Evaluating the Alignment of Organizational and Project Contexts for BIM Adoption: A Case Study of a Large Owner Organization
- Poor information fidelity: Submitted handover artifacts contain errors, and the traditional approach requires huge additional investment of resources to correct the artifacts to a sufficiently high level of accuracy . When up-to-date information is missing, additional costs are incurred due to searching, validating and recreating information .
- Poor interoperability: The format of handover information is inadequate, not allowing others to use information effectively , and it does not lend itself to everyday use, and contains information in a format that is not conducive to computerized analysis . Inefficient interoperability cost the construction industry more than $15.8 billion a year . Two-thirds of this cost is borne by owners/operators, and 85% of owners’ and operators’ interoperability costs are incurred during the O&M phase .
- Poor building and maintenance performance: Sustaining an increasing number of buildings and rising energy consumption levels rests largely on the possibility of maintaining and operating increasingly sophisticated building equipment, and increasingly complex, and inter-dependent building systems. In current practice, there is little or no systematic correlation between design intent and building operation , and buildings are not performing as expected. Eighty-five percent of complaints related to comfort and high energy consumption are caused by handover of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and maintenance issues .
2.1. Organizational Context
2.2.1. Owner Requirements
2.2.2. O&M Personnel Requirements
2.3. Project Context
2.3.1. Handover Documents
2.3.2. Building Information Model
3. Literature Review
“Organizations do not lead isolated lives but, instead, are linked inextricably with others. The success of one organization may, thus, be as much a function of what other organizations do as what the organization itself does.”
3.3. Handover Artifacts
|Information Category||Required Information|
|Most important facility information categories ||Floor plans, design standards and criteria, design drawings, design specifications, as-built drawings, materials and components used, shop drawings, operation and maintenance manuals, equipment model and type, equipment manufacturer, equipment capacity, warranty information, condition of equipment and facility, equipment location, utility information, maintenance records, building description.|
|Key content for facility documentation ||Wall locations, door locations, room identification, furniture layout, light fixtures, finishes, mechanical systems, electrical systems, equipment identification and location, cut-off locations, distribution capacity, design rationale.|
|Non-geometric data requirements ||ID and name, service zone: site, building, floor, room, zone.|
Group and type based on industry standards, or organization-specific categories.
Manufacturer/vendor data: manufacturer, model, serial number, acquisition date, vendor, warranty expiration date, warranty usage
Specifications such as type, unit, value, lower and upper limits, and description and attributes such as weight, power, energy consumption, spare parts.
Operation and maintenance data: activity status, maintenance status, maintenance history, space occupancy data.
4. Data Collection across Organizational and Project Contexts
4.1. Organizational Context
4.1.1. Building and Information Handover Process
“We never know if we are responsible for the building, if something is under warranty, should we be attending those calls or it should be somebody else?”(Program Manager for Operation Effectiveness)
“…doesn’t appear to be any real true handover date. You might have one thing handed over at one point and something else at a different time… As I mentioned our water system [sic] still aren’t commissioned yet here. So that’s been a year since it opened or pretty close to a year now.”(BMS Specialist)
4.1.2. Records Management Process and Technology
“…we create the structured data. We get unstructured data, and we create a structured data environment around it… Having that structure beforehand would be fabulous.”(Record Systems Administrator)
“We used to have all the books in our library, all the maintenance manuals, and you could go to that, flip through it really fast to that section, and if it wasn’t there, sometimes you flip through the rest of the book and you would find it in the oddest places. With [current retrieval system] I find it really frustrating, because you only see one page at a time, and you can’t flip quite fast. It takes a while time to use and plus I find the way they got it set up hard to see.”(Head of Mechanical Maintenance/Projects)
“I have spent a lot of years, almost seven years now looking through the drawings; I am pretty good at it. But that is more about familiarity with the drawings than it is with the software…”(Records System Administrator)
4.1.3. Asset Management Process and Technology
“…how do I get that information from the consultant into PeopleSoft? I don’t have a good solution yet, I don’t know if I can get the consultants to fill out my forms, in my format so it works…”(Maintenance and Renewal Senior Analyst)
4.1.4. Maintenance Management Process and Technology
“There is no one central point where you can see what maintenance, what history has been done on that piece of equipment, so you don’t know how many times somebody has visited that [equipment], is there a reoccurring problem that somebody has fixed, you got to remember there is operations and maintenance, and sometimes both of us go to a call.”(Head of Mechanical Maintenance/ Projects)
“…what we are relying on and we have relied on for the last twelve years I have been here is peoples’ experience. Well you know if you go to “X”, X will know all the history on that machine. He knows background of that machine, he might know “Y” has done some work on it on and it has that piece of equipment…”(Head of Mechanical Maintenance/ Projects)
4.2.1. Owner Requirements
|Mechanical Rooms Section of the Technical Guidelines|
|a. Consider maintenance access as part of the design. No mechanical room will be accepted with poor and difficult access for maintenance.|
|b. Drawings shall show all mechanical and plumbing equipment in elevation or alternately shall specify mounting heights for the equipment.|
|c. Design sufficient access to all components of the air handling unit. Ensure adequate clearance for coil replacement without necessity to dismantle adjacent equipment or building components.|
|d. Locate mechanical rooms in areas accessible from outdoors.|
|e. Confirm that sufficient space is provided to remove largest piece of equipment from the Mechanical Room.|
|Plumbing Section of the Technical Guidelines|
|f. All plumbing equipment requiring frequent maintenance (once a year) to be readily accessible. Do not locate at ceiling height, in walls, tunnels, buried, requiring scaffolds, ladders, removal of other equipment, in user space, or in crawl spaces|
|g. All sanitary sumps within buildings must have gas tight covers and be vented to outdoors|
|Records Section of the Technical Guidelines|
|h. “Issued for Construction” drawings are not accepted as as-built drawings.|
|i. (As built drawings) represent the final installed configuration of what was actually built|
|j. As-built drawings incorporate all changes made during the construction process including any and all clarifications, addenda and Change Orders.|
|k. (As built drawings) to be submitted within 60 days of Substantial Performance|
|l. Operating and maintenance manuals:
“I think that that’s the largest problem we have got and it’s not just this building it is a lot of buildings but this building they really made the mechanical room tight. And it’s like a new car, where you can’t access one thing without removing three other things. It is going to be very difficult for people to work on it and maintain these things in the future.”(BMS Specialist)
4.2.2. O&M Personnel Requirements
|Department||FM Function||Interviewed Personnel|
|Infrastructure Development||Records Management||Records System Administrator|
|Building Operations||Asset Management||Maintenance & Renewal Senior Analyst|
|Maintenance Management||Manager of Technical Services|
|Maintenance||Maintenance Technical Specialist|
|Head Maintenance Engineer|
|Building Operation Monitoring & Control||Head Maintenance Engineer (BMS Center)|
|Service Call Management||Program Manager|
|FM Function||Required Information, Component & System Attributes|
||Design criteria, commissioning information (e.g. component performance), replacement part information, vendor information, serial number, location, warranty information, cost (to replace, maintain, etc.), system visualization, system performance information, locations of panels and valves that control equipment (e.g. electrical panel location, shut off valve location), sequence of operation (start-up/shut down information), maintenance history|
|Location, commissioning information, design criteria, equipment performance information, system performance information, accurate system visualization that includes all required system components|
|Asset Management||Asset Management
||PM maintenance schedule, PM inspection report, key plans, backflow prevention assembly test report, systems list, equipment lists, part of what system, required database attributes (e.g. supplier and manufacturer information, manufacturer, performance data), cost information related to replacing and maintaining equipment/system, maintenance history, installation manuals|
“Sometimes you go to a piece of equipment especially older piece of equipment, there is no history on it, there is nothing in the maintenance manual what this thing did, and the data tag on a piece of equipment is rusted, it is missing, and then you have a sump pump and it goes through the ceiling and you don’t actually know where it goes, and how far it goes, you are guessing how much gallons per minute, and you have to know how many feet ahead it can pump, that can be challenging.”(Head of Mechanical Maintenance/Projects)
“When I refer to the record drawings, it is when I need to know how a system functions. I may know what the problem is already if it is a mechanical problem but, when we get into the technical aspects of balancing issues, supply or return issues we need to know how the system functions. So we refer to the records drawings not only to find out what the system was balanced at, but we also need to know what areas it serves, where certain components are. The BMS system doesn’t show everything. On their graphics they’ll show an air handler, a room, and a valve. But where is that valve?”(Millwright)
“Having a clear accurate sequence of operation available to maintenance personnel is becoming increasingly important. As buildings become complex it is harder to determine how a piece of equipment is intended to interact with other equipment in the building without the sequence of operation.”(BMS Specialist)
4.3. Project Context
4.3.1. Artifacts—Handover Documents
“If you come in looking for information about any building, I can show you what we have, that’s the strength....What I can’t tell you is that it is right. We entirely depended on what was sent to us….The biggest weakness is that what we get is what we get. We don’t have plan checkers. We don’t have a department reviewing the drawings saying yes this isn’t right, it is wrong.”(Record Systems Administrator)
4.3.2. Artifacts—Building Information Models
|Information Required by O&M Personnel*||Tracked Information in Asset Database||Information Available Within Design Model|
|Equipment Type: Pump – System: HVAC||Vendor information||Unit||UBC||Level||Basement|
|Serial number||Asset ID||000000005504||Family||Inline Pump—Vertical|
|Location||Acq Code||P||Type||120 GPM Capacities—10.85 Feet Heads|
|Maintenance history||Building Tag Number||63300||System Classification||Undefined, Power|
|Warranty information||Descr||CIRS||Equipment #||AH1|
|Maintenance plans||Region||633F||Equipment Type||P|
|Cost information||Asset Type||HVAC||Count||1|
|Replacement part information||Asset Subtype||CW PUMP||–||–|
|Performance criteria (design criteria, commissioning information)||Description||Circulating Pump P-2||–||–|
|Location of electrical panel Location of shut off valve||Status||I||–||–|
|System that equipment belong to||Acq Date||01/01/2011||–||–|
|Area served by the equipment||In Service Dt||01/01/2011||–||–|
|Number and locations of a type of component||Description||Circulating Pump P-2||–||–|
|Routing of the system which an equipment belongs to||Short Desc||PCW002||–||–|
|User defined attributes:||–||–|
|Custom Attributes||HEAD 16 FT||–||–|
|Schedules Derived from Mechanical Model||Information Available Within the Schedules|
|Mechanical Equipment Schedule||Attributes that have assigned values for all components in the schedule|
Level, Count, Family, Type, Type Comments, Equipment Tag (MAN), IS-HL, Length, Mark.
Attributes that have assigned values for a number of components in the schedule
System Classification, System Name, Neck Height, Neck Width, Air Flow, Color, Equipment #, Equipment Type, Comments, Comments_1
|Multi-category Schedule||Level, Family, Type, Category, Mark, Length, Equipment Tag, IS-HL, Type comments, Neck Size, Count, Comments1-2-3-4.|
|Duct Schedule||Family, System Classification, System Name, System Type, Flow, Free Size, Area, Bottom Elevation, Count, Diameter, Equivalent Diameter, Additional Flow, Friction, Height, Hydraulic Diameter, Length, Loss Coefficient, Mark, Overall Size, Pressure Drop, Reynolds number, Section Size, Size Lock, Top Elevation, Type, Velocity, Velocity Pressure.|
|HVAC Zone Schedule||One line of information available:|
Cooling Air Temperature (12 °C), Cooling Set point (23 °C), Dehumidification Set Point (0.7), Heating Air Temperature (32 °C), Heating Set Point (21 °C).
|Schedules that do not contain information||Space Schedule, Parts Schedule, Sprinkler Schedule, Area schedule (gross building), Assembly Schedule, Duct Insulation Schedule, Duct Lining Schedule, Duct Placeholder Schedule, Flex duct schedule|
- Unidentified system-equipment-space relationships; when such relationships are not defined it becomes challenging to understand available systems within a model, identify equipment which belong to a system, and where this equipment is located within the building (Figure 13a).
- Errors in spaces, such as duplicate/overlapping spaces and unintentional openings left within the walls, lead to miscomputation of space information for equipment locations (Figure 13b).
- Errors in elevations, such as inconsistent floor elevations between linked models, lead to miscomputation of space information.
- Errors in floor to floor height definitions lead to computation of space that equipment is located in rather than the space it is serviced from.
- Errors in representing all components continuously within a system; unconnected or missing system components affect identification of systems within the model (Figure 13c).
- Issues with equipment and system nomenclature;
- Components named as individual systems (Figure 13d).
- Non-standard system names.
- Equipment that are not named uniquely or consistently.
|Model||Family Name||Inline Pump—Vertical||Inline Pump—Vertical||Box-generic||Box-generic|
|Type Name||120 GPM Capacities—10.85 Feet Heads||120 GPM Capacities—10.85 Feet Heads||HP4||HP05|
|Owner’s database||Asset Type||HVAC|
|Asset Subtype||CW PUMP|
|Description||Circulating Pump P-2|
5. Framework for Investigating Organizational Alignment
6. Summary and Conclusions
Conflicts of Interest
- National Research Council. Stewardship of Federal Facilities: A Proactive Strategy for Managing the Nation’s Public Assets. The National Academies Press: Washington DC, USA, 1998; p. 128. [Google Scholar]
- East, E.W.; Nisbet, N. Analysis of Life-Cycle Information Exchange. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Nottingham, UK, 30 June–2 July 2010.
- Fallon, K.; Palmer, M. General Buildings Information Handover Guide: Principles Methodology and Case Studies; National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce: Washington DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- East, W.E.; Brodt, W. Bim for construction handover. J. Build. Inf. Model. 2007, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
- Corry, E.; Keane, M.; O’onnell, J.; Costa, A. Systematic Development of an Operational Bim Utilising Simulation and Performance Data in Building Operation. In Proceedings of 12th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association Building Simulation, Sydney, Australia, 14–16 November 2011.
- Gallaher, M.; O’Connor, A.; Dettbarn, J.L., Jr.; Gilday, L. Cost analysis of inadequate interoperability in the us capital facilities industry. Available online: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build04/PDF/b04022.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2015).
- Borsboom, W. Netherlands today. Available online: http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/borsboom120809a.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2015).
- Codinhoto, R.; Kiviniemi, A. Bim for FM: A case support for business life cycle. In Product Lifecycle Management for a Global Market; Fukuda, S., Bernard, A., Gurumoorthy, B., Bouras, A., Eds.; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- National Research Council. Predicting Outcomes from Investments in Maintenance and Repair for Federal Facilities; The National Academies Press: Washington DC, USA, 2012; p. 152. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, W.; Issa, R.R.A. Bim-Enabled Building Commissioning and Handover. In Proceedings of 2012 ASCE International Conference on Computing in Civil Engineering, Clearwater Beach, FL, USA, 17–20 June 2012.
- Foster, B. BIM : Next Gen Facility Management, Design for Maintenance Strategy. Available online: http://www.usace-isc.org/presentation/BIM%20CAD/BIM%20Next%20Gen%20FM%20-Design%20for%20Maintenance%20-%20%202011%20Approved%20version.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2012).
- Forns-Samso, F. Perceived Value of Building Information Modeling in Facilities Operations and Maintenance. Master’s Thesis, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Becerik-Gerber, B.; Jazizadeh, F.; Li, N.; Calis, G. Application areas and data requirements for BIM-enabled facilities management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 431–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassem, M.; Kelly, G.; Dawood, N.; Serginson, M.; Lockley, S. BIM in facilities management applications: A case study of a large university complex. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manage. 2015, 5, 261–277. [Google Scholar]
- Kiviniemi, A.; Codinhoto, R. Challenges in the Implementation of BIM for FM—Case Manchester Town Hall Complex. In Proceedings of Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (2014), Orlando, FL, USA, 23–25 June 2014.
- McAuley, J.; Duberley, J.; Johnson, P. Organization Theory: Challenges and Perspectives; Financial Times Prentice Hall: Portland, OR, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Schulz, M. The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Acad. of Manag. J. 2001, 44, 661–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tushman, M.L.; O’Reilly, C.A. The ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Manage. Rev. 1996, 38, 8–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peppard, J.; Breu, K. Beyond alignment: A coevolutionary view of the information systems strategy process. ICIS 2003 Proc. 2003, 743–750. [Google Scholar]
- Shiem-Shin Then, D. An integrated resource management view of facilities management. Facilities 1999, 17, 462–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosch, A.; Volker, L.; Koutamanis, A. BIM in the operations stage: Bottlenecks and implications for owners. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manage. 2015, 5, 331–343. [Google Scholar]
- Korpela, J.; Miettinen, R.; Salmikivi, T.; Ihalainen, J. The challenges and potentials of utilizing building information modelling in facility management: The case of the center for properties and facilities of the university of helsinki. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2015, 33, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindkvist, C.; Whyte, J. Challenges and Opportunities Involving Facilities Management in Data Handover: London 2012 Case Study. In Proceedings of Architectural Engineering Conference 2013, State College, Pennsylvania, USA, 3–5 April 2013.
- Anderson, A.; Marsters, A.; Dossick, C.S.; Neff, G. Construction to Operations Exchange: Challenges of Implementing Cobie and BIM in a Large Owner Organization. In Proceedings of Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction Challenges in a Flat World, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 21–23 May 2012.
- ECOCanada. Building operator scoping study. Available online: http://www.eco.ca/ecoreports/pdf/2011-Building-Operator-Scoping-Study.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2015).
- Brooks, A.; Lilley, G. Enabling technology for outsourced facilities management. Electron J. Inf. Technol. Construction 2006, 11, 685–695. [Google Scholar]
- Eastman, C.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, K. Bim for owners and facility managers. In BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 93–147. [Google Scholar]
- Au, S. BIM/BLM for owners. MTECH Engineering Co., Ltd. 2009. Available online: www.redbag.com/mtech-hk-emarket-newsletter-03-bim-for-owners-by-mtech-engineering-co-ltd-final-release (accessed on 10 August 2015).
- Liu, L.; Stumpf, A.; Kim, S.; Zbinden, F. Capturing As-Built Project Information for Facility Management. In Proceedings of the Computing in Civil Engineering, Washington, DC, USA, 20–22 June 1994.
- Clayton, M.J.; Johnson, R.E.; Song, Y.; Al-Qawasmi, J. A study of information content of as-built drawings for usaa. Available online: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/254694636_A_STUDY_OF_INFORMATION_CONTENT_OF_AS-BUILT_DRAWINGS_FOR_USAA (accessed on 10 August 2015).
- Henderson, J.C.; Venkatraman, N. Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM SYST. J. 1993, 32, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, Y.E.; Reich, B.H. IT alignment: What have we learned? J. Inf. Technol. 2007, 22, 297–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cavka, H.B.; Staub-French, S.; Pottinger, R. Evaluating the Alignment of Organizational and Project Contexts for BIM Adoption: A Case Study of a Large Owner Organization. Buildings 2015, 5, 1265-1300. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5041265
Cavka HB, Staub-French S, Pottinger R. Evaluating the Alignment of Organizational and Project Contexts for BIM Adoption: A Case Study of a Large Owner Organization. Buildings. 2015; 5(4):1265-1300. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5041265Chicago/Turabian Style
Cavka, Hasan Burak, Sheryl Staub-French, and Rachel Pottinger. 2015. "Evaluating the Alignment of Organizational and Project Contexts for BIM Adoption: A Case Study of a Large Owner Organization" Buildings 5, no. 4: 1265-1300. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5041265