production ability of BIM models (PA-BIM) refers to the ability to build models for different types of buildings using BIM software. The different types of models include construction models, structural models, site models, electromechanical models, performance analysis models, and safety precaution models. The application ability of BIM models (AA-BIM) signifies the ability to analyze, simulate, and optimize tasks during different phases of a project, including project demonstration, performance analysis, design inspection, and operation process simulation. The building ability of BIM application environments (BA‑BIM) pertains to the ability to build a technical environment for a BIM application that consists of the organization and delivery of standard, workflow, component assembly inventory, software, hardware, and network. The management ability of BIM projects (MA‑BIM) is the ability to manage and coordinate BIM project teams to achieve the goal of BIM applications, including the establishment and training of project teams. The integration ability of BIM businesses (IA-BIM) designates the ability to integrate BIM applications and the business targets of enterprises include the confirmation of the value of BIM to enterprise businesses, the calculation and estimation of the BIM investment return, the establishment of new business models.

2.3. BIM Education in CEM

BIM enables architects, cost estimators, engineers, builders, and property owners to manage a project in its entirety in a timely manner. BIM can improve the communication between enterprises across the entire construction industry. BIM can enable information management and help throughout the lifecycle of a project. With the constant progress of building design, bidding, construction and operation, BIM will continuously show its value in the management of the lifecycle of buildings.
BIM curriculum in CEM embodies the process from simple modeling, to the junior-intermediate applications of senior skills. CEM graduates can adapt to BIM requirements and gradually gain the business integration capacity after project practices. For BIM education in undergraduate CEM, there are various phrases and methods that could be used for the course development. For example, the civil engineering body of knowledge (CEBOK) states that the knowledge and skills of BIM‑supported communication, cooperation, problem identification, and solution become very critical to civil engineers [40]. CEM reinforces that enhancing BIM education by building systematic and comprehensive BIM education methods has become the focus of the reform of college course [13,14]. In the undergraduate programs of CEM, BIM courses should focus on the cooperation and management at cross-organization and cross-project level [41,42,43]. For example, Forsythe [40] provided an approach to adopt the term “vertical problems” to capture the way models and problem based learning are being utilized, where staff author “sub-plots” that utilize information models in a way that best suits their specific subjects, e.g., cost, time, quality, sustainability subject areas.
For CEM education in the USA, although colleges have added BIM contents to the existing courses and delivered them in various approaches and methods, it does not mean that BIM teaching is generally implemented with high quality [44]. Many colleges provide BIM education only in 1–3 separated courses. This setting reduces the knowledge coverage of BIM to an introduction level with the retaining duration of only 1–2 weeks [14,34]. To improve the application level of BIM in CEM, educators should incorporate BIM instructions in an independent course in the primary stage of CEM education. For example, in China, BIM education is introduced earlier in an educational course than in the USA [45].Chinese researchers used the independent BIM platform to integrate sustainable building design [46], and adopted the BIM workshop to implement the large-scale design competition [47]. Moreover, BIM contents can gradually penetrate through other courses. The design and development of courses that integrate BIM should depend on the analysis of course development theory, current demands, trends of construction engineering education, and the production process of construction management [48]. To identify the multilateral relationships among BIM contents and the possible CEM courses to integrate and to organize the contents in a consistent and coordinate manner, this research can be applied to the QFD house method for the implementation.
BIM education for CEM students meets the demands of industries and helps to improve the students’ capability. For example, Andersson Niclas argued that
a considerate mismatch is identified between the technical characteristics of the BIM curricula at universities and the process-oriented approach to BIM represented by the industry. Thus, the universities would benefit from a closer collaboration with the industry in BIM-related matters and they need to take on a strategic approach to BIM at an overall university or program level in order to avoid isolated BIM initiatives at a single course level [49].
Thus, the structure of BIM education of undergraduates in CEM majors should include curriculum content reflecting the demands and trends of the industry. The curriculum design should not only include an introduction or fundamental, intermediate, and advanced courses, but also interdisciplinary knowledge areas. Furthermore, BIM education in CEM should include the theories and methods of technology, management, economics and legal aspects, as they can be associated with CEM. Students should be equipped with industrial BIM knowledge by covering and highlighting the fundamental abilities to carry out in all four curriculum knowledge areas [26]: (a) management; (b) contract and law; (c) civil technology and (d) information technology and management in CEM or other supportive engineering domains.

2.4. Research Framework

Numerous approaches to incorporate industrial needs into curricula planning exist [50,51,52,53,54,55]. Some of these approaches include: (a) curriculum mapping [51] to document and visualize the curriculum learning at the programmatic level; (b) grounded theories to qualitative describe learning needs; (c) the web based system Curriculum Navigator that can explore learning attitudes towards the current curriculum [53].
QFD has been employed in engineering education to effectively analyze quality enhancement for curriculum planning in higher education using the AHP method, fuzzy logic-based method and integrated the Quality Function Deployment-Service Quality (QFD-SERVQUAL) model [56,57,58,59,60,61]. Sohn and Kim [59] applied QFD to revamp the existing industrial engineering curriculum by reassessing it with outcome-based learning criteria to identify the overlapping and prerequisite relations among courses. Aytac and Deniz [27] reviewed the existing curriculum and proposed a new curriculum to meet customer needs using the QFD technique [27]. Ictenbas and Eryilmaz [62] evaluated different teaching methods with regards to employers’ expectation also using the QFD approach.
This research adopted the four-phase QFD to quantitatively incorporate the BIM needs of AEC industry for sustainability education (see Section 3.2). In the QFD process, it is central to convert the industrial BIM capability into the operation level of a BIM supportive curriculum during the first QFD phase. However, this research used Bloom’s revised knowledge-levels (K-levels) for the importance matrix to determine the QFD relationship in order to service the cognitive process to meet curriculum assessment. Bloom’s revised cognitive process highlights the learning process and covers the goal of formative assessment of a curriculum [13,18], which includes six progressive K-levels, such as remember (K1), understand (K2), apply (K3), analyze (K4), evaluate (K5) and create (K6).
This research converted industrial BIM capabilities into supportive curriculum strategies using QFD through the transition of (a) teaching quality characteristic; (b) curriculum content; and (c) teaching quality management. The overall research process is shown in Figure 3. This particular paper focuses on steps 4 (QFD Process) and 5 (Improvement Implications).

3. Methodology

Unlike purely government-designed curriculums taught exclusively in schools, teaching BIM capability in the workplace allows young people to develop “hard” skills on modern up-to-date equipment, and soft skills, such as teamwork, communication and negotiation, through real-world experience. Industrial advisors along with school faculty members should evaluate technical courses to be taken by students, and update and align the curriculum content to meet the needs of industry [36]. Nevertheless, in this model, the authors did not consider the students as stakeholders because they are considered are consumers of the curriculum and often lack knowledge regarding the competencies.
This research applied the expert method to solicit information and included the expertise of seventeen faculty members and professionals from the construction industry. All professionals involved had an academic alliance with the Chang’an University in China and maintained a long working relationship with the faculty members of this university. These individuals were given a scoring matrix in order to assess their views on the integration of BIM into the curriculum in higher education in China. The 7 faculty members came from both from the School of Civil Engineering of Chang’an University and from the Department of Technology of Illinois State University, while the 10 came from Architectural Society of China (ASC). The 10 professionals represented large international companies in the areas of construction management and civil engineering with locations in China.
For the QFD of curriculum in CEM, we grouped the faculty members and the industry professionals to contribute to the setting and scoring of the indicators for industrial BIM capabilities including TQC and TQM in CEM using the K1–K6 scale of Bloom’s revised cognitive process. Each of these individuals had more than 8 years’ experience implementing industrial planning and teaching activities.

3.1. Curriculum Teaching Quality Requirement Indicators

3.1.1. Teaching Quality Characteristics’ (TQC) Indicators

In order to select teaching quality characteristics (TQC) to be used in this research, a wide‑ranging literature review was undertaken [19,29]. Following the literature review, a thorough process of evaluation of quality characteristics was identified and 13 TQC were established for this research project, shown in Table 1.

3.1.2. Teaching Quality Management (TQM) Indicators

After a QFD infusion, the industrial capability could be operated at the curriculum content level to meet the requirement of both curriculum planners and teachers in higher education. Curriculum content in CEM should aim at educating students, and enhance faculty and industry professionals to better meet the changing needs of industry [36,63]. According to the ACCE guidelines, on-campus recruiting by industry professionals, BIM software usage, industry guest lecturers, case studies, field trips, site visits, flexible classroom teaching by practitioners, quizzes, and a mandatory team exercise should be included in the contents of BIM courses [16,64,65,66]. Curriculum quality and classroom management [29] in CEM should not only focus on concepts and principles of BIM but also include real-life experiences. Below is a summary of teaching quality management (TQM) characteristics as developed by specialists from both Illinois State University, USA, and Chang’an University, China (Table 2).

3.2. The Adaptation of the Curriculum Planning Model

This research adopted the QFD framework of industrial engineering education to propose different curriculum planning phases [67]. Since Brackin [67] stated that all the quality characteristics in QFD had positive effects, a simple QFD matrix was adopted to present the curriculum planning process [17,20,21]. Operations details of the four-phase house of quality of curriculum planning are described in Figure 4:
Phase I refers to curriculum planning, which prioritizes the industrial BIM capability best suited to deliver critical teaching quality characteristics (TQC).Phase II concerns the curriculum’s design, which identifies and prioritizes the TQC to be incorporated into the supportive curriculum content in CEM. In phase III, regarding the curriculum’s implementation, the preferred TQM modules and techniques are assigned to specific curriculum content in CEM. Phase IV considers the curriculum’s priorities and integrates phases II and III to rank the curriculum content and TQM modules and techniques to respond the industrial BIM capability. In phase I, the weight, importance and relative importance of both industrial BIM capability and teaching quality characteristics (TQC) were calculated along with the correlation matrix [21,67,68]. Analog to Phase I, Phases II and III used the same steps to generate the QFD matrix.

3.3. Validation of the Curriculum Planning Model

3.3.1. Justification of the Method

This research used the entropy method to calculate the importance weight of the QFD items. It uses two layers and more than 10 indices to structure curriculum content, while comparing multiple layers and their respective indices. This research employed exclusively the entropy method to service the weights even though other research has used methods such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). However, this research team believes that the AHP method loses its significance when involving multiple subject weight [69,70].

3.3.2. Entropy Weight

The entropy method is an object empowerment approach that reflects the disorder degree of information in information theory and in social sciences and education related areas [71]. With this method, the weights of individual indicators are determined by calculating the entropy weight. The greater the entropy is, the smaller the corresponding entropy weight. If the entropy weight is zero, no useful information exists and its corresponding indicator may be removed. The amount of useful information that the target provides to the decision-maker is considered objective [71,72]. Using the entropy method to determine the index weights could therefore reflect the objective and realistic information of curriculum in QFD. The main four steps [71,72] are shown below:
(1)
For the formation of the evaluation matrix, suppose m units and n indicators are evaluated to establish the original data matrix in Equation (1).
R = ( r s t ) m × n ( s = 1 , 2 , m ; t = 1 , 2 , n )
where r s t represents the actual value of the t t h index of sth unit.
(2)
The standardization of the evaluation matrix is used to normalize matrix B,
B = ( b s t ) m × n ( s = 1 , 2 , m ; t = 1 , 2 , n ) with
b s t = r s t r min r max r min
where r max and r min represent the max and min values for the evaluation unit if the indicator is the positive tropism (+)
b s t = r s t r min r max r min
and if the indicator is the negative tropism (−)
b s t = r max r s t r max r min
(3)
Then, the entropy of the system can be calculated as:
H t = ( s = 1 m f s t ln f s t ) / ln m ( s = 1 , 2 , m ; t = 1 , 2 n )
where f s t = b s t / s = 1 m b s t , if f s t = 0 , then redefine the f s t as
f s t = ( 1 + b s t ) / s = 1 m ( 1 + b s t )
(4)
Finally, the entropy weight can be calculated as
w = ( ω t ) 1 × n , ω t = ( 1 H t ) / ( n t = 1 n H t )  with  t = 1 n ω t = 1

3.3.3. Importance, Relative Importance and Correlation Matrix

Once the weights of “how’s and what’s” of the QFD matrix were generated, the researchers built the House of Quality (HoQ). We can now complete the HoQ by calculating the index importance for the “how’s and what’s”. The index importance p t could be calculated in Equation (8).
p t = ω t × n e = 1 N t n e / N
where p t refers to the t t h index importance, ω t refers to entropy weight of the t t h index, t n refers to the score of n t h decision-maker for the t t h index, and n e = ( 1 , .. , N ) .
Select the modular p z among the importance p t as unit 1 to generate the relative importance p t _ of the t t h index, shown in Equation (9).
p i _ = p t p z
As to the correlation matrix in QFD of curriculum in CEM, the researchers used the common method of Pearson correlation ρ X Y to generate the coefficient [73,74], as shown in Equation (10):
ρ X Y = cov ( X , Y ) cov ( X , X ) cov ( Y , Y ) = ( X X ¯ ) ( Y Y ¯ ) ( X X ¯ ) 2 ( Y Y ¯ ) 2 = X Y X Y 17 ( X 2 ( X ) 2 N ) ( Y 2 ( Y ) 2 N )
where X refers to “what’s” and Y refers to “how’s” in the QFD matrix, X Y = n = 1 N X n Y n , X = n = 1 N X n , Y = n = 1 N Y n , X 2 = n = 1 N X n 2 , and Y 2 = n = 1 N Y n 2 .
The larger the absolute ρ X Y , the stronger the correlation. The scale of correlation evaluation is shown in the Table 3.

4. Results

4.1. Phase I

This research implemented Equations (1)–(7) of the entropy method to generate the entropy weight of industrial BIM capability. It also used 13 TQC indices in CEM as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 identifies MA-BIM, AA-BIM and IA-BIM as the top BIM capability indicators. In order to convert the BIM capabilities into the TQC in CEM, the researchers will focus on the top four aspects of teaching quality indicators (TQCs 7, 9, 11 and 13). Industrial BIM capability indices were assigned to different TQC requirements in order to enhance the infusion process in higher education. In particular, MA-BIM should focus attention on the correlation with TQC2, BA-BIM with TQCs 8 and 13, OA-BIM with TQCs 9, 10 and 12, AA-BIM with TQC13. Phase I was completed to convert industrial BIM capability into TQC in CEM to build a solid foundation to analogy the following two QFD processes in CEM.

4.2. Phase II and III

According to the CEM undergraduate curriculum accredited by the ACCE in China, curriculum content should include system cognitive knowledge such as civil engineering technology, flow construction, construction cost, and construction law and management. This research identified two supportive domains in CEM curriculum to infuse industrial BIM capability: Flow construction (FC, Table 4) and construction cost (CC, Table 5).

4.2.1. Curriculum I: Construction Cost

Phase II: HoQ—curriculum contents and TQC

Using Equations (1)–(7), the weights of “what’s”(TQC in CEM) and “how’s”(Curriculum TCQ) were generated. In addition, the related coefficient was generated by Equations (8)–(10). The HoQ of CC and TQC is shown in Figure 6:
As shown in Figure 6, some curriculum contents of CC should be focused on corresponding TQC in CEM to enhance undergraduate BIM capability education, including the principles of bill of quantities (code CC4-2 in Table 5). Further attention should be given on diversity of teaching methods (code TQC6 in Table 5),components of construction expenses (codes CC2-2 and CC2-4 in Table 5) and the cohesiveness of teaching contents (codes TQC3 and TQC 2 in Table 5).Some curriculum contents of CC should include unit price of CC (code CC3-4 in Table 5) with a focus on teaching diversity (code TQC 6 in Table 5); and the preparation of bill of quantities (codes CC4-1, 4-3 and CC8-1 in Table 5) with a focus on scientific and rational design of teaching content (code TQC 4 in Table 5).

Phase III HoQ—curriculum contents and TQM modules

With regards to TQM in Figure 7, some contents of CC should focus strongly on specific requirements of good teaching quality. For example, Investment estimation (code CC5-2 in Table 5) should be taught with the cognizance of operating skill bias (code TQM3-1 in Table 2), budget planning of construction (code CC7-5 in Table 5) should be taught using the richness of teaching content (code TQM1-2 in Table 2), and project bidding and analysis (code CC8-3 in Table 5) should be taught using case studies (code TQM4-4 in Table 2).

4.2.2. Curriculum II: Flow Construction

Phase II HoQ—curriculum contents and TQC

With regard to TQC in Figure 8, curriculum content of flow construction should use system design of case studies (codes TQC 1, TQC2 and TQC3 in Table 1).

Phase III HoQ matrix—curriculum content and TQM modules

With regards to TQM in Figure 9, curriculum contents of FC should enhance the teaching quality to strengthen the base for BIM training. Construction planning (code FC4-3 in Table 4) and Program evaluation and review technique(PERT) optimization (code FC3-5 in Table 4) should enhance the improvement of student assessment (code TQM6-3 in Table 2). The concept of flow construction (code FC2-1 in Table 4) should use case studies (code TQM4-2 in Table 2), the parameter of FC (code FC2-2 in Table 4) could use simulation training (code TQM4-3 in Table 2) and the schedule and classify of FC (code FC2-3 in Table 4) should provide on on-site teaching (code TQM4-4 in Table 2).

4.3. Phase IV: Ranking of the Importance of the Curriculum and TQM Modules

The importance of knowledge points in CEM such as CC and FC was determined by generating the corresponding coefficients in the relational HoQ matrix during phases I, II and III. It was easy to rank the importance of knowledge points and sub-TQM technology. As to knowledge units composed by knowledge points, and TQM modules composed by sub-TQM technology, this research employed the cumulative importance method of knowledge points in each knowledge unit in the curriculum to capture the priority of curriculum units, which was also equal to ranking the importance of TQM modules.
For example, taking the case of importance I 1 of knowledge unit 1 in the flow construction in HoQ matrix during phase II, knowledge unit 1 was composed by five knowledge points, and its importance I 1 could be shown in Equation (11).
I 1 = i 11 + i 12 i 15
where i 11 , i 12 , i 15 refer to the importance of five knowledge points 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 and 1-5. So,
I 1 = 0.119067873 + 0.071684233 + 0.105435318 + 0.093844086 + 0.155257137 = 0.545288647 .
For the remaining knowledge units and TQM modules the corresponding total importance could be calculated, which in turn can be ranked according to its total importance. A top 10 ranking summary of two curriculums are shown in Table 6 and Table 7 respectively.
As shown in Table 6, the top three knowledge units were (1) Project Settlement; (2) BoQ; and (3) Project Cost Structure. The top knowledge units for the construction curriculum were (1) PERT and (2) construction workflow design of unit projects. Some knowledge points should be used as the main support for CEM undergraduate BIM training in CC curriculums: (1) construction consumption; (2) the principles of BoQ; (3) CC delivery planning and implementation; (4) project expense constitutes; and (5) the function of construction budget. In FC curriculums, these knowledge points are (1) single code and double code network diagrams; (2) construction design classification; (3) network diagrams parameter calculation and planning; and (4) construction scheme.
As shown in Table 7, the top three TQM modules for CC and FC curriculums were (a) pedagogical design; (b) teaching resource and material and (c) curriculum assessment. However, for CC, sub-TQM technologies such as industrial advisor, lecture reporting, real-life experience and fund support, curriculum introduction and curriculum report play important roles in enhancing the integration between industrial BIM capability and curriculum content. As for FC, lecture reporting, curriculum content planning, class teaching, out of class self-learning and case resource pool, they all contributed positively to the improvement of CEM undergraduate BIM capability.

4.4. Discussion

QFD is a common structured method for CEM curriculum planning. It enables focus groups of industrial professionals and academics to specify the needs for industrial BIM capability. QFD then continues to progressively and systematically build a matrix between each proposed “how’s and what’s” in terms of its impact on integrating industrial demands into the academic curriculum. QFD attempts to instill qualities in students to smoothly transition from school to work after graduating from their respective universities.
Although the QFD technique has gained growing acceptance for curriculum development in higher education [17,18,20,29], implementing QFD to analyze the supportive relationship between BIM education and related curriculum development in CEM is a new approach for TQM module development at the operational level.
For CEM undergraduate students, the capability requirements from the construction industry is rather comprehensive and includes basic technology skills that should be taught in a single BIM courses, including (a) operation ability of BIM software (OA-BIM); (b) production ability of BIM models (PA-BIM) and (c) application ability of BIM models (AA-BIM); (d) building ability of BIM application environments (BA-BIM); (e) management ability of BIM projects (MA-BIM); and (f) integration ability of BIM businesses (IA-BIM). According to the ACCE guidelines, all these capabilities need to be included in the related curriculum.
Universities shape students’ capabilities mainly by focusing on two important aspects, (a) curriculum content and (b) teaching methodologies. This research proposed a four-phase QFD process in CEM supportive of the BIM curriculum to address these two areas in response to the voice of industrial professionals and faculty members in higher education.
Identifying the individual weight of each content area is a critical precursor to analyze the coefficients and to capture the priority of the QFD matrix between “how’s and what’s” in CEM curriculum. Numerous studies applied the AHP and fuzzy mixed methods in the past to analyze the QFD matrix [18,21,75,76]. This paper innovatively used the entropy method and a scale of Bloom’s revised cognitive processes (K1–K6) to generate the weights of “how’s and what’s” by maintaining objectivity of weight assessment using a variety of indices. Additionally, this research summarized the top knowledge areas and TQM modules to enhance teaching quality in CEM. At the same time, the two curriculums of the four main knowledge areas provided by the Chinese CEM guidelines, namely, construction cost and flow construction, shed light on the QFD process implementation.
Curriculum I on FC showed that undergraduate students should embrace network planning technologies and construction optimization methodologies for a better development of BIM models (PA-BIM) and enhancing their application ability. In the process of curriculum teaching, FCF should be prone to employing BIM, and team learning to show the infusion of knowledge points including (a) principles and content (code FC4-1 in Table 4); (b) resource planning (code FC4-5 in Table 4) and (c) total construction planning (code FC5-4 in Table 4). Some knowledge points should be enhanced with real life experiences and on-site teaching such as flow construction and application (code FC2-3 in Table 4), network drawing (code FC3-1 in Table 4), network optimization (code FC3-5 in Table 4), project overview and construction conditions (code FC4-2 in Table 4) and total planning in unit construction (code FC4-6 in Table 4) (seen the corresponding HoQ in Phase II). With regards to sub‑TQM technology, flow construction should pay close attention to apply (a) BIM teaching projects and case studies; (b) industrial lectures and reporting, and (c) homework assignments and open lab operations with BIM software as seen the corresponding HoQ in Phase III.
Curriculum II on CC showed that curriculum content should highlight the principles of BoQ, construction consumption, CC delivery planning and implementation to respond to the profile request of cost management, project and integration management to successfully implement construction projects (as seen in HoQ in Phase II). At the same time, different sub-TQM technology should be assigned to strengthen and promote a cognitive understanding of CC, such as finance content (code TQM 3-2 in Table 2) to the formulation of CC (code CC 3-2 in Table 5), and industrial advisement (code TQM 2-2 in Table 2) to reserve funds (code CC 2-5 in Table 5), which were also seen in the HoQ in Phase III.

5. Conclusions

Trends are emerging that transform engineering education to include sustainability and BIM as driving curricula forces within AEC industries. This paradigm shift in higher education has set new challenges to develop new competencies that include BIM capability and meet the emerging industry needs. The proposed approach presents a systematic way to address challenges of industrial BIM needs and sustainability education in a real-world scenario.
This research addresses curriculum planning by considering major components of BIM education, such as TQC and TQM modules. A four-phase QFD framework incorporating these indicators has been developed by applying the entropy method and a scale from Bloom’s revised cognitive process to evaluate the HoQ matrix between “how’s and what’s.”
The results show a supportive relationship between the four areas. The outcomes of this study provide information on the impact related supportive curriculum in CEM would have on the undergraduate BIM education. Additionally, this research summarizes the top curriculum knowledge units and TQM modules in order to capture the priorities of curriculum planning, which indicates that a feasible and practical approach in both curriculum contents development and teaching quality management can be achieved in higher education. In particular, with regard to the top 10 contents area rankings of curriculums (FC and CC) in CEM, the concentration on these two content areas demonstrated that the attention of curriculum development should focus on three objects (a) pedagogical design; (b) teaching resource and material and (c) curriculum assessment.
The discussed content areas also suggested that the proposed approach can be used to evaluate the mutually supportive relationships in curriculum planning especially when collaborating with industry. We have therefore demonstrated that the proposed QFD framework can be used to solve various types of knowledge domain challenges that impact undergraduate construction related education.
The highlight of this research is the application of the proposed framework to a large-scale curriculum development process in CEM in higher education. The proposed framework can be employed to a wide range of curriculum planning and design or to similar engineering programs. Moreover, the model can be used as a basis for further extensions such as applying enhanced QFD to recognize dynamic industrial needs to include more complex curriculum requirements into curriculum subsystems and assemble those with supporting deployment matrices and concept selection matrices.

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the National Natural Science Fundation of China (No. 71301013); Humanity and Social Science Program Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (No. 13YJA790150); China ASC Fund (No. asc-kt2014022 and No. asc-kt2014023); China Scholarship Council; Shaanxi Nature Science Fund (No. 2014JM2-7140); Shaanxi Social Science Fund (No. 2014HQ10, No. 2015Z071, No. 2015Z075and No. 2016Z047); Xi’an Science Technology Burea Fund(No. CXY1512(2)); Special Fund for Graduate Student Education Reform of Central College, Chang’an University (No. jgy16062); Special Fund for Basic Scientific Research of Central College (Humanities and Social Sciences), Chang’an University (No. 0009‑2014G6285048, No. 310828155031, No. 310828160661 and No. 310828160663).

Author Contributions

Jingxiao Zhang and Hui Li conducted the interviews, analyzed the data and contributed to drafting the paper. Jingxiao Zhang and Hui Li contributed to the concept and design of the paper, Klaus Schmidt contributed useful advice and modified the draft. Finally, Jingxiao Zhang and Klaus Schmidt were in charge of the final version of the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ACCE
American Council for Construction Education
AEC/FM
Architectural, Engineering, Construction, and Facility Management
BIM
Building information model
CEM
Civil Engineering and Management
TQC
Teaching Quality Characteristics
TQM
Teaching Quality Management
QFD
Quality Deployment Function
HoQ
House of Quality
China ASC
China Architectural Society of China
FC
Flow Construction
CC
Construction Cost

Appendix

Table A1. HoQ matrix between industrial BIM capability and TQC in CEM.
Table A1. HoQ matrix between industrial BIM capability and TQC in CEM.
BIM
Capability
OA-BIMPA-BIMAA-BIMBA-BIMMA-BIMIA-BIMWeightImportanceRelative ImportanceRank
TQC
TQC10.2160.1270.1250.0520.2670.1980.0940.2880.8366
TQC20.3470.1780.1050.1150.5180.1360.0630.2250.6539
TQC30.2160.0180.1040.4870.1190.1230.0710.2260.6558
TQC40.0230.2560.1420.2150.1530.2370.0650.2060.59811
TQC50.0740.1450.3540.0680.0120.1150.0810.2900.8395
TQC60.2160.3220.0500.0950.0260.1140.0460.1770.51213
TQC70.0310.0150.1060.0920.3640.3740.1010.3451.0002
TQC80.2730.0440.2870.4670.0610.0690.0490.1940.56112
TQC90.4710.0160.0040.1800.3370.1470.1080.4121.1951
TQC100.4800.1940.3190.1150.2420.1940.0640.2180.63210
TQC110.0390.4270.0240.0420.0240.0040.0910.3410.9893
TQC120.4100.2680.0460.2490.1890.0400.0690.2670.7747
TQC130.1070.2100.4440.5290.0830.1480.0990.3250.9434
Weight0.1140.1140.2150.1340.2150.208
Importance0.2880.5450.6560.3701.0520.931
Relative importance0.4790.9071.0930.6151.7521.551
Rank643512
Table A2. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of CC and TQC.
Table A2. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of CC and TQC.
TQCTQC1TQC2TQC3TQC4TQC5TQC6TQC7TQC8TQC9TQC10TQC11TQC12TQC13WeightImportanceRelative ImportanceRank
Curriculum
Point
CC1-10.1270.1780.0180.2560.1450.3220.0150.0440.0160.1940.4270.2680.2100.0160.0030.06125
CC1-20.2670.5180.1190.1530.0120.0260.3640.0610.3370.2420.0240.1890.0830.0300.0020.04526
CC1-30.1980.1360.1230.2370.1150.1140.3740.0690.1470.1940.0040.0400.1480.0290.0040.07819
CC2-10.1170.2290.4000.2040.1800.4000.3240.1350.3400.3470.1210.2020.2490.0210.0050.09417
CC2-20.1540.2050.5260.1650.3530.1000.1040.3030.0380.0800.4970.1230.0430.0270.0010.02139
CC2-30.0560.2410.2970.1030.2430.2840.0870.1710.2150.2350.1860.2310.1490.0280.0040.07620
CC2-40.0270.4280.3020.2220.2700.1870.0200.1630.1390.1410.0800.4890.0300.0330.0010.01841
CC2-50.0320.1420.2680.0660.0850.0170.1850.2300.1380.1320.1430.0680.3000.0290.0090.1595
CC3-10.1110.0330.0530.2400.0050.2250.1840.0580.0090.3050.1930.3520.0630.0180.0010.02139
CC3-20.2410.2510.2240.3440.2300.2880.4020.0610.0830.4740.0680.4370.0690.0260.0020.03235
CC3-30.3930.0350.4010.0080.1890.4010.0280.2180.1310.1520.2610.1200.0500.0260.0010.02437
CC3-40.1280.0350.4230.1560.2440.1120.0370.3400.7130.1980.1070.3240.1040.0240.0020.04526
CC3-50.3140.1300.0350.2080.3690.1330.2400.0740.1440.0990.2220.2460.0890.0220.0020.03631
CC4-10.0130.2080.2280.2680.0740.1630.1320.1880.3890.1460.3490.2310.1700.0330.0060.10114
CC4-21.0000.5010.2100.6130.0390.5610.0740.1490.1120.2580.5400.1210.2060.0270.0060.10213
CC4-30.5011.0000.0270.4870.0680.2580.1030.0200.3480.1210.3870.1670.2320.0180.0040.07620
CC4-40.2100.0271.0000.0540.2860.0220.1780.3960.3740.0440.1070.2420.1210.0210.0020.04526
CC4-50.6130.4870.0541.0000.1570.1270.1850.0760.1760.2310.1730.0690.0490.0190.0010.01742
CC4-60.0390.0680.2860.1571.0000.2670.1830.0500.2630.4220.0690.1130.1070.0230.0020.04526
CC5-10.5580.2890.0730.1240.1810.9250.2770.1060.2340.2320.6090.2950.4010.0150.0060.10712
CC5-20.1220.0880.1060.0950.2190.1060.9660.5250.2570.0880.1220.1980.2060.0300.0060.11211
CC5-30.0640.0030.4510.2280.1220.2040.4090.9180.3480.2250.1010.2850.4920.0140.0070.12610
CC5-40.0250.1980.4090.2300.2040.2510.3360.1760.9220.2010.1580.0940.1910.0240.0050.08518
CC6-10.3090.0390.0370.2030.5290.4790.0570.1490.1870.9540.3070.5060.2560.0160.0040.07323
CC6-20.5990.2450.0540.1390.0670.6620.0880.1140.1790.3330.9530.0940.4280.0240.0100.1853
CC6-30.2190.0970.0260.1580.0550.3250.2010.0870.1930.4680.0100.9480.1470.0230.0030.06324
CC6-40.1580.2440.1310.0950.1230.3690.0370.4710.0320.3270.4240.0700.9520.0300.0280.5171
CC6-50.0550.1170.1050.1000.0260.2140.2450.4470.1860.4510.0990.0130.3410.0230.0080.1447
CC7-10.2660.2380.4300.2380.2450.2660.2230.3280.3520.2680.4290.3570.2350.0180.0040.07620
CC7-20.2470.1980.0490.3180.0760.1680.0590.2810.2320.1280.0680.2270.3050.0240.0070.1338
CC7-30.0330.0070.1540.0410.6500.0740.0860.1230.0100.3560.1430.0470.0690.0290.0020.03631
CC7-40.1600.0930.0930.1920.3150.0520.1230.2220.1860.0120.0270.3100.0630.0210.0010.02437
CC7-50.0940.1910.1560.2800.3940.1250.0220.1780.0540.1910.1980.1760.0900.0210.0020.03533
CC8-10.3550.2860.1160.6680.1100.1160.1980.1940.1400.0510.0040.0700.1730.0320.0060.10015
CC8-20.3230.0670.0140.2610.2230.1720.2380.1430.4300.0140.1620.0920.0720.0280.0020.03730
CC8-30.3260.0860.1970.1860.0670.4390.2540.1360.1800.4180.1580.2760.3590.0200.0070.1289
CC9-10.2280.3140.4590.2170.3530.1410.3500.3200.1220.0200.2500.2840.3970.0230.0090.1654
CC9-20.1720.1400.1050.2550.2730.3200.1620.0560.0640.3580.0150.2800.1090.0180.0020.03533
CC9-30.4760.1520.3690.1970.1390.3480.2330.2810.3280.4220.2210.2350.2230.0240.0050.09716
CC9-40.0080.0670.0330.1630.0020.1160.0800.4500.1010.3550.1790.1020.4930.0290.0140.2632
CC9-50.0030.1320.1990.0180.4280.0740.1130.0560.0450.3600.0780.0190.0770.0220.0020.03136
CC9-60.6050.2900.1280.4470.0280.0700.1140.2610.3120.1460.0270.0910.3910.0220.0090.1586
Weight0.0940.0630.0710.0650.0810.0460.1010.0490.1080.0640.0910.0690.099
Importance0.2880.2250.2260.2060.2900.1770.3450.1940.4120.2180.3410.2670.325
Relative importance0.8360.6530.6550.5980.8390.5121.0000.5611.1950.6320.9890.7740.943
Rank69811513212110374
Table A3. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of CC and TQM.
Table A3. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of CC and TQM.
TQCTQM1-1TQM1-2TQM1-3TQM2-1TQM2-2TQM2-3TQM2-4TQM3-1TQM3-2TQM4-1TQM4-2TQM4-3TQM4-4
Curriculum
Point
CC1-10.0740.2200.1890.1100.0030.1010.0000.0870.0430.1550.0170.0280.170
CC1-20.3570.0310.1710.2160.0950.0340.0000.1620.4030.2460.5330.3010.192
CC1-30.2090.1250.0470.2220.0370.0890.2480.0810.2560.2410.2920.1180.458
CC2-10.0120.3380.1940.1790.0930.1650.1440.0660.2550.0560.2400.1090.108
CC2-20.3990.3840.3320.0680.0430.4430.0250.0310.4870.2660.4390.1130.651
CC2-30.0170.3410.1590.3830.4760.1630.4130.4570.1010.1230.1920.3030.015
CC2-40.1900.2040.5130.1460.1400.0960.1190.2760.0790.2070.1070.3990.448
CC2-50.0880.3170.0400.1100.5600.0740.2740.5040.1770.1450.1300.0260.237
CC3-10.0840.2620.4030.0380.3950.1800.2260.1080.0240.0360.2370.5210.243
CC3-20.6580.2640.1020.3180.1990.2780.2800.4620.4600.2170.0000.0750.115
CC3-30.2150.0210.2080.0020.2420.0320.2810.0460.1910.0610.5180.4060.074
CC3-40.0340.0250.1430.3190.4940.1220.1630.3730.4290.2380.3060.1260.091
CC3-50.1910.4040.3110.0340.2160.4300.1720.1290.3200.0000.2490.1000.005
CC4-10.2520.4210.0640.2260.4460.1190.1870.0880.3920.4830.0080.0610.281
CC4-20.2110.2330.2580.2120.1160.2420.1620.0110.0360.0520.1630.2980.152
CC4-30.1410.2180.0940.0910.0520.0970.0000.0190.1800.2420.1180.0710.215
CC4-40.2740.0490.0850.3350.0620.2510.1070.0750.3080.2770.3350.3220.309
CC4-50.1240.3800.1050.0270.1200.4130.1920.2120.1340.1860.0070.3710.151
CC4-60.1240.0120.1090.3070.2830.5280.2250.3730.0090.1250.1440.1310.175
CC5-10.1530.1700.2800.3550.1640.3270.2290.0820.0860.2780.2650.1150.215
CC5-20.2860.1590.2930.5540.2800.1640.0420.6250.1030.2010.3090.1690.116
CC5-30.3250.4910.0710.1920.1850.1840.0570.2170.1910.0560.2590.1660.038
CC5-40.2950.2140.1150.5570.3870.1450.0890.3540.0740.4300.0220.2030.191
CC6-10.2790.1230.1900.1390.1620.3860.3870.3480.1400.3750.0660.4540.298
CC6-20.0590.2600.1550.2010.1090.1130.1330.0840.0480.1290.1840.2830.008
CC6-30.3600.3070.3820.2020.5440.1250.5230.0910.1030.4230.1900.3140.243
CC6-40.1280.3640.0490.0810.3520.2330.2490.0620.0490.3220.0340.1310.073
CC6-50.0810.2200.1380.2810.0680.0810.0470.2410.1380.3220.1510.3450.089
CC7-10.3830.0170.0020.1850.0780.2110.1830.1340.1130.1770.4230.5530.190
CC7-20.4820.1180.1930.0170.0860.2840.2180.1000.0810.0260.1320.1180.161
CC7-30.1770.0230.0970.0150.0730.4220.2490.1790.3250.0240.0070.0850.545
CC7-40.3710.1500.1980.1060.3960.2840.2830.1270.5130.0340.1730.1080.250
CC7-50.2280.6870.1250.3620.0550.1130.2730.1900.0500.1590.3000.1220.337
CC8-10.1090.4580.3320.2850.0750.1440.0790.1110.0990.0380.2770.1470.090
CC8-20.2400.1250.2270.5450.2030.0240.3240.3480.0780.1180.3580.0150.047
CC8-30.1290.3770.1740.3190.3650.1010.1010.5820.1030.0490.1060.1890.636
CC9-10.1980.1140.0820.1680.1950.4720.1670.1400.4900.1350.1200.0210.207
CC9-20.0420.2160.0050.0070.0500.2090.0630.3050.1200.0610.0710.0250.457
CC9-30.0510.0420.1930.1590.4650.1220.2090.2720.1210.5070.0680.2040.055
CC9-40.2590.2790.2190.1400.3360.3480.3250.1800.4360.0320.3590.1970.122
CC9-50.1370.0730.3740.2230.0980.1510.2190.0490.0740.1590.0210.2520.195
CC9-60.2310.2670.4660.0400.2880.0450.2600.0840.0960.2240.0780.1610.010
Weight0.0590.0490.0380.0380.0300.0450.0520.0440.0390.0550.0370.0400.031
Importance0.1960.1360.1340.1240.1130.1730.2070.1550.1370.2220.1340.1440.106
Relative importance1.3560.9440.9290.8610.7841.1961.4371.0760.9501.5380.9271.0000.736
Rank4161719217310151181223
Table A4. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of construction cost and TQM.
Table A4. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of construction cost and TQM.
TQMTQM4-5TQM4-6TQM5-1TQM5-2TQM5-3TQM5-4TQM6-1TQM6-2TQM6-3TQM6-4WeightImportanceRelative ImportanceRank
Curriculum
Point
CC1-10.1330.1170.1500.3730.2430.1780.3070.0120.0160.1070.0160.0020.03129
CC1-20.0140.0550.0900.4700.2250.2370.2200.4060.3970.5500.0300.0160.2992
CC1-30.0850.1440.2340.2690.1360.1060.0960.0180.3710.1660.0290.0050.08718
CC2-10.2580.4180.0710.1820.0140.5190.2670.0080.0520.2230.0210.0050.08419
CC2-20.2560.0040.0370.2460.3400.1500.4880.0190.2220.2070.0270.0060.10014
CC2-30.0610.0610.3670.2890.3220.0060.3300.2680.0390.0110.0280.0000.00641
CC2-40.0130.1240.2580.4060.0480.2310.1920.0160.0190.0210.0330.0010.01338
CC2-50.1790.1110.0690.3250.2910.1420.4030.4290.2240.2700.0290.0080.1439
CC3-10.1500.0590.3110.2180.0680.1440.3040.4340.1020.1560.0180.0030.05125
CC3-20.3470.1100.2350.2730.6310.1840.1610.1040.0240.4520.0260.0120.2133
CC3-30.3770.1100.1830.2150.1610.2480.0720.0410.2140.3750.0260.0100.1806
CC3-40.0830.0410.5330.0170.1830.0920.0310.3170.0540.0300.0240.0010.01337
CC3-50.3750.1880.2260.0630.2950.0610.2980.2310.2890.4520.0220.0100.1845
CC4-10.1630.0450.4380.2540.3370.0800.2520.0440.1820.1930.0330.0060.11512
CC4-20.1110.5040.0190.0450.4030.3280.3740.0010.2490.0090.0270.0000.00542
CC4-30.2170.2030.0420.5810.0570.1380.1800.1040.4110.2160.0180.0040.07122
CC4-40.2110.3460.1820.2480.0110.7160.0410.2600.0860.0230.0210.0000.00939
CC4-50.2590.4790.0090.2540.1430.3360.1480.0840.4530.1570.0190.0030.05424
CC4-60.0600.0770.3440.2180.3280.1230.0370.0180.3340.0520.0230.0010.02232
CC5-10.1160.0170.2030.0820.4590.2280.0660.3570.0470.2950.0150.0040.07920
CC5-20.2290.5490.0440.1650.4580.0910.0480.1710.2210.0310.0300.0010.01734
CC5-30.0100.3550.6160.1420.2110.2440.1980.2290.0970.3440.0140.0050.08817
CC5-40.0360.0720.3480.0540.2120.0520.1020.1380.1340.2070.0240.0050.09216
CC6-10.0070.0260.1800.5590.5060.1420.1910.1820.0820.4100.0160.0060.11711
CC6-20.1010.3340.0780.2270.4190.1250.5630.0150.2140.0580.0240.0010.02530
CC6-30.3480.1360.0120.2600.4240.1900.1010.2910.1430.4910.0230.0120.2094
CC6-40.4410.2700.3940.4080.1330.4570.3360.0230.0320.0310.0300.0010.01735
CC6-50.1770.0770.2010.4280.0910.1010.0550.1040.0610.4230.0230.0100.1797
CC7-10.4510.4230.3360.2260.0060.0870.0000.0030.1010.0730.0180.0010.02431
CC7-20.3020.4160.2060.2030.2970.1600.2510.0120.0400.2620.0240.0060.11413
CC7-30.0400.2330.1710.1550.1060.0020.0860.2660.0370.0700.0290.0020.03727
CC7-40.1400.1820.4820.0630.2210.2350.2450.2880.5340.0500.0210.0010.01933
CC7-50.2390.0540.0660.2130.2510.0900.2200.0250.0710.1860.0210.0040.07321
CC8-10.0810.2120.0810.2170.1300.0040.0910.0560.3530.2240.0320.0070.13110
CC8-20.1600.5280.2260.0470.0520.3650.2810.0670.0480.0120.0280.0000.00640
CC8-30.1410.0230.0180.3630.3360.1200.3500.3040.3210.1160.0200.0020.04126
CC9-10.2000.4800.0240.2350.2810.5720.0320.3230.0070.0780.0230.0020.03328
CC9-20.2540.0420.0950.0850.0710.1180.3980.4770.3130.0410.0180.0010.01336
CC9-30.0630.1580.1520.0150.0490.1830.1510.1490.0950.3970.0240.0100.1738
CC9-40.0900.0410.3110.4940.3650.1390.4880.1420.1970.6670.0290.0200.3561
CC9-50.0940.1050.1050.1450.1780.2590.0320.1810.1630.2290.0220.0050.09215
CC9-60.2160.1220.5920.1820.1110.1710.5660.2760.2780.1710.0220.0040.06923
Weight0.0630.0510.0400.0360.0450.0460.0370.0350.0420.047
Importance0.2120.1560.1430.1190.1730.1740.1120.1390.1520.160
Relative importance1.4681.0810.9880.8211.1991.2080.7750.9611.0551.106
Rank291320652214118
Table A5. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of FCand TQC.
Table A5. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of FCand TQC.
TQCTQC1TQC2TQC3TQC4TQC5TQC6TQC7TQC8TQC9TQC10TQC11TQC12TQC13WeightImportanceRelative ImportanceRank
Curriculum
Point
FC1-10.1810.2580.0760.1450.0430.0330.2970.1470.2900.1540.1110.0750.0330.0480.1160.96914
FC1-20.3950.1210.1140.2600.1240.5330.0730.4270.0410.2330.2790.4520.1370.0280.0720.59724
FC1-30.0600.0830.2400.1010.3120.0390.1370.3560.0100.0490.2610.0740.3950.0410.1050.87919
FC1-40.5110.1930.2030.1560.0060.2820.2590.3290.4310.0410.4690.0360.1180.0390.0940.78222
FC1-50.2940.1270.0660.0590.1220.1020.3700.1040.1870.0780.0490.2660.0520.0750.1551.2942
FC2-10.0820.1380.1550.0670.0340.1550.3340.0650.1080.1420.1180.2710.0140.0350.1140.94816
FC2-20.3110.0940.1320.4760.0690.1840.0570.3600.1320.0390.0050.1500.1650.0420.1291.07310
FC2-30.2620.3590.0630.0290.0150.1510.4800.1640.0550.0940.1380.1050.0390.0430.1441.2016
FC3-10.0520.0120.2510.1450.2550.2060.4490.3630.0160.4430.1310.3960.3110.0530.1841.5321
FC3-20.0570.1940.2610.0380.0190.2000.1640.0150.0160.0080.1910.0500.2980.0430.1491.2423
FC3-30.4870.3030.3980.4780.0150.0480.1530.0750.1120.3390.3940.0610.1540.0360.1471.2284
FC3-40.1030.1860.5190.0490.1080.1940.3050.0030.3150.2270.0910.0330.1760.0280.1130.94017
FC3-50.1880.1500.1940.2640.4890.1760.4960.0190.3570.0260.2290.1310.2430.0350.1201.00013
FC3-60.0410.4260.1470.2860.0970.0260.3900.1840.0370.0040.0820.3570.1500.0270.1201.00112
FC4-10.0700.0420.4560.3100.2750.0950.3160.0160.5290.1190.3090.2680.2280.0400.1391.1597
FC4-20.1650.0700.0240.2110.0940.0130.4610.3930.4070.1030.0140.0070.4100.0310.0970.80720
FC4-30.3790.0210.0470.5130.5530.0780.3630.2310.4180.1830.0280.1410.2870.0380.1471.2215
FC4-40.0370.2340.2750.2970.2670.0590.2370.0360.1260.4090.4140.2870.2670.0220.0700.58325
FC4-50.2500.0390.6430.2360.1870.0390.1370.2120.0980.0930.0480.0740.2870.0280.0950.79221
FC4-60.4690.0340.1860.3640.0050.2420.4790.2860.1610.2350.4070.3770.1320.0330.1291.0759
FC5-10.1860.3340.4180.3490.1400.3100.2590.2260.3850.2760.0630.2090.2680.0360.0930.77823
FC5-20.1570.2550.4890.2650.4760.1870.0360.2440.0370.1240.4830.0160.0160.0430.1160.96315
FC5-30.0620.1880.3840.0120.1820.2180.0110.1870.2290.1760.1980.3160.1390.0550.1241.03111
FC5-40.0140.5070.1700.2330.2800.1910.0590.1470.0870.1620.0520.5870.0630.0550.1321.0988
FC5-50.0180.1180.2720.0710.0590.0210.2910.1660.2000.0310.2880.0780.1670.0450.1100.91918
Weight0.0940.0630.0710.0650.0810.0460.1010.0490.1080.0640.0910.0690.099
Importance0.2880.2250.2260.2060.2900.1770.3450.1940.4120.2180.3410.2670.325
Relative importance0.8360.6530.6550.5980.8390.5121.0000.5611.1950.6320.9890.7740.943
Rank69811513212110374
Table A6. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of FC and TQM.
Table A6. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of FC and TQM.
TQMTQM1-1TQM1-2TQM1-3TQM2-1TQM2-2TQM2-3TQM2-4TQM3-1TQM3-2TQM4-1TQM4-2TQM4-3TQM4-4
Curriculum
Point
FC1-10.2760.1280.3850.0920.0730.9300.0140.0210.3460.2960.3810.0200.272
FC1-20.1950.2280.0580.4530.1490.1120.9110.1760.4100.0450.1070.4710.292
FC1-30.5660.3670.0950.0140.0360.0610.1270.9620.1150.3850.2990.1010.093
FC1-40.1730.4170.2230.4090.0270.1330.3130.0550.9420.1870.0560.3500.142
FC1-50.3160.0050.1930.0810.2070.2800.0290.3490.2790.9740.0160.2630.309
FC2-10.0320.3600.0430.0060.0820.5360.0600.3070.1780.0521.0000.3000.306
FC2-20.1770.0030.0130.1090.3020.1220.2960.0900.3330.2080.3001.0000.086
FC2-30.0730.1460.3240.2630.0130.3690.4300.0780.0150.3450.3060.0861.000
FC3-10.3610.2910.3940.1420.0290.3680.0120.4780.3530.1400.3680.2270.195
FC3-20.2680.3280.1010.2380.3090.2040.2600.0490.0290.3470.2190.5050.027
FC3-30.0970.1480.0580.3540.1490.0820.0210.3280.4790.3210.3290.4090.101
FC3-40.3350.0290.1600.1030.1150.1630.0780.4280.0890.4880.1040.2180.428
FC3-50.0000.0920.1730.0720.3800.2890.0260.3460.1340.1990.3930.1190.365
FC3-60.1940.2030.3530.4960.5160.2460.1790.0350.2570.3530.0020.2030.195
FC4-10.1770.0020.3440.3850.0680.0840.0500.1630.3130.2620.0590.1270.325
FC4-20.3270.2590.0310.0290.2720.4510.2420.4620.1760.0500.3120.1470.324
FC4-30.4230.1410.2740.1710.0070.1990.0540.4140.0720.0830.1550.4030.346
FC4-40.1740.0550.2260.1400.3580.1110.3840.0150.0550.0890.0670.4650.411
FC4-50.4040.1380.0060.0140.2170.1990.0940.5070.3190.2990.1510.0160.018
FC4-60.2640.0890.0270.0140.0740.4490.0020.3360.4400.0120.5990.4100.288
FC5-10.1730.1860.3320.1810.0270.2240.2780.1770.2480.1410.2140.3080.180
FC5-20.0770.0490.0510.0660.0170.3500.0720.2250.0340.1460.0220.0860.045
FC5-30.2970.0180.2630.1530.2650.0320.1590.3160.0370.2700.3250.3310.118
FC5-40.1450.4250.2670.3430.1940.2770.6090.0120.0910.2720.1790.2230.085
FC5-50.0810.2180.1870.2190.0920.1150.0680.3450.0810.2420.1650.4860.218
Weight0.0380.0580.0370.0460.0290.0530.0310.0460.0400.0660.0410.0490.051
Importance0.0030.0130.0070.0100.0030.0060.0020.0160.0030.0160.0070.0240.011
Relative importance0.0200.0820.0460.0660.0180.0400.0140.1030.0210.1040.0440.1580.072
Rank20101613211823619517311
Table A7. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of FC and TQM.
Table A7. HoQ matrix of curriculum points of FC and TQM.
TQMTQM4-6TQM5-1TQM5-2TQM5-3TQM5-4TQM6-1TQM6-2TQM6-3TQM6-4WeightImportanceRelative ImportanceRank
Curriculum
Point
FC1-10.1180.1100.0780.3140.2870.1050.4360.2030.1290.0480.1160.96914
FC1-20.3470.2780.0490.0200.2540.0900.2890.1590.5200.0280.0720.59724
FC1-30.0640.2290.3670.3270.0900.1490.3730.3910.0630.0410.1050.87919
FC1-40.0280.4580.1470.1720.3140.2560.0570.0500.1040.0390.0940.78222
FC1-50.3560.3310.5070.1580.3530.2800.1470.0500.1860.0750.1551.2942
FC2-10.2190.3290.1040.3930.0020.0590.3120.1550.0670.0350.1140.94816
FC2-20.5050.4090.2180.1190.2030.1270.1470.4030.4650.0420.1291.07310
FC2-30.0270.1010.4280.3650.1950.3250.3240.3460.4110.0430.1441.2016
FC3-10.1590.0650.2280.3810.1410.1520.4510.2190.4320.0530.1841.5321
FC3-21.0000.4680.1540.0070.3160.3490.0570.1020.5460.0430.1491.2423
FC3-30.4681.0000.1870.3140.2200.2720.1420.2510.3480.0360.1471.2284
FC3-40.1540.1871.0000.0160.1410.5650.2900.0290.1420.0280.1130.94017
FC3-50.0070.3140.0161.0000.4020.4020.3000.6320.2430.0350.1201.00013
FC3-60.3160.2200.1410.4021.0000.1030.0680.2300.1900.0270.1201.00112
FC4-10.3490.2720.5650.4020.1031.0000.3020.4580.0020.0400.1391.1597
FC4-20.0570.1420.2900.3000.0680.3021.0000.4040.2060.0310.0970.80720
FC4-30.1020.2510.0290.6320.2300.4580.4041.0000.0540.0380.1471.2215
FC4-40.5460.3480.1420.2430.1900.0020.2060.0541.0000.0220.0700.58325
FC4-50.0640.4280.6530.3680.2080.2400.1450.2770.1510.0280.0950.79221
FC4-60.0960.3550.2200.4560.1160.1200.4400.5080.0960.0330.1291.0759
FC5-10.0280.4040.2700.3490.1310.0830.1380.2550.0670.0360.0930.77823
FC5-20.0490.2530.0160.4750.0840.0280.1060.1880.3880.0430.1160.96315
FC5-30.2110.2640.2230.0250.1430.2870.2720.2360.0230.0550.1241.03111
FC5-40.3590.1160.1240.1440.6060.0290.1150.0420.2780.0550.1321.0988
FC5-50.5510.3220.2580.2600.4550.1910.5030.0600.5350.0450.1100.91918
Weight0.0500.0430.0330.0410.0320.0470.0370.0450.026
Importance0.0280.0140.0080.0110.0150.0090.0180.0030.014
Relative importance0.1820.0900.0550.0700.0950.0590.1200.0180.092
Rank2915127144218
Table A8. The information of industrial individual and faculty in this research.
Table A8. The information of industrial individual and faculty in this research.
NO.Work ExperienceWorkplaceMajorTitleEducation Level
19 yearsConstruction CompanyBIM consultantProject CoordinatorUndergraduate
210 yearsConstruction CompanyConstruction managementProject ManagerBachler degree
315 yearsHigher UniversityConstruction managementAssociate ProfessorPh.D. degree
412 yearsConstruction CompanyConstruction managementProject ManagerMaster degree
511 yearsConstruction CompanyConstruction managementProject CoordinatorMaster degree
616 yearsOwnerConstruction managementConstruction Marketing AdministratorUndergraduate
718 yearsOwnerConstruction managementConstruction SuperintendentUndergraduate
821 yearsHigher UniversityConstruction managementAssociate ProfessorPh.D. degree
99 yearsConstruction CompanyBIM consultantProject CoordinatorUndergraduate
1025 yearsHigher UniversityConstruction managementProfessorPh.D. degree
1113 yearsHigher UniversityConstruction managementAssociate professorPh.D. degree
1210 yearsOwnerBIM consultantProject ManagerBachler degree
139 yearsConstruction CompanyBIM consultantProject CoordinatorBachler degree
1412 yearsHigher UniversityConstruction managementAssociate professorPh.D. degree
1519 yearsHigher UniversityConstruction managementProfessorPh.D. degree
1614 yearsOwnerConstruction managementProject CoordinatorBachler degree
1717 yearsHigher UniversityConstruction managementProfessorPh.D. degree

References

  1. Ahmad, T.; Thaheem, M.J.; Anwar, A. Developing a green-building design approach by selective use of systems and techniques. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2016, 12, 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Azhar, S. Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the aec industry. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 2011, 11, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cable, V.; Fallon, M.; Higgins, D. Construction 2025; HM Government: London, UK, 2013.
  4. Bynum, P.; Issa, R.R.A.; Olbina, S. Building information modeling in support of sustainable design and construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Adshead, J. Green Buildings and the Law; Spon Press: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernstein, H.M. Business Valueof BIM for Construction in Major Global Markets Smart Market Report: How Contractors around the World are Driving Innovation with Building Information Model; Dodge Data & Analytics: Berford, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lee, N.; Dossick, C.S.; Foley, S.P. Guideline for building information modeling in construction engineering and management education. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013, 139, 266–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gaver, J.F. The American Council for Construction Education (ACCE) Annual Report 2013–2014; The American Council for Construction Education: San Antonio, TX, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fridrich, J.; Kubecka, K. BIM—The process of modern civil engineering in higher education. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 141, 763–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Korman, T.M.; Huey-King, L. Industry input for construction engineering and management courses: Development of a building systems coordination exercise for construction engineering and management students. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2014, 19, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wu, W.; Issa, R.R.A. BIM education and recruiting: Survey-based comparative analysis of issues, perceptions, and collaboration opportunities. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2014, 140, 331–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ahn, Y.H.; Cho, C.-S.; Lee, N. Building information modeling: Systematic course development for undergraduate construction students. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013, 139, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sacks, R.; Pikas, E. Building information modeling education for construction engineering and management. I: Industry requirements, state of the art, and gap analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sacks, R.; Barak, R. Teaching building information modeling as an integral part of freshman year civil engineering education. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2010, 136, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Becker, T.; Sanvido, V.; Kufahl, G.; Elston, A.; Woodard, N. Investigation into the relationship of construction engineering and management education with specialty trade contractors. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2014, 19, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Asif, M.; Raouf, A. Setting the course for quality assurance in higher education. Qual. Quant. 2013, 47, 2009–2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Prabhushankar, G.V.; Shankar, B.L.; Veena, T.R. Curriculum redesign in higher education using qfd: A case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Transformations in Engineering Education; Springer: Bangalore, India, 2015; pp. 249–258. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kamvysi, K.; Gotzamani, K.; Andronikidis, A.; Georgiou, A.C. Capturing and prioritizing students’ requirements for course design by embedding fuzzy-ahp and linear programming in qfd. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014, 237, 1083–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chiao-Ping, B.; Yu-Ping, L.; Ching-Yaw, C. Enhancement of quality function deployment based on chinkless-teaching concept design courses. Int. J. Organ. Innov. 2013, 5, 63–71. [Google Scholar]
  20. Liu, S.-F.; Lee, Y.-L.; Lin, Y.-Z.; Tseng, C.-F. Applying quality function deployment in industrial design curriculum planning. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2013, 23, 1147–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Anis, A.; Islam, R. Improving teaching efficiency: An application of qfd and ahp. Int. Workshop Mult. Criteria Decis. Making 2011, 6, 9–35. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bharadwaj, P.N.; Osborne, S.W.; Falcone, T.W. Assuring quality in entrepreneurship training: A quality function deployment (qfd) approach. J. Entrep. Educ. 2010, 13, 107–132. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bas, E. An integrated quality function deployment and capital budgeting methodology for occupational safety and health as a systems thinking approach: The case of the construction industry. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 68, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Violante, M.G.; Vezzetti, E. Implementing a new approach for the design of an e-learning platform in engineering education. Computer Appl. Eng. Educ. 2014, 22, 708–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, L.; Ko, W.; Tseng, C. Fuzzy approaches for constructing house of quality in qfd and its applications: A group decision-making method. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2013, 60, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ren, H. 2013 Guideline for Civil Engineering and Management in China; Steering Committee of Civil Engineering and Management in China: Beijing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  27. Aytac, A.; Deniz, V. Quality function deployment in education: A curriculum review. Qual. Quant. 2005, 39, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Abdullah, A.S. Learning assessment of the effectiveness of teaching delivery in manufacturing engineering education. Global J. Engng. Educ. 2003, 7, 227–236. [Google Scholar]
  29. Banal-Estañol, A.; Jofre-Bonet, M.; Lawson, C. The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the uk. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 1160–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Adomßent, M.; Fischer, D.; Godemann, J.; Herzig, C.; Otte, I.; Rieckmann, M.; Timm, J. Emerging areas in research on higher education for sustainable development—management education, sustainable consumption and perspectives from central and eastern europe. J. Clean. Product. 2014, 62, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Azhar, S.; Brown, J. BIM for sustainability analyses. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2009, 5, 276–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hardin, B. BIM and Construction Management : Proven Tools, Methods, and Workflows; Wiley: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  33. Azhar, S.; Khalfan, M.; Maqsood, T. Building information modeling (BIM): Now and beyond. Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 2012, 12, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Becerik-Gerber, B.; Kensek, K. Building information modeling in architecture, engineering, and construction: Emerging research directions and trends. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2010, 136, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kim, K.; Teizer, J. Automatic design and planning of scaffolding systems using building information modeling. Adv. Eng. Inf. 2014, 28, 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Barlish, K.C.; Traylor, C. Career paths and development: Actions and examples from the heavy civil sector. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2014, 19, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. National BIM Standard-United States. National BIM Standard-United States Fact Sheet; National Institute of Building Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; Available online: https://www.nationalbimstandard.org/ (accessed on 23 May 2016).
  38. Russell, D.; Cho, Y.K.; Cylwik, E. Learning opportunities and career implications of experience with BIM/vdc. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2014, 19, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, L.; Leite, F. Process-oriented approach of teaching building information modeling in construction management. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2014, 140, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Forsythe, P.; Jupp, J.; Sawhney, A. Building information modelling in tertiary construction project management education: A programme-wide implementation strategy. J. Educ. Built Environ. 2013, 8, 16–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sacks, R.; Koskela, L.; Dave, B.A.; Owen, R. Interaction of lean and building information modeling in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 968–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tribelsky, E.; Sacks, R. Measuring information flow in the detailed design of construction projects. Res. Eng. Des. 2010, 21, 189–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jin-Lee, K. Use of BIM for effective visualization teaching approach in construction education. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2012, 138, 214–223. [Google Scholar]
  44. Succar, B.; Sher, W.; Williams, A. Measuring BIM performance: Five metrics. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2012, 8, 120–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, S.; Ren, H.; Chan, A.P.C. Research on the BIM education reform in construction management discipline i: Based on BIM education of universities analysis in america. Constr. Econ. 2015, 36, 113–116. [Google Scholar]
  46. Xie, M.-J.; Shi, L.; Luo, M. A study of the teaching of integrated sustainable building design based on the BIM platform. J. Central South Univ. For. Technol. (Soc. Sci.) 2012, 6, 146–148. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lei, J.S. BIM workshop construction based on large-scale design competition and practical urban design project. J. Archit. Educ. Inst. High. Learn. 2015, 24, 151–155. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ochs, J.B.; Watkins, T.A.; Boothe, B.W. Creating a truly multidisciplinary entrepreneurial educational environment. J. Eng. Educ. 2001, 90, 577–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Andersson, N. BIM adoption in university teaching programs: The swedish case. In Proceedings of CITA BIM Gathering Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 14–15 November 2013; The Construction IT Alliance: Dublin, Ireland, 2013; pp. 163–168. [Google Scholar]
  50. Altomonte, S.; Rutherford, P.; Wilson, R. Mapping the way forward: Education for sustainability in architecture and urban design. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Archambault, S.G.; Masunaga, J. Curriculum mapping as a strategic planning tool. J. Libr. Admin. 2015, 55, 503–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Smith, J.E.; McAuliffe, G.; Rippard, K.S. Counseling students’ transformative learning through a study abroad curriculum. Couns. Educ. Superv. 2014, 53, 306–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Al-Eraky, M.M. Curriculum navigator: Aspiring towards a comprehensive package for curriculum planning. Medical Teacher 2012, 34, 724–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Foxworth, R.; Liu, A.H.; Sokhey, A.E. Incorporating native american history into the curriculum: Descriptive representation or campaign contributions? Soc. Sci. Quart. (Wiley-Blackwell) 2015, 96, 955–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ovbiebo, M.O. Incorporation of environmental education in nigerian colleges of education: An exploration research. Int. J. Multidiscip. Approach Stud. 2015, 2, 10–20. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pakdil, F.; Isin, F.; Genc, H. A quality function deployment application using qualitative and quantitative analysis in after sales services. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2012, 23, 1397–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sahney, S.; Banwet, D.K.; Karunes, S. An integrated framework for quality in education: Application of quality function deployment, interpretive structural modelling and path analysis. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2006, 17, 265–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lantada, A.D.; Morgado, P.L.; Otero, J.E.; Munoz-Guijosa, J.M.; Sanz, J.L.M. Listening to students as a way of improving teaching: Application of qfd-based techniques to a final year subject. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2010, 26, 1508–1523. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sohn, S.Y.; Kim, A. Quality Function Deployment for Engineering Curriculum Redesign; Engineers Australia: Barton, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  60. Nirachara, B.; Sakesun, S.; Napisporn, M.; Supapan, C. Application of quality function deployment for designing and developing a curriculum for industrial engineering at prince of songkla university. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2008, 30, 349–353. [Google Scholar]
  61. Raharjo, H.; Min, X.; Goh, T.N.; Brombacher, A.C. A methodology to improve higher education quality using the quality function deployment and analytic hierarchy process. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2007, 18, 1097–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ictenbas, B.D.; Eryilmaz, H. Linking employers’ expectations with teaching methods: Quality function deployment approach. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 28, 568–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hallowell, M.; Tatum, C.; Rowings, J. Findings and path forward: Leveraging project and career success. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2014, 19, 142–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hou, A.; Ince, M.; Tsai, S.; Chiang, C. Quality assurance of quality assurance agencies from an asian perspective: Regulation, autonomy and accountability. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2015, 16, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rohan, R.; Ionescu, N. Quality management approach in qualifications framework implementation in industrial engineering. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2015, 760, 721–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mehta, N.; Verma, P.; Seth, N. Total quality management implementation in engineering education in india: An interpretive structural modelling approach. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2014, 25, 124–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Brackin, P. Assessing engineering education: An industrial analogy. Int. J. Engng Ed. 2002, 18, 151–156. [Google Scholar]
  68. Suliman, S.M.A. Application of qfd in engineering education curriculum development and review. Int. J. Contin. Eng. Educ. Lifelong Learn. 2006, 16, 482–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rouyendegh, B.D. Ahp and intuitionistic fuzzy topsis methodology for scm selection. In Advanced Business Analytics; Garc García Márquez, F.P., Lev, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 181–194. [Google Scholar]
  70. Kou, G.; Ergu, D.; Peng, Y.; Shi, Y. IBMM for inconsistent data identification and adjustment in the ahp/anp. In Data Processing for the AHP/ANP; Kou, G., Ergu, D., Peng, Y., Shi, Y., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 29–64. [Google Scholar]
  71. Benedetto, F.; Giunta, G.; Mastroeni, L. A maximum entropy method to assess the predictability of financial and commodity prices. Digit. Signal Process. 2015, 46, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mei-rong, S.; Zhi-feng, Y. Set pair analysis for urban ecosystem health assessment based on emergy-vitality index. China Environ. Sci. 2009, 29, 892–896. [Google Scholar]
  73. Lehmann, E.L.; D’Abrera, H.J.M. Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks, rev. ed.; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  74. Creswell, J.W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 5th ed.; Pearson Education: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  75. Jamalnia, A.; Mahdiraji, H.A.; Sadeghi, M.R.; Hajiagha, S.H.R.; Feili, A. An integrated fuzzy qfd and fuzzy goal programming approach for global facility location-allocation problem. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2014, 13, 263–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Upadhyay, R.K.; Gaur, S.K.; Agrawal, V.P. Model Development Using Fuzzy Quality Function Deployment (FQFD) to Assess Student Requirement in Engineering Institutions: An Indian Prospective. Int. J. Engng. Sci. Innov. Tech. 2013, 2, 310–317. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Overlapping of key concepts regarding building information modelling (BIM) in relation to its integration into curriculum planning of civil engineering and management (CEM) programs accredited by the American Council for Construction Education(ACCE) in order to adapt to the needs of architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) industries.
Figure 1. Overlapping of key concepts regarding building information modelling (BIM) in relation to its integration into curriculum planning of civil engineering and management (CEM) programs accredited by the American Council for Construction Education(ACCE) in order to adapt to the needs of architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) industries.
Sustainability 08 00525 g001
Figure 2. Building information modelling (BIM) capacity structure for curriculum development, pertaining to the operation ability of BIM software (OA-BIM); the production ability of BIM models (PA-BIM); the application ability of BIM models (AA-BIM); the building ability of BIM application environments (BA-BIM); the management ability of BIM projects (MA-BIM); and the integration ability of BIM businesses (IA-BIM).
Figure 2. Building information modelling (BIM) capacity structure for curriculum development, pertaining to the operation ability of BIM software (OA-BIM); the production ability of BIM models (PA-BIM); the application ability of BIM models (AA-BIM); the building ability of BIM application environments (BA-BIM); the management ability of BIM projects (MA-BIM); and the integration ability of BIM businesses (IA-BIM).
Sustainability 08 00525 g002
Figure 3. Research process (A) and research objectives (B).
Figure 3. Research process (A) and research objectives (B).
Sustainability 08 00525 g003
Figure 4. Curriculum planning phases using the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) method.
Figure 4. Curriculum planning phases using the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) method.
Sustainability 08 00525 g004
Figure 5. House of Quality (HoQ) of industrial BIM capability and TQC in CEM with △ = weak, ● = moderate, ◎ = strong; and the “what’s” = industrial BIM capability including OA-BIM, PA-BIM and so on and the “how’s” = Curriculum TQC.
Figure 5. House of Quality (HoQ) of industrial BIM capability and TQC in CEM with △ = weak, ● = moderate, ◎ = strong; and the “what’s” = industrial BIM capability including OA-BIM, PA-BIM and so on and the “how’s” = Curriculum TQC.
Sustainability 08 00525 g005
Figure 6. HoQ of CC and TQC with △ = weak, ● = moderate, ◎ = strong; and the “what’s”= Teaching Quality Characteristic (TQC) and the “how’s” = Curriculum content of CC.
Figure 6. HoQ of CC and TQC with △ = weak, ● = moderate, ◎ = strong; and the “what’s”= Teaching Quality Characteristic (TQC) and the “how’s” = Curriculum content of CC.
Sustainability 08 00525 g006
Figure 7. HoQ of CC and TQM with △ = weak, ● = moderate, ◎ = strong; and the “what’s” = Curriculum content of CC and the “how’s” = TQM.
Figure 7. HoQ of CC and TQM with △ = weak, ● = moderate, ◎ = strong; and the “what’s” = Curriculum content of CC and the “how’s” = TQM.
Sustainability 08 00525 g007
Figure 8. HoQ of flow construction and TQC. Source: compiled by the authors. △ = weak, ● = moderate, ◎ = strong; and the “what’s” = Teaching Quality Characteristic (TQC) and the “how’s” = curriculum content of Flow Construction (FC).
Figure 8. HoQ of flow construction and TQC. Source: compiled by the authors. △ = weak, ● = moderate, ◎ = strong; and the “what’s” = Teaching Quality Characteristic (TQC) and the “how’s” = curriculum content of Flow Construction (FC).
Sustainability 08 00525 g008
Figure 9. HoQ of FC and TQM with △ = weak, ● = moderate, ◎ = strong; and the “what’s” = Curriculum content of FC and the “how’s” = TQM.
Figure 9. HoQ of FC and TQM with △ = weak, ● = moderate, ◎ = strong; and the “what’s” = Curriculum content of FC and the “how’s” = TQM.
Sustainability 08 00525 g009
Table 1. Teaching quality characteristics (TQC) in CEM [19,29].
Table 1. Teaching quality characteristics (TQC) in CEM [19,29].
IndexTQCDescription
TQC1Teaching Arrangementa. Learning objectives for the class, each module, and each unit.
b. Designating which category of Bloom’s Taxonomy each objective fits.
TQC2Content StructureMatch teaching contents with ACCE requirements.
TQC3Prerequisites and preparationRelationships of this course to other courses are closely related.
TQC4Rationality of teaching contentThe design of lectures, assignments, projects, presentations, etc. is reasonable, according to the basic requirements of BIM competent training.
TQC5Up-to-date informationThe teaching content is adjusted and supplemented in time according to the requirement of BIM application.
TQC6The diversity of teaching methodsVarious teaching methods are utilized.
TQC7Education ResourcesVarious resources are utilized for teaching: Computer, software, cloud computing, projector, online support.
TQC8Advanced teaching methodsCurrent teaching technology is applied.
TQC9Competency educationThe teaching process is closely oriented towards the cultivation of BIM ability.
TQC10Interaction in teaching and learningThe teaching process emphasizes on the interaction between teachers and students
TQC11Flex assessment methodsThe assessment methods are flexible and diverse, not limited to written tests.
TQC12Prompt feedbackReply to students’ emails or questions in a timely manner.
TQC13Integrated course evaluationTeaching evaluation includes students and peers.
Table 2. Teaching quality management (TQM) for superintendents and administrators.
Table 2. Teaching quality management (TQM) for superintendents and administrators.
IndexCourse ArrangementSub-IndexItemsDescription
TQM1Well-structured syllabusTQM1-1Course introductionThe details of a course, the conditions and methods of course registration, duration of the course, course delivery method, in order to help students to understand the basic information of a course.
TQM1-2Content arrangementThe fields and contents covered by the course.
TQM1-3Teaching scheduleDefine course schedule.
TQM2Teaching resource and materialTQM2-1Preparation of Textbook and problem-based casesIn order to provide learning materials to students, the following items are necessary: textbook, library case studies, courseware, teaching plan and references.
TQM2-2Industrial consultantIn addition to teachers, consider inviting industrial experts or related professionals to the course.
TQM2-3ClassroomIdentify the locations of lectures, laboratories, and jobsites.
TQM2-4Funds and projects of practical teachingIdentify funds, time, and projects for practice.
TQM3Teaching content biasTQM3-1Operation skill biasThe course contents have detailed information of specific professional positions and the relevant contents of their operations.
TQM3-2Management biasThe course relates contents to marketing, operation, finance and management related content.
TQM4Pedagogical designTQM4-1Classroom instructionThe main teaching method is lecturing.
TQM4-2Case StudyThe teaching method is based on case teaching and group discussion.
TQM4-3Hands-on exercisesInclude practice and training.
TQM4-4Site visitVisit companies and jobsites.
TQM4-5Guest SpeakersInvite experts to lecture or report.
TQM4-6Extracurricular self‑studyEncourage and include self-study through online resources.
TQM5AssessmentTQM5-1Final examConclude the course with a written examination.
TQM5-2Daily performanceConsider classroom performance of students.
TQM5-3ReportAssess social investigation reports, experiment reports, or internship reports.
TQM5-4AssignmentsAssess homework assignments, projects, papers, etc.
TQM6Teaching evaluation moduleTQM6-1Evaluation mechanismTeaching evaluation mechanism is complete.
TQM6-2Expert evaluationExperts participate in the teaching evaluation process.
TQM6-3Student evaluationAlumni participate in teaching evaluation process.
TQM 6-4Industrial evaluationEmployers or ACCE industrial board participate in teaching evaluation process.
Table 3. The criteria of correlation evaluation, adopted from Creswell [74] and Lehmann [73].
Table 3. The criteria of correlation evaluation, adopted from Creswell [74] and Lehmann [73].
Absolute Coefficient0.8–1.00.6–0.80.4–0.60.2–0.40.0–0.2
Correlation Extentstrongerstrongmoderateweakweaker
Label◎ = strong● = moderate△ = weakNO consideration
Table 4. Flow construction (FC) in CEM.
Table 4. Flow construction (FC) in CEM.
CodeCurriculum UnitKnowledge PointDescription
FC1IntroductionFC1-1Characteristics of engineering construction
FC1-2Basic principle of construction organization plan
FC1-3Raw data survey
FC1-4Preparation work before construction
FC1-5Classification of construction organization design
FC2Basic principles of workflowFC2-1Concept of flow construction
FC2-2Flow construction parameter
FC2-3Classification and organization of flow construction
FC3Program evaluation and review technique (PERT)FC3-1Drawing of single code and dual code
FC3-2Computing time parameter of network graph
FC3-3Time scale network plan
FC3-4Overlapping network plan
FC3-5PERT optimization
FC3-6PERT planning control
FC4Construction workflow design of unit projectsFC4-1The basis and contents of construction organization in project units
FC4-2Project profile and construction conditions
FC4-3Construction scheme
FC4-4Schedule plan in project units
FC4-5Resource requirement plan
FC4-6Total design of project units
FC5Total design of construction workflowFC5-1Design procedure and basis of total design
FC5-2Construction deployment
FC5-3Total schedule of construction
FC5-4Total design plan for construction
FC5-5Technical and economic index
Table 5. Construction cost (CC) in CEM.
Table 5. Construction cost (CC) in CEM.
CodeCurriculum UnitKnowledge Point CodeDescription
CC1Basic knowledge of project evaluationCC1-1The conception of project valuation
CC1-2Project evaluation process
CC1-3Project valuation basis
CC2Project cost structureCC2-1Project investment composition
CC2-2The composition of equipment purchase cost
CC2-3The cost composition of construction installation
CC2-4The cost composition of other parts in construction
CC2-5Budget reserve and interest in construction
CC3Project quotaCC3-1Concept and principle of project quota
CC3-2Method of compiling project quota
CC3-3Consumption method of construction engineering, material, machine
CC3-4Unit price of construction engineering, material, machine
CC3-5Establishment of project quota
CC4Bill of quantities (BoQ)CC4-1General guideline
CC4-2Remote monitoring and control
CC4-3BoQ compilation of civil work
CC4-4BoQ compilation of service building
CC4-5BoQ compilation of electricity works
CC4-6BoQ calculation of other works
CC5Investment estimationCC5-1Basic principles of investment estimation
CC5-2Characteristics of investment estimation
CC5-3The role of investment estimation
CC5-4Common methods of estimating investment
CC6Budget based on concept designCC6-1Basic principles of concept design budget
CC6-2Characteristics of concept design budget
CC6-3Functions of concept design budget
CC6-4Contents of concept design budget
CC6-5Compilation and review of concept design budget
CC7Budget based on construction drawingsCC7-1Basic principles of construction drawings budget
CC7-2Characteristics of construction drawings budget
CC7-3Functions of construction drawings budget
CC7-4Contents of construction drawings budget
CC7-5Compilation and review of construction drawings budget
CC8Bidding control price and project tender offerCC8-1Compiling Methods
CC8-2Project tender offer method
CC8-3Project bid analysis
CC9Project settlementCC9-1Project change and contract price adjustment
CC9-2Project claim
CC9-3Definition of project settlement
CC9-4Plan for project settlement
CC9-5Type for project settlement
CC9-6Method for project settlement
Table 6. Top 10 contents ranking of two curriculums in CEM.
Table 6. Top 10 contents ranking of two curriculums in CEM.
Curriculum1:ConstructionCost (CC)Curriculum2:FlowConstruction (FC)
RankKnowledge PointKnowledge UnitTotal ImportanceRankKnowledge PointKnowledge UnitTotal Importance
1CC 3-3CC unit 90.5121FC 3-1FC unit 30.833
2CC 4-1CC unit 40.4722FC 1-5FC unit 40.676
3CC 9-4CC unit 20.4713FC 3-2FC unit 50.574
4CC 2-4CC unit 70.4314FC 3-3FC unit 10.545
5CC 7-3CC unit 30.4155FC 4-3FC unit 20.386
6CC 2-2CC unit 60.2966FC 2-3
7CC 2-5CC unit 50.2157FC 4-1
8CC 9-3CC unit 80.2078FC 5-4
9CC 7-4CC unit 10.2029FC 4-6
10CC 1-2 10FC 2-2
Table 7. Top 10 TQM ranking for two curriculums in CEM.
Table 7. Top 10 TQM ranking for two curriculums in CEM.
Curriculum1:ConstructionCost (CC)Curriculum2:FlowConstruction (FC)
RankSub-TQM TechnologyTQM ModuleTotal ImportanceRankSub-TQM TechnologyTQM ModuleTotal Importance
1TQM 4-1TQM module 40.9741TQM 4-5TQM module 41.023
2TQM 4-5TQM module 20.6172TQM 1-2TQM module 50.588
3TQM 2-4TQM module 50.6083TQM 4-1TQM module 20.574
4TQM 1-1TQM module 60.5624TQM 2-1TQM module 60.532
5TQM 5-4TQM module 10.4665TQM 4-6TQM module 10.461
6TQM 5-3TQM module 30.2926TQM 5-1TQM module 30.299
7TQM 2-3 7TQM 6-3
8TQM 6-4 8TQM 3-1
9TQM 4-6 9TQM 2-3
10TQM 3-1 10TQM 4-4

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, J.; Schmidt, K.; Li, H. BIM and Sustainability Education: Incorporating Instructional Needs into Curriculum Planning in CEM Programs Accredited by ACCE. Sustainability 2016, 8, 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060525

AMA Style

Zhang J, Schmidt K, Li H. BIM and Sustainability Education: Incorporating Instructional Needs into Curriculum Planning in CEM Programs Accredited by ACCE. Sustainability. 2016; 8(6):525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060525

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Jingxiao, Klaus Schmidt, and Hui Li. 2016. "BIM and Sustainability Education: Incorporating Instructional Needs into Curriculum Planning in CEM Programs Accredited by ACCE" Sustainability 8, no. 6: 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060525

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop