Next Article in Journal
An Analysis of the Use of Autonomous Vehicles in the Shared Mobility Market: Opportunities and Challenges
Previous Article in Journal
New Quality Productivity and Industrial Structure in China: The Moderating Effect of Environmental Regulation
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Prevalence and Impact of Innovative CSR Strategies in Manufacturing Enterprises in the Silesian Voivodeship: A Multifaceted Analysis of Benefits, Challenges, and Market Adaptability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 16
10.3390/su16166797
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Tendencies, Change and Strength of Barriers Limiting the Development of BIM: A Novelty Assessment Method

by
Elżbieta Szafranko
* and
Magdalena Czyż
Faculty of Geoengineering, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Heweliusza Str. No. 4, 10-724 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(16), 6797; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166797
Submission received: 3 May 2024 / Revised: 28 July 2024 / Accepted: 30 July 2024 / Published: 8 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Responsibility of the Manager in the Smart City Concept—Science 2 Business)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
BIM technology is a design approach recommended by EU directives that started to gain momentum in the years 2012–2014. This technology enables the user to create building plans and designs more quickly while avoiding many errors. In addition, by entering certain data into BIM models, it is easier to complete consecutive steps connected to the construction, use and demolition of buildings. It has also been noticed that BIM is not as popular in practice as it might appear, despite the many unquestionable benefits arising from its application. This article presents the results of a study of barriers that have constrained the development of BIM technology in recent years all over the world. The strength of factors defined on the basis of the literature was assessed. The analyses were carried out using the author’s own evaluation method, which allowed the power of the most important barriers to be assessed. This study shows that financial barriers, mentioned by many authors as the most important factor, still remain a serious problem, and their strength is the highest among the analyzed barriers. Barriers associated with the shortage of knowledge and specialists also feature prominently in assessments, and their importance continues to display a tendency to increase.

1. Introduction

The onset of information technologies supporting design in construction dates back to the 1950s and 1960s. These decades marked the first development of software programs for producing design drawings—from simple drafts to complete technical documentation prepared with the help of computer-aided design (CAD). These programs were utilized to create 2D drawings [1,2,3]. The third dimension was added in the 1970s, and a complete software package for three-dimensional modeling was launched in the 1980s. Despite the notable progress in software development dedicated to engineers, designs were still based on 2D drawings, while 3D modeling was used by engineers and designers to present elements of planned buildings in a visually attractive way [4,5]. Software therefore evolved with the aim of creating the foundations of BIM technology. This evolution involved the development of standardization, which helped to organize work and record elements of drawings [6]. The situation began to change when the 3D technique was also employed in designs. In the first attempts at parametric design, parameters were established to aid the drawing of building shapes. During 3D design, the shape of a building is drawn, while the plans and cross-sections composing the building’s technical documentation are generated automatically [7,8,9].
Subsequent steps in the development of IT-supported construction design consist of assigning various types of data to fragments of a planned building. These methods allow the user to take full advantage of the new technology, for example, by drawing up a timetable of building works or performing cost calculations.
There are many references in the literature discussing the multidimensionality of BIM models, such as 4D, 5D and 6D approaches [10,11,12,13,14]. These descriptors refer to the data embedded in a model, which facilitates a variety of analyses. The fourth dimension is time, which is interpreted in a natural manner as the time needed to make or assemble a subsequent element of a building. This dimension helps the management of building sites and the visualization of the construction process in a BIM model. The fifth dimension comprises the costs of a building or tools that allow the user to take advantage of the information in the model with regard to the construction materials. These costs can be calculated from the complete information on the materials used in construction. The sixth and seventh levels comprise the information associated with the use of a building once it is ready [15,16]. The issues connected to sustainable development and optimal consumption of energy constitute the sixth dimension, while the instructions regarding the building’s maintenance, planning of any repairs or refurbishments, etc. form the seventh dimension. In recent years, there have been mentions of the eighth dimension, which includes a variety of aspects concerning the safe use of buildings, and the ninth dimension, which is used in virtual reality [17,18,19].
BIM is not just a technology; it is also a “process” or “methodology. It is an up-to-date and truly universal approach to building design. According to its assumptions, as mentioned before, a BIM model can be used to prepare a variety of studies for any participant in the construction process. However, observations of the development of BIM technology and its use in the construction industry reveal that this solution is not highly popular in practice. While there is construction design software that allows users to apply newer approaches to design, it is rarely upgraded with building data. This is one of the reasons why the developed models are less helpful for future users of designed buildings throughout their entire life cycle. Nonetheless, BIM technology is being developed around the world, and available publications demonstrate its potential applicability in different design studies. BIM technology is most often interpreted as a tool helpful in the design process. In practice, however, it is less known that the acronym BIM can be understood in more than one way [11,14,15]:
  • Building information modeling;
  • Building information model;
  • Building information management.

Literature Review

The subject literature offers many examples of how BIM technology is employed in the construction and development industry. In the years 2000–2023, the first articles covering this subject matter appeared in scientific journals. In the year 2000, BIM was defined as “a structured model representing building elements” [20]. In later publications, the possibilities of using BIM technology in the sphere of building design, cooperation of multidisciplinary teams and management of teams of designers and engineers were implicated [21,22,23,24,25]. Regarding the multidimensionality of models and the information that can be embedded in these models, many authors suggest that BIM technology can be used throughout the whole life cycle of buildings and in LCA assessments [26,27,28,29,30,31]. Many of the latest articles also emphasize the possibility of using BIM models in the multidimensional and multifaceted management of development projects, e.g., the management of risks [32,33,34,35,36,37], cost control [38,39,40,41,42], execution of building works [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] and the energy appraisal of buildings [51,52,53,54,55,56]. In recent years, studies and research papers have also more frequently raised the prospect of using BIM technology in the management, disposal and recycling of construction waste [57,58,59,60,61]. Table 1 gives examples of articles from international research journals and the research area covered by each article.
Scientists across the world have underlined the many possibilities of BIM technology use in their publications. However, in practice, it appears that BIM models are not so popular. Some authors have highlighted that the implementation of BIM technology in the construction industry has been obstructed by certain obstacles and barriers, which hamper the dissemination of these models on a larger scale [62,63,64,65,66].
The article presents an overview of the barriers to the development of BIM technology in the construction industry worldwide.
The literature review confirmed the authors’ belief that the global development of BIM technology faces many obstacles that are barriers to the adoption of this technology on a wider scale. There are many articles that discuss the existence of barriers in the development of BIM, but the authors have not found a methodology to assess their impact. Therefore, the aim of this study was to establish an original method to assess the power of the most common barriers occurring in the years 2015–2022 as well as determine trends and changes in this area.

2. Materials and Methods

The materials for the research were provided by a literature study and a reflective analysis of the obtained information. The factors negatively affecting the development of BIM technology were identified. The research method was based on the results obtained but also the results of surveys carried out in companies related to construction activities.

2.1. Materials

The literature describing various aspects of the implementation of new technologies, such as BIM technology, provides much information about the problems and barriers impeding the development of new technologies. Many authors from different countries have analyzed these problems to determine the barriers to the development of BIM in the construction industry. In this analysis, countries are divided into groups according to their socioeconomic standing and geographical location.
The first group of countries analyzed is composed of developing countries [67,68,69]. The analysis included areas such as Asia, Africa and the Middle East. In Pakistan, for example, the most significant barrier is cost (P1: learning curve and costly training, P2: BIM has a high initial cost of investment). Another important barrier arises from the approach to the performance of construction workers relying on existing solutions (P3: the traditional method of contracting is good and is resistant to change). Another group of barriers is due to the approach of contract managers and construction companies (P4: the top management do not provide support, P5: firms do not accept or train their employees on new technologies). The final group of problems generating barriers is the lack of experience using BIM software (P6: lack of BIM expertise, P7: lack of awareness of BIM). A study conducted in Nigeria [67] showed that the gravest problems are the lack of adjustment to new infrastructural challenges (N1: lack of technical capabilities) and shortage of funds (N2: lack of financial resources). The final group of problems constituting barriers relates the existing procedures that participants of construction projects are used to (N3: lack of innovative investment procedure, N4: project delivery methods). Saudi Arabia [70] is another country whose problems relating to the implementation of BIM technology are broadly described in the literature. Studies have demonstrated that the most serious problems arise from the lack of information on benefits from the new technology (AS1: lack of recognition of the value of the innovation) and the problems associated with technical infrastructure (AS2: lack of technical competency, AS3: lack of technical capabilities). In contrast, studies in Malaysia [71] have shown that, as in Pakistan [P1, P2], the most significant problems are the cost of implementation of new technologies (M1: high costs) and the shortage of an adequately trained labor force (M2: lack of experts, M3: lack of BIM training). Other, less serious problems mentioned are the state’s policies (M4: inadequate government policy) and the need to persuade people to accept an innovative solution (M5: lack of vision of benefits, M6: lack of client demands).
Another group of countries where problems linked to the implementation of BIM technology have been well described is Asian countries [72]. For example, among the barriers mentioned by authors from China [73], the topmost position is occupied by the cost of implementing novel technology and software as well as other elements of infrastructure (C1: high initial cost of BIM, C2: high cost of BIM hardware and tools). Another group of problems originates from the lack of information on BIM technology and the reluctance to change and novelty (C3: lack of awareness of BIM, C4: firms do not accept new technologies, C5: resistance to change), which may also be linked to the lack of trained experts (C6: lack of BIM expertise). Another example included in the analysis is the experience related to the implementation of BIM technology in Bangladesh [74], where the most severe problems are associated with social behavior (B1: social and habitual resistance to change), being used to traditional solutions (B2: traditional methods of contracting), cost of implementation of the new technology, purchase of software and hardware as well as training (B3: training costs, B4: high cost of software) and the lack of information about opportunities and benefits connected to the new technology (B5: lack of awareness about BIM).
Another geographical area subjected to analysis is composed of Australia and New Zealand. In Australia [75,76], the topmost problems are due to insufficient knowledge about the new technology (A1: sub-contractors and clients do not have enough knowledge about BIM; A2: sub-contractors and clients are not interested in using BIM) and financial matters connected to the implementation of the new technology (A3: significant BIM implementation cost). In New Zealand [77,78,79], the most significant problem among the diagnosed barriers is the lack of appropriate legal regulations in the state’s policies (NZ1: lack of legal framework for FM phase, NZ2: lack of regulatory promotions/incentives from policymakers, NZ3: limited best practice guidelines). Other problems acknowledged in this country are the lack of knowledge about BIM (NZ4: potential benefits of BIM for FM are unknown, NZ5: training barriers received higher priorities). The least frequently indicated problems are related to the costs of infrastructure and software as well as training (NZ6: high costs of software and training).
In North America [80,81], it was proven that resistance to change and to learning a new technology as well as the absence of training programs in the scope of BIM were the main sources of difficulty in the years 2018–2019 (NA1: resistance to change, NA2: software learning curves, NA3: lack of training). Other problems observed arise partly from the lack of knowledge about the benefits of BIM and lack of trust in innovative solutions (NA4: lack of perceived benefits; NA5: doubts on return on investment; NA6: lack of mandate). Unlike the other geographical areas, no significant problems are observed due to the high cost of implementing the new technology.
In Europe [81], which is analyzed as a complete area, the lack of trust in innovation and resistance to change are identified in most parts of the continent (E1: lack of awareness; E2: cultural change required; E3: resistance to change cultural/staff; E4: lack of demands; E5: doubt about the vision of benefits). However, the exact situation varies across all European countries. For example, in the United Kingdom [82], a problem that has come to the fore is the lack of commitment on behalf of top managers to the development of BIM technology (UK1: lack of top management commitment). Other barriers are due to the lack of knowledge of the advantages of using the new technology (UK2: lack of awareness and knowledge; UK3: lack of collaboration). Also, human behavior is implicated in the context of mistrust in novelty, attachment to previous work methods and unwillingness to make changes (UK4: cultural and human issues). In Germany [83], the survey respondents focused on problems arising from BIM technology itself, that is, the complexity of the software and its functionality (G1: the complexity of BIM software; G2: model-based BIM software has a functional limitation; G3: technicality and technological development-related issues). In many cases, organizational and managerial matters that require adjustment to new procedures are another source of problems (G4: management and organizational issues). Problems related to the cost of implementation of the new technology followed (G5: economic resources for BIM-related investment). In Italy [84], as in Poland [85,86], the most important obstacles are due to the difficulty in transfer of knowledge about BIM and consequently the shortage of information about the benefits of its implementation (PW1: low level of knowledge; PW2: low level of awareness of the benefits of using BIM), as well as financial matters (PW3: low prices of construction documentation; PW4: high software costs; PW5: high training costs; PW6: no financial support).
The review of articles written by researchers from different parts of the world shows that the barriers observed in their studies regarding the development of BIM technology in construction are repeated in many countries. It is only their importance and position in ranking lists that vary; depending on the geographical location and local socioeconomic situation, different factors are considered as more or less important. However, there are also problems that are only implicated in specific papers. The research material originated from the articles published in the years 2015–2022. It can be suspected that studies repeated over a few years in the same country can vary.
Based on these observations, the goal of this study was to verify whether and how barriers to the development of BIM technology changed in the years 2015–2022 and which barriers are the most difficult to overcome.

2.2. Methods

In order to research the goal set for this study, consecutive steps in the research procedure illustrated in the diagram in Figure 1 were followed. The first step involved preliminary studies covering an analysis of the literature on the use of BIM technology in engineering works in the construction industry in Europe and globally and the source information published by companies engaged in a variety of construction projects and from research institutions. Special attention was paid to the areas in which BIM had been implemented and where efforts had been made to use it fully. The research aim was defined based on a broad analysis of the materials gathered during this step. The aim was to identify the barriers to the broad-scale implementation of BIM technology in construction companies and to determine which barriers are repeated in different regions of the world. These findings were contrasted with studies conducted on the Polish construction market. It was observed that the Polish experiences of the implementation of BIM technology did not deviate far from those in other countries, and the barriers pointed to by the survey respondents were congruent with those reported by other authors.
Data for further research were obtained via a survey administered to building design offices, contractors, investors and developers. The information extracted from the questionnaires was supplemented through in-depth interviews and talks with construction process participants. The set of data obtained in the course of this study, following an analysis, enabled us to identify the principal problems associated with the implementation of BIM technology in practice and determine the barriers encountered for the dissemination of this technology. The subsequent step was to conduct an analysis to determine which barriers are decreasing in importance, which are still valid and which are the strongest and most difficult to overcome. In the conclusion of this study, suggestions are given as to possible measures that would help to overcome the most serious barriers, and guidelines are proposed to ensure further development of BIM technology.
This study was carried out in two steps. The first step was to prepare a list of barriers based on a review of the literature. The second step was to verify this list by conducting a survey administered to Polish companies. This study was conducted in the years 2015–2022 and covered 46 construction companies. It confirmed that the Polish construction market does not differ from the markets in other countries subjected to analysis with regard to barriers to the development of BIM technology. This study included construction design companies, which made up 48% of all respondents; contractors and supervisors (19%); investors, developers and building managers (15%); and others (18%), such as higher education, software producers, architects and land surveyors. The data obtained from the survey underwent analysis, which led to the preparation of a list of ten most important barriers. The resulting list was combined with the observations made during the review of the literature [Table 2].

3. Results

3.1. Assessment of the Importance of Barriers

Having analyzed the information obtained in this study, the importance of each barrier was determined [aij, where i = 1–10 is the number of barriers and j = 1–6 is the number of subsequent studies]. The importance of barriers in the first step was determined on the basis of the percentage of replies given in the survey (Table 3).
The data contained in Table 3 are source values obtained in the research. Their analysis shows that these values change over time. Some grow steadily, while others decrease, which proves that, with time, some problems are perceived differently; some become less significant, and others gain importance. It is essential to determine the importance of a problem relative to the other problems observed in the same year.
In order to analyze the importance of each barrier (Bi) in relation to the other barriers in the same year, calculations were carried out, leading to the determination of weights (Table 4).
Weights were determined from Formula (1):
vij = aij/Ʃaij
where aij = assessment of the i-th barrier in the j-th study;
  • i = number of the barrier (i = 1–10);
  • j = number of the subsequent study (j = 1–6).
To facilitate observations of changes in the importance of the analyzed barriers, the data were visualized in diagrams. Figure 2 shows changes in direct evaluations over the years 2015–2022, and Figure 3 illustrates how the importance of a given barrier changes relative to the others. Figure 2 demonstrates that the importance of barrier B1 remained at a high level and tended to increase. The importance of barrier B10 remained at a similarly high level but has shown a slight tendency to decrease in recent years. The diagram in Figure 2 also shows a group of barriers with increasingly lower importance in consecutive years (B2, B3, B4, B9). The assessment of the importance of barriers B5 and B6 shows their considerable increase over the years 2020–2022. The importance of barriers B7 and B8 remained at a relatively low level. The diagram in Figure 3 demonstrates how the importance of individual barriers relates to the importance of other barriers. We can see that the importance of barriers B1 and B10 remained at a high level, although the weight of these barriers in recent years has been decreasing. The weight of barrier B5 rapidly increased in the years 2021–2022. The weights of the other barriers show a tendency to decrease, as in the diagram in Figure 2.
Barrier B1 represents the cost of implementation of the new technology, which, in the opinion of the respondents, is a significant obstacle to the development of BIM. Barrier B10 stands for the low prices of designs, which does not encourage one to introduce new, expensive solutions. The evaluation of barrier B5, the lack of experts, seems interesting. In the early years of the research period, according to respondents, its role was decreasing, but then it increased in the later years of the analyzed period. This can be due to the fact that the interest in training in the early period of the development of BIM was high in comparison to the possibilities of using this technology in practice. However, in relation to the market demand, the offer of this training diminished or lagged behind growing demand after a few years.

3.2. Evaluation of Tendencies of Changes in the Assessment of Importance of Barriers

In order to evaluate changes in the importance of the analyzed barriers, the rate of increase in the importance of each barrier over the years 2015–2022 was estimated. An evaluation of the tendencies displayed by the importance of barriers is presented in Table 3, and the results of the evaluation of these tendencies are collated in Table 5. The evaluation of tendencies covered the time periods 2015–2017, 2017–2019, 2019–2020, 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 (columns b–f) and throughout the entire research period, that is, 2015–2022 (column g).
The data collected in Table 5 show how the importance of barriers changed over the analyzed time period. Columns b–f present changes in weights in one year relative to the previous year, while column g shows changes in weights in the last year relative to the first year of the analyzed period of time. The data collated in this table demonstrate that, as a rule, fluctuations in the importance of barriers occurred in the consecutive time periods; for example, the importance of barrier B1 first decreased, then increased and, finally, in the most recent years, decreased again. In the final assessment, given in column g, the weight of this barrier increased between 2015 and 2022. On the other hand, the importance of barrier B3 decreased steadily and systematically. There were barriers that showed a tendency to grow (B2, B8) in most of the analyzed subperiods (4/5), and an increasing tendency was observed over the entire study period in that case. There were also barriers whose importance decreased (B3 over the whole study period, B9 in a 4/5 ratio). Notably, the barriers that were deemed the most important retained their high importance, which showed a tendency to increase.

3.3. Calculation of the Power (Strength) of Barriers

The last component of the evaluation was the calculation of the power of a barrier in the analyzed period, i.e., 2015–2021 and 2015–2922. This evaluation is significant because of the high diversity of the analyzed problems and variability in assessments. Because the results achieved in the research in 2022 were different from those obtained in the previous years, the calculations were carried out for two periods of time: a shorter one from 2015 to 2021 and a longer one with the year 2022 added. The assessment was carried out as explained above because the results obtained in the year 2022 could exhibit either a sporadic change or a new tendency, but this could only be verified by conducting studies in the following years. Formulas (2) and (3) were used:
ϓij = (a1 + a5) × vij for the years 2015–2021;
ϓij = (a1 + a6) × vij for the years 2015–2022.
where
  • ϓij = indicator of the power of a barrier;
  • ai = i-th assessment of the barrier;
  • vij = i-th number of barrier; j-th indicator of the weight of a barrier.
The results of the calculations are contained in Table 6.
In all assessments, and in agreement with the previous observations, barrier B1—the cost of implementing the new technology—proved to be the strongest. In both the initial year of this study (2015) and in the year closing the research period (2022), this barrier occupied the first position and achieved the highest power indicator value in the calculations. The second-highest value of the power indicator was exhibited by barrier B10—low prices of designs. Although the assessment value achieved in the last year of the research period 2015–2022 (i.e., the year 2022) was lower than that of barrier B5 (lack of experts), at this point, it is difficult to foresee whether this will be a lasting tendency or a momentary change. The highest variability was shown by barriers in the third position. The following barriers were identified in this location: low level of knowledge about BIM [B2], low level of commitment to cooperation between building project’s participants [B3] and the barrier noted before, namely, B10: low cost of designs. An increase in the strength of these barriers can also be noted in the graphs displayed in Figure 4 (research period 2015–2021) and in Figure 5 (research period 2015–2022).
The diagrams displayed in Figure 4 and Figure 5 clearly show that the power of the barriers most severely hindering the development of BIM technology, i.e., B1 and B10, remains at a high level. In the time period including the year 2022, the power of barriers B5 and B6 is additionally seen to increase. Barriers B1 and B10 are financial barriers related to the high cost of introducing the new technology and low prices paid for prepared building plans. These are the barriers indicated by researchers from most countries, and their power proves to be still very high.
The increase in the power of barriers B2, B5 and B6—lack of knowledge, lack of experts and fear of change—gives rise to worries. These are mutually related circumstances; the lack of knowledge leads to the shortage of experts, and both are reflected as a fear of change. The situation persists despite a large number of training sessions and workshops, but it can be suspected that the supply of training has not kept up with the development of BIM technology.

4. Discussion

This study involving 46 companies from the construction industry sector with various profiles of business activity (building design offices, contractors, developers and others) confirmed the findings gained from our review of the literature. The assessment of both the importance and power of the barriers continues to implicate problems related to financing the development of BIM technology. Unfortunately, these barriers, along with the persistently low awareness of the benefits of implementing new solutions, continue to be a serious problem. This study revealed difficulties related to excessively high costs (B1), such as the cost of software, the cost of replacing equipment when it is unsuitable for the higher requirements of the new technology, the cost of supplementary infrastructure and the cost of training sessions. Another financial criterion is the low renumeration for preparing technical documentation (B10). When the cost of implementing the new technology is considered too high, the respondents do not see a chance to recover this cost by selling the documentation made with BIM technology. Moreover, very low prices for building plans do not encourage designers to carry out further work, such as assigning information to elements of a planned building.
In the evaluation of the power of the barriers, the importance of the barrier consisting of the shortage of experts (B5) was demonstrated to have increased in the last few years. In the years 2015–2019, the importance of this barrier was low and decreasing. This could have been caused by the insufficient availability of training compared to the rate of technology development. A group of barriers was also identified that maintained a moderate score and showed only temporary fluctuations (increasing or decreasing in importance). The low level of knowledge (B2) and low commitment to collaboration among all participants of a building project (B3) correspond to the insufficient number of training sessions and shortage of experts. The changing importance of these barriers can also implicate the growing awareness of the gaps in knowledge among respondents as the new solutions are being implemented on an increasing scale. The barriers arising from human nature are the fear of change (B6) and thinking about BIM as a fleeting fad (B7). These barriers are less significant.
Also noteworthy is the evaluation of the importance of barriers due to legal regulations lagging behind innovation and the lack of standardization (B4). These barriers are evaluated as important, although the indicator of their power tends to decrease, and their power is low.
A barrier that distinctly decreased in importance and power is the lack of equipment and infrastructure. This proves that, in the near future, entrepreneurs can make efforts to implement BIM technology in practice on a much broader scale.
The analysis of basic indicators can provide valuable information for government and non-government institutions and for professional organizations with regard to measures to support and accelerate the development of the new technology. The respondents in both the questionnaires and the interviews also suggested what actions they would expect in this area. Most pointed to the launch of aid funds for companies implementing and developing BIM technology. At the same time, they expect more promotional and educational activities that will help overcome the barriers stemming from human nature.
The research partially used the information contained in publications on the implementation of BIM in construction practice around the world. It is worth noting that the results of the analysis of the strength of barriers limiting the implementation of this technology in practice have not been published so far. Available publications show the statistics of the occurrence of barriers in different regions of the world, indicating which barriers occur, e.g., in Asia (China) [72], the Middle East [67,69] or Malaysia [71]. Other authors have portrayed the situation in Australia and New Zealand [75,76], and others have analyzed the situation in North America [80,81] and Europe [81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89]. All authors show the usefulness of BIM, for example, in modeling and design [20,21,22,23,24,25] and in object life cycle management [26,27,28,29,30,31] but also in semantic validation of BIM models and visual programming in BIM [87,90]. Various authors have spoken about barriers to the development of technology, but they have not found a way to assess their power through this approach. A survey conducted of construction companies showed how important it is to assess the strength of the barriers in order to take steps to mitigate them.

5. Conclusions

The advantages of using BIM technology presented in this article as well as the versatility of this technology should convince us to use it in practice. For example, Wong J. K. W. and Zhou J. [27] show how BIM technology can be used in the management of the sustainable development of the construction industry in the “green BIM” category. Other authors show the possibilities of using BIM in project management in terms of risk management [33,36], cost management [39,41], management of the operational stage [44,46,47] and energy demand management [51,53]. Unfortunately, there are many difficulties in and limitations to its broader implementation in the construction business community. As the survey respondents as well as the literature review discussed in this article prove, the foremost problems are still those of a financial nature. Practically, this barrier is cited as the most important one in numerous articles from different parts of the world. It is only in developed countries that financial issues are not considered a problem. Another group of obstacles that proponents of BIM technology must struggle with is that arising from the human mentality. This pertains to the reluctance to accept changes, mistrust in novelty, unwillingness to undertake labor- and time-consuming tasks and the belief that the existing solutions meet expectations.
The results of the analysis carried out using the method developed by the authors confirm the power of financial barriers and those resulting from the human mentality.
The creators of the BIM concept are not discouraged by the temporary delays in the implementation of this technology and continue to improve it. New dimensions of BIM models are being added. The literature already provides information about an 8D model, in which health and safety conditions are included, and a 9D model, which represents transition to virtual reality using immersion VR goggles. It can be expected that in the years to come, some of the problems will have been solved owing to measures taken in response to the market’s expectations, and the development of BIM technology in the construction industry will accelerate.
The method used in this analysis allows us to assess the power of the most common barriers in recent years. It is worth noting that, depending on the time period of the test (Table 5 and Table 6), the result may vary. Shortening or extending this period by one year changed the ranking of the strongest barriers. Admittedly, this does not change the general information about the most important causes of problems with the popularization of BIM, which result from financial conditions (B1 and B10) and the human mentality (B2 and B5). However, it can lead to the conclusion that the strength of these barriers will change. The results obtained as a result of the conducted research confirm the usefulness of the developed method and allow us to assume that it can be considered a contribution to the development of science in this area. Due to the intriguing and inspiring nature of this research, the authors intend to continue working on the development of this method and conduct further research on the implementation of BIM in practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.S.; methodology, E.S.; validation, E.S. and M.C.; formal analysis, E.S. and M.C.; investigation, E.S.; resources, E.S. and M.C.; data curation, E.S. and M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, E.S. and M.C.; writing—review and editing, E.S.; supervision, E.S. and M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Camba, J.; Contero, M.; Johnson, M.; Company, P. Extended 3D annotations as a new mechanism to explicitly communicate geometric design intent and increase CAD model reusability. Comput.-Aided Des. 2014, 57, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bynum, P.; Issa, R.R.; Olbina, S. Building information modeling in support of sustainable design and construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, K.; Lu, W. Bridging BIM and building (BBB) for information management in construction. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 261, 1518–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cerovsek, T. A review and outlook for a ‘Building Information Model’(BIM): A multi-standpoint framework for technological development. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2011, 25, 224–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dixit, M.K.; Venkatraj, V.; Ostadalimakhmalbaf, M.; Pariafsai, F.; Lavy, S. Integration of facility management and building information modeling (BIM). Facilities 2019, 37, 455–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lee, G.; Sacks, R.; Eastman, C.M. Specifying parametric building object behavior (BOB) for a building information modeling system. Autom. Constr. 2006, 15, 758–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Holzer, D. BIM and parametric design in academia and practice: The changing context of knowledge acquisition and application in the digital age. Int. J. Archit. Comput. 2015, 13, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wu, S.; Zhang, N.; Luo, X.; Lu, W.Z. Multi-objective optimization in floor tile planning: Coupling BIM and parametric design. Autom. Constr. 2022, 140, 104384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Szafranko, E. Applicability of multi-criteria analysis methods for the choice of material and technology solutions in building structures. Teh. Vjesn./Tech. Gaz. 2017, 24, 1935–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Altaf, M.; Alaloul, W.S.; Musarat, M.A.; Bukhari, H.; Saad, S.; Ammad, S. BIM implication of life cycle cost analysis in construction project: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 2020 Second International Sustainability and Resilience Conference: Technology and Innovation in Building Designs (51154), Sakheer, Bahrain, 11–12 November 2020; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mellado, F.; Lou, E.C. Building information modelling, lean and sustainability: An integration framework to promote performance improvements in the construction industry. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nieto-Julián, J.E.; Antón, D.; Moyano, J.J. Implementation and management of structural deformations into historic building information models. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2020, 14, 1384–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Szafranko, E. Decision problems in management of construction projects. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 251, 12048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Olawumi, T.O.; Chan, D.W. Building information modelling and project information management framework for construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 53–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ozturk, G.B. Interoperability in building information modeling for AECO/FM industry. Autom. Constr. 2020, 113, 103122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. 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]
  17. Seyis, S. Mixed method review for integrating building information modeling and life-cycle assessments. Build. Environ. 2020, 173, 106703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Szafranko, E. Application of multi-criterial analytical methods for ranking environmental criteria in an assessment of a development project. J. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 18, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Volk, R.; Stengel, J.; Schultmann, F. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for existing buildings—Literature review and future needs. Autom. Constr. 2014, 38, 109–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ameziane, F. An Information Systems for Building Production Management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2000, 64, 345–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Caniëls, M.C.J.; Chiocchio, F.; van Loon, N.P.A.A. Collaboration in project teams: The role of mastery and performance climates. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Penttilä, H. Early architectural design and BIM. In Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures (CAADFutures) 2007: Proceedings of the 12th International CAAD Futures Conference; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Birx, G.W. How Building Information Modeling Changes Architecture Practice: Best Practice. AIA-P016609. AIA Best Pract. 2016, 13, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  24. Azhar, S.; Abid, N.; Mok, J.; Leung, B. Building information modeling (BIM): A new paradigm for visual interactive modeling and simulation for construction projects. In Proceedings of the 1th International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries (ICCIDC–I), Karachi, Pakistan, 4–5 August 2008; pp. 435–446. [Google Scholar]
  25. Young, N.W.; Jones, S.A.; Bernstein, H.M. Transforming design and construction to achieve greater industry productivity. In SmartMarket Report on Building Information Modelling (BIM); McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-1-934926-25-3. [Google Scholar]
  26. Jin, R.; Zhong, B.; Ma, L.; Hashemi, A.; Ding, L. Integrating BIM with building performance analysis in project life-cycle. Autom. Constr. 2019, 106, 102861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wong, J.K.W.; Zhou, J. Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review. Autom. Constr. 2015, 57, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ding, L.; Xu, X. Application of cloud storage on BIM life-cycle management. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2014, 11, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Meng, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.; Shi, W.; Wang, J.; Sun, Y.; Wang, X. A review of integrated applications of BIM and related technologies in whole building life cycle. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 1647–1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Santos, R.; Costa, A.A.; Silvestre, J.D.; Pyl, L. Development of a BIM-based environmental and economic life cycle assessment tool. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xu, X.; Mumford, T.; Zou, P.X. Life-cycle building information modelling (BIM) engaged framework for improving building energy performance. Energy Build. 2021, 231, 110496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zou, Y.; Kiviniemi, A.; Jones, S.W. A review of risk management through BIM and BIM-related technologies. Saf. Sci. 2017, 97, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lu, Y.; Gong, P.; Tang, Y.; Sun, S.; Li, Q. BIM-integrated construction safety risk assessment at the design stage of building projects. Autom. Constr. 2021, 124, 103553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alzoubi, H.M. BIM as a tool to optimize and manage project risk management. Int. J. Mech. Eng. 2022, 7, 6307–6323. Available online: https://research.skylineuniversity.ac.ae/id/eprint/192/1/63.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2024).
  35. Chatzimichailidou, M.; Ma, Y. Using BIM in the safety risk management of modular construction. Saf. Sci. 2022, 154, 105852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Waqar, A.; Othman, I.; González-Lezcano, R.A. Challenges to the Implementation of BIM for the Risk Management of Oil and Gas Construction Projects: Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moshtaghian, F.; Noorzai, E. Integration of risk management within the building information modeling (BIM) framework. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2023, 30, 1951–1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, J. Application of BIM Technology in Construction Cost Management of Building Engineering. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 2037, 12046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sepasgozar, S.M.; Costin, A.M.; Karimi, R.; Shirowzhan, S.; Abbasian, E.; Li, J. BIM and digital tools for state-of-the-art construction cost management. Buildings 2022, 12, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ding, X.; Lu, Q. Construction cost management strategy based on BIM technology and neural network model. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2021, 40, 6669–6681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abdel-Hamid, M.; Abdelhaleem, H.M. Project cost control using five dimensions building information modelling. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2023, 23, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Vigneault, M.A.; Boton, C.; Chong, H.Y.; Cooper-Cooke, B. An innovative framework of 5D BIM solutions for construction cost management: A systematic review. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2020, 27, 1013–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hu, Z.Z.; Tian, P.L.; Li, S.W.; Zhang, J.P. BIM-based integrated delivery technologies for intelligent MEP management in the operation and maintenance phase. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2018, 115, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tak, A.N.; Taghaddos, H.; Mousaei, A.; Bolourani, A.; Hermann, U. BIM-based 4D mobile crane simulation and onsite operation management. Autom. Constr. 2021, 128, 103766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liao, C.Y.; Tan, D.L.; Li, Y.X. Research on the Application of BIM in the Operation Stage of Green Building. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 174, 2111–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Massafra, A.; Costantino, C.; Predari, G.; Gulli, R. Building Information Modelling and Building Performance Simulation-Based Decision Support Systems for Improved Built Heritage Operation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, X.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Q. Research on construction schedule management based on BIM technology. Procedia Eng. 2017, 174, 657–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, H.; Anderson, K.; Lee, S.; Hildreth, J. Generating construction schedules through automatic data extraction using open BIM (building information modelling) technology. Autom. Constr. 2013, 35, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, S.; Liang, C. Research on construction schedule control based on critical chain method and BIM. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Innov. 2018, 5, 47–50. [Google Scholar]
  50. Irizarry, J.; Karan, E.P. Optimizing location of tower cranes on construction sites through GIS and BIM integration. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2012, 17, 351–366. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pereira, V.; Santos, J.; Leite, F.; Escórcio, P. Using BIM to improve building energy efficiency—A scientometric and systematic review. Energy Build. 2021, 250, 111292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kamel, E.; Kazemian, A. BIM-integrated thermal analysis and building energy modeling in 3D-printed residential buildings. Energy Build. 2023, 279, 112670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Truong, N.S.; Luong, D.L.; Nguyen, Q.T. BIM to BEM Transition for Optimizing Envelope Design Selection to Enhance Building Energy Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness. Energies 2023, 16, 3976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pan, X.; Khan, A.M.; Eldin, S.M.; Aslam, F.; Rehman, S.K.U.; Jameel, M. BIM adoption in sustainability, energy modelling and implementing using ISO 19650: A review. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2023, 15, 102252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jung, D.E.; Kim, S.; Han, S.; Yoo, S.; Jeong, H.; Lee, K.H.; Kim, J. Appropriate level of development of in-situ building information modelling for existing building energy modelling implementation. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 69, 106233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yu, Z. Green building energy efficiency and landscape design based on remote sensing technology. In Soft Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kang, K.; Besklubova, S.; Dai, Y.; Zhong, R.Y. Building demolition waste management through smart BIM: A case study in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2022, 143, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Guerra, B.C.; Leite, F.; Faust, K.M. 4D-BIM to enhance construction waste reuse and recycle planning: Case studies on concrete and drywall waste streams. Waste Manag. 2020, 116, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Han, D.; Kalantari, M.; Rajabifard, A. Building information modeling (BIM) for construction and demolition waste management in Australia: A research agenda. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hu, X.; Zhou, Y.; Vanhullebusch, S.; Mestdagh, R.; Cui, Z.; Li, J. Smart building demolition and waste management frame with image-to-BIM. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 49, 104058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Porwal, A.; Parsamehr, M.; Szostopal, D.; Ruparathna, R.; Hewage, K. The integration of building information modeling (BIM) and system dynamic modeling to minimize construction waste generation from change orders. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 23, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ahmed, S. Barriers to implementation of building information modeling (BIM) to the construction industry: A review. J. Civ. Eng. Constr. 2018, 7, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ullah, K.; Lill, I.; Witt, E. An overview of BIM adoption in the construction industry: Benefits and barriers. In 10th Nordic conference on Construction Economics and Organization; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2019; pp. 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, S.; Xie, B.; Tivendale, L.; Liu, C. Critical barriers to BIM implementation in the AEC industry. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2015, 7, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Leśniak, A.; Górka, M.; Skrzypczak, I. Barriers to BIM implementation in architecture, construction, and engineering projects—The polish study. Energies 2021, 14, 2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Durdyev, S.; Ashour, M.; Connelly, S.; Mahdiyar, A. Barriers to the implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) for facility management. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 46, 103736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ariono, B.; Wasesa, M.; Dhewanto, W. The Drivers, Barriers, and Enablers of Building Information Modeling (BIM) Innovation in Developing Countries: Insights from Systematic Literature Review and Comparative Analysis. Buildings 2022, 12, 1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ismail, N.A.A.; Chiozzi, M.; Drogemuller, R. An overview of BIM uptake in Asian developing countries. AIP Conf. Proc. 2017, 1903, 80008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Farooq, U.; Rehman, S.K.U.; Javed, M.F.; Jameel, M.; Aslam, F.; Alyousef, R. Investigating BIM implementation barriers and issues in Pakistan using ISM approach. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Alhumayn, S.; Chinyio, E.; Ndekugri, I. The barriers and strategies of implementing BIM in Saudi Arabia. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2017, 169, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Abd Hamid, A.B.; Taib, M.M.; Razak, A.A.; Embi, M.R. Building information modelling: Challenges and barriers in implement of BIM for interior design industry in Malaysia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 140, 12002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ahn, E.; Kim, M. BIM awareness and acceptance by architecture students in Asia. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2016, 15, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhou, Y.; Yang, Y.; Yang, J.B. Barriers to BIM implementation strategies in China. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 554–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Al Amin, A. Factors affecting as barrier for adaptation of building information modelling in architecture practice in Bangladesh. SEU J. Sci. Eng. 2020, 14, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  75. Hosseini, M.R.; Namzadi, M.O.; Rameezdeen, R.; Banihashemi, S.; Chileshe, N. Barriers to BIM adoption: Perceptions from Australian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In AUBEA 2016: Proceedings of the 40th Australasian Universities Building Education Association Annual Conference; Central Queensland University: Rockhampton, Australia, 2016; pp. 271–280. [Google Scholar]
  76. Newton, K.; Chileshe, N. Enablers and Barriers of Building Information Modelling (BIM) within South Australian Construction Organisations. Doctoral Dissertation, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  77. Hall, A.T.; Durdyev, S.; Koc, K.; Ekmekcioglu, O.; Tupenaite, L. Multi-criteria analysis of barriers to building information modeling (BIM) adoption for SMEs in New Zealand construction industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2022, 30, 3798–3816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Stanley, R.; Thurnell, D. The benefits of, and barriers to, implementation of 5D BIM for quantity surveying in New Zealand. Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 2014, 14, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Likita, A.J.; Jelodar, M.B.; Vishnupriya, V.; Rotimi, J.O.B.; Vilasini, N. Lean and BIM Implementation Barriers in New Zealand Construction Practice. Buildings 2022, 12, 1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cao, Y.; Zhang, L.H.; McCabe, B.; Shahi, A. The benefits of and barriers to BIM adoption in Canada. In ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction; IAARC Publications: Lyon, France, 2019; Volume 36, pp. 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Charef, R.; Emmitt, S.; Alaka, H.; Fouchal, F. Building information modelling adoption in the European Union: An overview. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 25, 100777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Seed, L. The Dynamics of BIM Adoption: A Mixed Methods Study of BIM as an Innovation within the United Kingdom Construction Industry. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  83. von Both, P. Potentials and barriers for implementing BIM in the German AEC market. Results A Curr. Mark. Anal. 2012, 2, 151–158. [Google Scholar]
  84. Elagiry, M.; Marino, V.; Lasarte, N.; Elguezabal, P.; Messervey, T. BIM4Ren: Barriers to BIM implementation in renovation processes in the Italian market. Buildings 2019, 9, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Szafranko, E.; Jurczak, M. Implementability of BIM Technology in Light of Literature Studies and Analyses of the Construction Market. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dubas, S.; Pasławski, J. The concept of improving communication in BIM during transfer to operation phase on the Polish market. Procedia Eng. 2017, 208, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Matoseiro Dinis, F.; Rodrigues, R.; Pedro da Silva Poças Martins, J. Development and validation of natural user interfaces for semantic enrichment of BIM models using open formats. Constr. Innov. 2024, 24, 196–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lee, Y.C.; Eastman, C.M.; Lee, J.K. Validations for ensuring the interoperability of data exchange of a building information model. Autom. Constr. 2015, 58, 176–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ghannad, P.; Lee, Y.C.; Dimyadi, J.; Solihin, W. Automated BIM data validation integrating open-standard schema with visual programming language. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2019, 40, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Collao, J.; Lozano-Galant, F.; Lozano-Galant, J.A.; Turmo, J. BIM visual programming tools applications in infrastructure projects: A state-of-the-art review. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 06797 g001
Figure 1. Diagram of the course of research.
Figure 1. Diagram of the course of research.
Sustainability 16 06797 g001
Sustainability 16 06797 g002
Figure 2. Changes in the evaluation of the importance of barriers over the years 2015–2022.
Figure 2. Changes in the evaluation of the importance of barriers over the years 2015–2022.
Sustainability 16 06797 g002
Sustainability 16 06797 g003
Figure 3. Changes in the importance of barriers relative to other barriers in the same year over the years 2015–2022.
Figure 3. Changes in the importance of barriers relative to other barriers in the same year over the years 2015–2022.
Sustainability 16 06797 g003
Sustainability 16 06797 g004
Figure 4. Changes in the power of the barriers in 2015–2021.
Figure 4. Changes in the power of the barriers in 2015–2021.
Sustainability 16 06797 g004
Sustainability 16 06797 g005
Figure 5. Changes in the power of the barriers in 2015–2022.
Figure 5. Changes in the power of the barriers in 2015–2022.
Sustainability 16 06797 g005
Table 1. Selected research papers on the use of BIM technology at different stages of the life cycle of a construction project and in management.
Table 1. Selected research papers on the use of BIM technology at different stages of the life cycle of a construction project and in management.
AreaAuthor/AuthorsTitleJournal/ConferenceYear
Design and modelingAmeziane F. [20]An information systems for building production management.International Journal of Production Economics. Vol. 64 (1) 2000
Caniëls M.C.J.,
Chiocchio F., Van Loon P.A.A. [21]		Collaboration in project teams: The role of mastery and performance climates.International Journal of Project Management 7 (2019) 2019
Hannu P. [22] Early architectural design and BIM. Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures (CAADFutures) 2007: Proceedings of the 12th International CAAD Futures Conference 2007
Birx G.W. [23]How building information modelling changes architecture practice: Best practiceAIA-P016609, BP 13.01.03, 10/062006
Azhar S., Abid N.,
Mok J.,
Leung B. [24]		Building information modelling (BIM): A new paradigm for visual interactive modelling and simulation for construction projects. 1st International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries (ICCIDC–I), 4–5 August 2008, Karachi, Pakistan2008
Young N. W.,
Jones S. A.,
Bernstein H. M. [25]		Transforming design and construction to achieve greater industry productivity.Smartmarket Report on Building Information Modelling (BIM). Mcgraw-Hill2008
Life cycle Jin R., Zhong B., Ma L., Hashemi A.,
Ding, L. [26]		 Integrating BIM with building performance analysis in project life-cycle. Automation in Construction, 106 2019
Wong J. K. W., Zhou J. [27] Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review. Automation in Construction, 571 2015
Ding L., Xu X. [28] Application of cloud storage on BIM life-cycle management. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 11(8) 2014
Meng Q., Zhang Y., Li Z., Shi W., Wang J., Sun Y., Xu L., Wang X. [29] A review of integrated applications of BIM and related technologies in whole building life cycle. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(8) 2020
Santos R., Costa A. A., Silvestre J. D., Pyl L [30] Development of a BIM-based environmental and economic life cycle assessment tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265 2020
Xu X., Mumford T.,
Zou P. X. [31]		 Life-cycle building information modelling (BIM) engaged framework for improving building energy performance. Energy and Buildings, 231(2021) 2021
Risk management Zou Y., Kiviniemi A., Jones S. W. [32] A review of risk management through BIM and BIM-related technologies. Safety Science, 97 2017
Lu Y., Gong P.,
Tang Y., Sun S.,
Li, Q. [33]		 BIM-integrated construction safety risk assessment at the design stage of building projects. Automation in Construction, 124, 103553 2021
Alzoubi H. M. [34] BIM as a tool to optimize and manage project risk management. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 7(1) 2022
Chatzimichailidou M., Ma Y. [35] Using BIM in the safety risk management of modular construction. Safety Science, 154 2022
Waqar A., Othman I., González-Lezcano R. A. [36] Challenges to the implementation of BIM for the risk management of oil and gas construction projects: structural equation modeling approach. Sustainability, 15(10) 2023
Moshtaghian F., Noorzai, E. [37] Integration of risk management within the building information modeling (BIM) framework. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(5) 2023
Cost management Yang J. [38] Application of BIM technology in construction cost management of building engineering. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 2037, No. 1, p. 012046). IOP Publishing 2021 (September)
Sepasgozar S. M., Costin A. M., Karimi R., Shirowzhan S., Abbasian, E.,
Li, J. [39]		 BIM and digital tools for state-of-the-art construction cost management. Buildings, 12(4) 2022
Ding, X.,
Lu, Q [40]		 Construction cost management strategy based on BIM technology and neural network model. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 40(4) 2021
Abdel-Hamid M., Abdelhaleem, H. M. [41] Project cost control using five dimensions building information modelling. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(3) 2023
Vigneault M. A., Boton C., Chong, H. Y., Cooper-Cooke, B. [42] An innovative framework of 5D BIM solutions for construction cost management: a systematic review. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 27 2020
Management of operation stage Hu Z. Z., Tian P. L.,
Li S. W.,
Zhang J. P. [43]		 BIM-based integrated delivery technologies for intelligent MEP management in the operation and maintenance phase. Advances in Engineering Software, 115 2018
Tak A. N.,
Taghaddos H., Mousaei A., Bolourani A., Hermann, U. [44]		 BIM-based 4D mobile crane simulation and onsite operation management Automation in Construction, 128 2021
Liao C. Y., Tan D. L., Li Y. X. [45] Research on the application of BIM in the operation stage of green building. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 174 2012
Massafra A., Costantino C., Predari G., Gulli R. [46] Building information modelling and building performance simulation-based decision support systems for improved built heritage operation. Sustainability, 15(14) 2023
Li X., Xu J.,
Zhang, Q. [47]		 Research on construction schedule management based on BIM technology. Procedia Engineering, 174 2017
Kim H., Anderson K.,
Lee S.,
Hildreth J. [48]		 Generating construction schedules through automatic data extraction using open BIM (building information modelling) technology. Automation in Construction, 35 2013
Zhang S.,
Liang C. [49]		 Research on construction schedule control based on critical chain method and BIM. Journal of Applied Science and Engineering Innovation, 5(2) 2018
Irizarry J.,
Karan E. P. [50]		 Optimizing location of tower cranes on construction sites through GIS and BIM integration. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 17(23) 2012
Building energy assessment Pereira V., Santos J.,
Leite F.,
Escórcio P. [51]		 Using BIM to improve building energy efficiency–A scientometric and systematic review Energy and Buildings, 250 2021
Kamel E., Kazemian A. [52] BIM-integrated thermal analysis and building energy modeling in 3D-printed residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 279(2023) 2023
Truong N. S.,
Luong D. L.,
Nguyen Q. T. [53]		 BIM to BEM transition for optimizing envelope design selection to enhance building energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Energies, 16(10) 2023
Pan X., Khan A. M., Eldin S. M., Aslam F., Rehman S. K. U., Jameel M. [54] BIM adoption in sustainability, energy modelling and implementing using ISO 19650: A review. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 102252 2023
Jung D. E.,
Kim S., Han S., Yoo S., Jeong H., Lee K. H., Kim J. [55]		 Appropriate level of development of in-situ building information modelling for existing building energy modelling implementation. Journal of Building Engineering, 69, 106233 2023
Yu Z. [56] Green building energy efficiency and landscape design based on remote sensing technology. Soft Computing, 1(10) 2023
Table 2. List of barriers most frequently reported in research.
Table 2. List of barriers most frequently reported in research.
No.Barrier to Development of BIMCountry of Occurrence/Notation
1Cost of implementation P1, P2, M1, C1, B3, A3, NZ6, PW3, PW4
2Low level of knowledge and lack of training on BIM P7, AS1, M3, C3, B5, NZ4, NA3, NA4, PW1
3Low level of commitment to cooperation between members of a building investment process P4, B1, B2, UK3
4Lack of standardization/regulations/procedures M4, NZ1, NZ2
5Shortage of experts P6, C6, B3, M2
6Fear of change P3, M5, C4, B1, B2, E1
7Treating BIM as a fleeting fad NA1, E2, M5, B5
8Fears concerning the division of responsibility for a project M6, NA6, N3,
9Shortage of equipment/infrastructure/software N1, C2, B4, AS2, AS3
10Low prices of designs N2, N4, M6
Table 3. Importance of barriers in the survey.
Table 3. Importance of barriers in the survey.
No.Barrier to Development of BIMImportance of Barriers in Subsequent Years aij [%]
201520172019202020212022
1Cost of implementation [B1]78.265.468.264.06574.3
2Low level of knowledge and lack of training on BIM [B2]60.274.868.440.039.442.5
3Low level of commitment to cooperation between members of a building investment process [B3]82.468.753.334.629.428.6
4Lack of standardization/regulations/procedures [B4]6760.263.928.227.122.0
5Shortage of experts [B5]71.466.35824.616.528.8
6Fear of change [B6]54.242.228.518.226.633.8
7Treating BIM as a fleeting fad [B7]22.214.316.917.315.916.1
8Fears concerning the division of responsibility for a project [B8]6.48.25.86.47.18.7
9Shortage of equipment/infrastructure/software [B9]83.276.554.332.615.910.9
10Low prices of designs [B10]83.977.467.466.258.944.7
Table 4. Assessment of the importance of barriers and determination of weights.
Table 4. Assessment of the importance of barriers and determination of weights.
No.BiImportance of Barriers in Subsequent Years
Ratings [aij]Weights [vij]
201520172019202020212022201520172019202020212022
1B178.265.468.264.06574.30.1280.1180.1400.1920.2150.152
2B260.274.868.440.039.442.50.0980.1350.1410.1200.1300.137
3B382.468.753.334.629.428.60.1350.1240.1100.1040.0970.092
4B46760.263.928.227.122.00.1100.1080.1310.0840.0890.071
5B571.466.35824.616.528.80.1170.1190.1190.0740.0540.197
6B654.242.228.518.226.633.80.0890.0760.0580.0540.0880.109
7B722.214.316.917.315.916.10.0360.0250.0340.0520.0520.052
8B86.48.25.86.47.18.70.0100.0140.0120.0190.0230.028
9B983.276.554.332.615.910.90.1360.1380.1120.0980.0520.035
10B1083.977.467.466.258.944.70.1370.1390.1390.1990.1950.127
Ʃaij609.1554484.7331.8301.8310.51.01.01.01.01.01.0
Table 5. Tendencies of changes in importance of barriers over the years 2015–2022 plotted according to weights assigned to barriers.
Table 5. Tendencies of changes in importance of barriers over the years 2015–2022 plotted according to weights assigned to barriers.
Barrier
No.		Tendency 2015/2017Tendency
2017/2019		Tendency 2019/2020Tendency 2020/2021Tendency 2021/2022Tendency 2015/2022
abcdefg
B1−0.01030.02270.05210.0225−0.06340.0236
B20.03620.0061−0.02060.01000.00640.0382
B3−0.0113−0.0140−0.0059−0.0067−0.0054−0.0433
B4−0.00130.0232−0.04690.0049−0.0188−0.0390
B50.00250.0000−0.0457−0.01930.14230.0798
B6−0.0128−0.0174−0.00400.03340.02090.0200
B7−0.01060.00910.01720.0006−0.00070.0156
B80.0043−0.00280.00720.00440.00450.0175
B90.0015−0.0261−0.0138−0.0455−0.0177−0.1016
B100.0020−0.00070.0604−0.0043−0.0682−0.0107
Table 6. Assessment of the power of the barriers.
Table 6. Assessment of the power of the barriers.
BarrierBarrier Power Indicator 2015–2021BarrierBarrier Power Indicator 2015–2022
(a1 + a5)ϓij2015ϓij 2021(a1 + a6)ϓij 2015ϓij 2022
B1143.218.3830.842B1152.519.623.2
B299.69.8413.003B2102.710.214.1
B3111.815.1210.891B3111.015.010.2
B494.110.358.450B489.09.86.3
B587.910.304.806B5100.211.719.7
B680.87.197.122B688.07.89.6
B738.11.392.007B738.31.42.0
B813.50.140.318B815.10.20.4
B999.113.545.221B994.112.83.3
B10142.819.6727.869B10128.617.716.3
Notation of the position in the ranking: 1st position, 2nd position, 3rd position.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Szafranko, E.; Czyż, M. Analysis of Tendencies, Change and Strength of Barriers Limiting the Development of BIM: A Novelty Assessment Method. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166797

AMA Style

Szafranko E, Czyż M. Analysis of Tendencies, Change and Strength of Barriers Limiting the Development of BIM: A Novelty Assessment Method. Sustainability. 2024; 16(16):6797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166797

Chicago/Turabian Style

Szafranko, Elżbieta, and Magdalena Czyż. 2024. "Analysis of Tendencies, Change and Strength of Barriers Limiting the Development of BIM: A Novelty Assessment Method" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 6797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166797

APA Style

Szafranko, E., & Czyż, M. (2024). Analysis of Tendencies, Change and Strength of Barriers Limiting the Development of BIM: A Novelty Assessment Method. Sustainability, 16(16), 6797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166797

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