Building Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption and Implementation Enablers in AEC Firms - A Systematic Literature Review

Architectural Engineering and Design Management
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taem20
Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption

and implementation enablers in AEC firms: a
systematic literature review
Behzad Abbasnejad , Madhav Prasad Nepal , Alireza Ahankoob , Araz

Nasirian & Robin Drogemuller
To cite this article: Behzad Abbasnejad , Madhav Prasad Nepal , Alireza Ahankoob , Araz
Nasirian & Robin Drogemuller (2020): Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption and
implementation enablers in AEC firms: a systematic literature review, Architectural Engineering and
Design Management, DOI: 10.1080/17452007.2020.1793721
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1793721
Published online: 16 Jul 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=taem20
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1793721
Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption and

implementation enablers in AEC firms: a systematic literature
review
a
Behzad Abbasnejad , Madhav Prasad Nepalb, Alireza Ahankoob a
, Araz Nasirianc and
Robin Drogemullerb
a
School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia; bSchool of Civil
Engineering & Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia; cSchool of Business, IT
and Logistics, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Building Information Modelling (BIM) has gained much attention in recent Received 18 December 2019
years, as both a new innovation and methodology. Many architecture, Accepted 25 June 2020
engineering and construction (AEC) firms have reported significant
KEYWORDS
competitive advantages following its implementation. Despite the BIM implementation; change
variety of benefits that BIM offers, its potential has not yet been fully management; process and
realised. A key reason for this can be located in the difficulties of performance management;
implementation at the organisational level; a process that demands construction innovation;
significant changes in organisational business structure. However, there information technology
exists little extensive study on the analysis and synthesis of the literature
surrounding organisational BIM implementation. This paper presents a
systematic literature review (SLR) on studies from 2004 to July 2019 to
allow for a thorough synthesis of the existing BIM literature, innovation
management, and information technology domains to identify BIM
adoption and implementation enablers. Of the 80 selected studies, 27
enablers were identified to contribute to a more comprehensive
utilisation of BIM at the organisational level. These included strategic
initiatives, cultural readiness, learning capacity, knowledge capability and
IT leveragability, network relationships, process and performance
management, and change management practices. The role each
implementation enabler has in IT-equipped innovations generally and to
BIM implementation specifically is discussed throughout. The results of
this paper seek to aid AEC firms in gauging the organisational readiness
of the implementation process as well as the required interventions and
capability development for successful BIM implementation overall.
Introduction
Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a current innovation initiative contemplated to overcome
problems such as low productivity within the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC)
industry. Due to the various approaches towards its definitions and interpretations, there exists a
lack of consensus on what the term ‘BIM’ actually signifies. These range from technology to method-
ology and/or process-oriented approaches. As a result of the multifaceted and systemic nature of BIM,
this study necessarily considers it a methodology in support of Succar’s definition: ‘a set of interacting
policies, processes and technologies generating a methodology to manage the essential building
CONTACT Behzad Abbasnejad [email protected] School of Property, Construction and Project Manage-
ment, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. ABBASNEJAD ET AL.
design and project data in digital format throughout the building’s life-cycle’ (Succar, 2009).
Resultantly, BIM implementation entails a set of activities that allow for the introduction of transfor-
mative concepts and tools (revolutionary or evolutionary) into an organisation (Succar, Sher, &
Williams, 2013).
The successful implementation of BIM can engender increased productivity between all involved
actors, and is therefore beneficial to the entire construction supply chain (Grilo & Jardim-Goncalves,
2010; Papadonikolaki & Wamelink, 2017). Despite the variety of benefits and competitive advantages
that BIM can provide, its full potential still remains overlooked (Ghaffarianhoseini et al., 2017; Son, Lee,
& Kim, 2015). This is partly a consequence of the perceived difficulties associated with BIM implemen-
tation at the organisational level (Ahn, Kwak, & Suk, 2016; Liang, Lu, Rowlinson, & Zhang, 2016).
Though BIM uptake is principally concerned with market competitiveness for most managers, they
were unable to identify a comprehensive strategy to maximise the benefits of BIM implementation
(Brooks & Lucas, 2014).
There are distinguished costs involved in BIM implementation and a substantial amount is typi-
cally spent on overcoming associated implementation difficulties (Ahankoob, Manley, & Abbasnejad,
2019). An organisation may adopt BIM tools and concepts however due to these difficulties, may not
be able to fully realise their benefits, thereby resulting in a wastage of investment and a return to
more traditional approaches.
BIM implementation is a dynamic process and there are a number of influential variables that may
change throughout. There is, however, little research on the dynamics of the change environment
and AEC organisations’ corresponding ability to influence and manage BIM adoption and implemen-
tation within organisational settings. Moreover, there is a lack of explicit BIM implementation guide-
lines, further obstructing clarity over BIM adoption. To this end, a BIM implementation framework has
been developed to provide a greater conceptual basis underpinning the overall implementation
process. This will allow AEC organisations to better adopt and implement more effective processes
and change management practices. The major enablers for successful BIM implementation are ident-
ified through a synthesis of the existing literature on BIM, innovation management, and information
technology systems.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. First, we discuss BIM implementation as a
business process change. An overview of methodology is then provided followed by an exploration
of the various dimensions of the BIM implementation framework. Lastly, there is an identification of
the key BIM enablers and their influence on implementation within AEC organisations. Additionally,
we provide a synthesis of literature on the identified enablers and recommend areas for future
research.
BIM implementation as a business process change

BIM implementation may assist AEC firms to create or change their business processes and products
to deliver end users the best value. As a business process change enabler, the implementation of BIM
creates a unique opportunity for AEC firms to either change their existing business processes or
create new ones. Implementing BIM is not just a matter of changing software tools; rather, it is a
matter of repositioning the firm and transforming its business processes and practices (Saka &
Chan, 2019).
A business process refers to a set of coordinated activities or logically related tasks that are per-
formed to deliver value to end users or to achieve other strategic goals. For the successful manage-
ment of business processes, an organisation’s efforts and activities should be analysed and
continually improved upon (Kettinger & Grover, 1995). A greater focus needs to be given to business
process enablers rather than just the supporting technology to allow organisations the opportunity
to reap the benefits of BIM implementation in their entirety (Liao & Teo, 2018; Saka & Chan, 2019).
Successful BIM implementation demands a socio-technical system approach; it involves managing
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 3
people, culture shift, and significant changes in business processes and workflows (Arayici et al.,
2011a; Saka & Chan, 2019). Business process change (BPC) is defined as
an organisational initiative to design business processes to achieve significant improvement in performance
through changes in the relationships between management, information technology, organisational structure,
and people. Any BPC requires a strategic initiative where top managers define and communicate a vision of
change. The organisational environment with a ready culture, a willingness to share knowledge, balanced
network relationships, and a capacity to learn, should facilitate the implementation of prescribed process man-
agement and change management practices. (Kettinger & Grover, 1995)
This definition of BPC has been employed herein as a guide to communicate greater insight into the
key enablers throughout the management process of BIM implementation.
Methodology
This research has been undertaken as a systematic literature review (SLR) based on the procedures
proposed by Kitchenham (2004). A SLR is a means of assessing, interpreting, and synthesising all
available research relevant to a given research domain to identify knowledge gaps and suggest
areas for further investigation (Kitchenham, 2004).
Research questions
This study aims to address the following research questions:
RQ1. What are the key enablers of BIM adoption and implementation process at the organisational level?
RQ2. What are the leading journals in terms of BIM adoption and implementation research?
RQ3. What is the current state of the research and what knowledge gaps exist when it comes to BIM adoption and
implementation enablers for the organisational level?
To address RQ1, the theory of Business Process Change Management has been employed to identify
the key enablers of BIM adoption and implementation at the organisational level. With respect to
RQ2, peer-reviewed papers published in primarily construction management literature and related
journals were reviewed and publication sources were extracted. In regards to RQ3, a number of exist-
ing knowledge gaps were identified through our SLR, and areas for further research were proposed.
Search process
A two-stage approach was utilised to aggregate a pool of related papers. In the first stage, Succar’s
definition of BIM (Succar, 2009) and Business Process Change Management constructs (Kettinger &
Grover, 1995) were adopted as a basis to guide the authors in identifying the initial set of search
strings and keywords (Table 1). Subsequently, the list of construction management journals
suggested by Chau (1997) and Nasirian, Arashpour, and Abbasi (2019) was investigated with the
established search strings and keywords. The results of this stage revealed that only 6 out of the
22 construction management journals listed by Chau (1997) were relevant to the aim of this paper.
In the second stage, a desktop study was conducted using a variety of search engines including
Google Scholar, Web of Science, as well as separate databases such as Scopus to access publications
which were not enlisted by Chau (1997) and Nasirian et al. (2019). Similar to the study of Chan and
Owusu (2017), the authors recognised that the literature review subject in the construction manage-
ment area was not bound to the construction management journals. By adopting the methodologies
of Nasirian et al. (2019), publications from other sectors investigating the same topics were included
(e.g. Information Management and Systems). Additionally, publications from credible construction
management proceedings and related industrial reports were also accumulated. Another cluster of
papers was collected via searching keywords in databases such as the aforementioned Google
Table 1. Search strings and keywords.

Search Search strings and keywords
1 (‘BIM’ OR ‘Building Information modelling’ OR ‘Building Information Model’ OR ‘Building Information Management’) AND
(‘adoption’ OR ‘implementation’ OR ‘diffusion’)
(‘training’ OR ‘competency’ OR ‘change management’ OR ‘learning’ OR ‘knowledge’ OR ‘policy’)
(‘maturity’ OR ‘maturity model’ OR ‘capability’ OR ‘capability model’)
(‘performance’ OR ‘process’ OR benefit realisation’) AND (‘management’ OR ‘measurement’ OR ‘assessment’)
Scholar and Scopus. Further literature sources were identified from both the citation and reference
lists of the reviewed articles.
The established search strings and keywords presented in Table 1 were taken as a basis for the
retrieval in the digital databases. This investigation led to a cluster of 347 papers which were
obtained from 20 different journals. The number of relevant papers and their corresponding
source title is outlined in Table 2 as ‘Initial Number of Papers’. Following this, duplicate studies
were removed and this led to the identification of 208 studies for a thorough analysis. Further
investigation on the 208 number of papers was conducted to test the eligibility of the articles.
The following two sets of broad criteria were considered for eligibility: (1) inclusion and exclusion
criteria; and (2) quality criteria. A more in-depth investigation of the body of the identified 208
papers and application of inclusion and exclusion as well as quality assessment criteria narrowed
down the number of relevant publications to 80 papers for the analysis. The number of filtered
papers in this section are presented as ‘Final Number of Papers’ in Table 2. A summary of the
refinement steps in the SLR procedure and the resulting number of articles are presented in
Figure 1.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The following set of more detailed and robust inclusion and exclusion criteria was established to
review the abstract of the 347 papers:
. BIM – whilst a broad topic, the papers had to focus on organisational adoption and implemen-
tation aspects
. Language – the paper had to be written in English
. Articles between 2004 and July 2019 were considered for this study
. Journal type – Journals were to be peer-reviewed and of the highest quality
. Conference proceedings – Conferences were to be peer-reviewed and of the highest quality
. Non-peer-reviewed and white papers as well as expression of opinions in non-academic journals
were excluded
. If similar studies by the same author/s were published in more than two conference proceedings,
the one with more detailed content was included (to avoid duplication). Similarly, if a journal
article was an extended version of a conference paper, the journal paper took precedence (as jour-
nals represent more rigorous and in-depth analysis)
Quality assessment
The following criteria were used to assess the quality of the articles:
. Is the paper peer-reviewed?

. Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the review identified and relevant?
. Is the literature search likely to have covered all relevant studies?
Table 2. Search results for relevant publications.

Initial Final
Publication source No No Author(s)
Automation in Construction 78 17 Fountain and Langar (2018), Yilmaz et al. (2019), Ahmed and Kassem
(2018), Zhou et al. (2017), Son et al. (2015), Poirier, Staub-French,
and Forgues (2015b), Miettinen and Paavola (2014), Volk, Stengel,
and Schultmann (2014), Love et al. (2014), Eadie et al. (2013), Succar
et al. (2013), Barlish and Sullivan (2012), Jung and Joo (2011),
Arayici et al. (2011b), Gu and London (2010), Succar (2009), Nikas
et al. (2007)
Journal of Management in 25 9 Liao and Teo (2018), Hosseini et al. (2018), Cao, Li, Wang, Luo, and Tan
Engineering (2018), Lines and Vardireddy (2017), Ozorhon and Karahan (2017),
Ahn et al. (2016), Giel and Issa (2016), Lee et al. (2015), Sackey,
Tuuli, and Dainty (2015)
Journal of Construction Engineering 66 10 Wu, Mayo, Mccuen, Issa, and Smith (2018a), Siebelink, Voordijk, and
and Management Adriaanse (2018), Cidik, Boyd, and Thurairajah (2017), Liang et al.
(2016), Chen, Dib, Cox, Shaurette, and Vorvoreanu (2016), Liu, Du,
Issa, and Giel (2017), Dossick and Neff (2010), Du et al. (2014), Won
et al. (2013), Wu, Mayo, Mccuen, Issa, and Smith (2018b)
Architectural Engineering and Design 19 6 Mahamadu, Mahdjoubi, and Booth (2017), Papadonikolaki et al.
Management (2016), Ahuja et al. (2016), Succar et al. (2012), Sebastian and Van
Berlo (2010), Elmualim and Gilder (2014)
International Journal of Project 12 2 Howard, Restrepo, and Chang (2017), Bryde et al. (2013)
Management
Construction Innovation 25 6 Ngowtanasuwan and Hadikusumo (2017), Sackey and Akotia (2017),
Poirier, Staub-French, and Forgues (2015a), Al Ahbabi and Alshawi
(2015), Enegbuma, Aliagha, and Ali (2014), Pour Rahimian, Ibrahim,
and Murphy (2014)
Engineering, Construction and 31 6 Hong, Hammad, Sepasgozar, and Akbarnezhad (2019), Ayinla Kudirat
Architectural Management and Adamu (2018), Rogers (2015), Jensen and Jóhannesson (2013),
Khosrowshahi and Arayici (2012), Peansupap and Walker (2005)
Construction Management and 18 4 Dowsett and Harty (2019), Papadonikolaki et al. (2017), Kokkonen and
Economics Alin (2016), Davies and Harty (2013)
Journal of Civil Engineering and 8 3 Juan et al. (2017), Samuelson and Björk (2013), Rezgui, Beach, and
Management Rana (2013)
Journal of Information Technology in 8 2 Arayici et al. (2012), Olatunji (2011b)
Construction
Computers in Human Behaviour 1 1 Wang and Song (2017)
Journal
Journal of the Chinese Institute of 1 1 Tsai et al. (2014)
Engineers
International Journal of Managing 9 1 Aranda-Mena et al. (2009)
Projects in Business
Structural Survey 8 1 Arayici et al. (2011a)
Journal of Financial Management of 2 1 Olatunji (2011a)
Property and Construction
Advanced Engineering Informatics 5 1 Cerovsek (2011)
Applied Mechanics and Materials 1 1 Giel and Issa (2013)
International Journal of Construction 2 1 Ku and Taiebat (2011)
Education & Research
International Journal of Research in 1 1 Bin Zakaria et al. (2013)
Engineering and Technology
Building Research and Information 3 1 Papadonikolaki and Wamelink (2017)
Conferences 23 5 Chunduri et al. (2013), Mayo, Giel, and Issa (2012), Succar (2010),
Homayouni, Neff, and Dossick (2010), Coates et al. (2010)
Stanford University (Report) 1 1 Kam et al. (2013)
Data collection
The following data were extracted from each article:
. Main topic area

. Summary of the paper including its key findings
Figure 1. The refinement steps in the SLR procedure and the resulting number of papers.
. Description of key BIM adoption and implementation enablers

. The source
. Full references
. Quality evaluation matters
Data analysis
A pre-defined (priori) coding approach was used to categorise the BIM adoption and implementation
enablers based on the foundational components in Business Process Change Management theory.
These include strategic initiatives, learning capacity, cultural readiness, knowledge capacity,
network relationships, change management, and process and performance management. A priori
coding approach is useful when there is much extant quality literature, knowledge from past
research, and/or existing theory that can be used as an initial organising style to develop or test
new frameworks or models (Crabtree & Miller, 1999). The taxonomy of BIM adoption and implemen-
tation enablers as well as synthesis of the identified 80 papers has been taken to conceptualise a BIM
implementation framework.
Results
The results of the literature review showed that, as a whole, there were eight different journals in
the area of BIM implementation to have published more than two papers (Figure 2). Automation in
Construction was the leading journal with a share of 15 percent of publications. Journal of Con-
struction Engineering and Management was the second leading journal in this area of research.
The remainder of journals as listed in Figure 2 has contributed approximately quality to this
area of research.
Figure 2. Distribution of BIM adoption and implementation papers based on publication source.
The results of the analysis led to the development of a framework to help ascertain the role and
significance of key enablers in managing the BIM implementation process. As a result, the following
BIM implementation framework (Figure 3) was conceptualised to analyse the implementation of BIM
within the broader context of business process change management. This framework centres on the
business environment and the characteristics of the AEC industry and/or its associated organisations.
Figure 3 is an illustration of the BIM implementation framework encompassing seven different
components including strategic initiatives, learning capacity, cultural readiness, knowledge capacity,
Figure 3. BIM implementation framework.

network relationships, change management, and process and performance management. Following
an in-depth literature review, key BIM enablers for each construct were identified and placed in front
of the component. The details of how each enabler influences BIM implementation in AEC organis-
ations and a categorisation of publications pertaining to these enablers is described in the following
section.
Strategic initiative enablers

As reflected in Table 3, strategic initiative comprises seven enablers: top management support, mech-
anism to incorporate user input, BIM-enabled vision, strategic implementation plan, BIM policy, sta-
keholder analysis, and cost–benefit-risk analysis.
Top management support is vital for successful BIM implementation, particularly during the initial
stages (Ahuja, Jain, Sawhney, & Arif, 2016; Arayici et al., 2011b; Juan, Lai, & Shih, 2017; Mom, Tsai, &
Hsieh, 2014; Nikas, Poulymenakou, & Kriaris, 2007; Ozorhon & Karahan, 2017; Son et al., 2015). In the
context of this research, top management support refers to the extent to which top management
values the significance of and becomes involved in the BIM adoption and implementation process.
In this process, top managers may perform facilitating roles pertaining to encouragement, commit-
ment, support and empowerment. Top management’s commitment, willingness to provide the
necessary resources and their involvement are critical (Son et al., 2015). Top management is
tasked with goal-setting, the development of new organisational structures, roles, and responsibilities
and works closely with BIM leaders to accelerate diffusion and oversee the successful implementation
of BIM tools and concepts.
Though supportive and committed managers may employ their power to address a number of
concerns throughout the BIM implementation process, they are not the only leaders of this
process. BIM initiation can take either a top-down ‘push’, middle-out (middle-up-down), ‘push-pull’
or bottom-up ‘pull’ approach (Succar & Kassem, 2015). In the organisational context, this implies
that BIM initiators might be the front-liner employees, middle managers or top managers. BIM
initiators can assume a number of leadership roles such as communicating to software vendors, train-
ing and supervising potential adopters, leading BIM pilot projects and developing BIM policies and
plans. As they may be on the frontlines or in the middle management tier of the organisational hier-
archy, BIM initiators may initially demonstrate an informal or emerging leadership structure. Regard-
less, a high level of management support is likely to lead to higher perceived usefulness of BIM
systems and their success (Wang & Song, 2017).
A clear vision, strategy, implementation plan and policy are perquisites for successful BIM
implementation (Chunduri, Kreider, & Messner, 2013; Succar et al., 2013). The review indicates that
a BIM implementation plan may comprise goals and objectives, BIM related roles and responsibilities,
a scope of implementation, process flows, a timeframe, and supportive organisational and technical
infrastructures. A structured training plan which includes expected training requirements and
resources should also be established. BIM implementation may also involve a cost-risk-benefit analy-
sis to ensure that investment will increase profit (Mom et al., 2014). Given that an enhanced manage-
ment of BIM implementation is dependent upon an affiliation with BIM processes, policies, and
technologies as well as organisational context, adequate knowledge of BIM and its associated risks
and benefits is important to the business processes that improve productivity and performance.
Further, relevant and rigorous BIM policy documents (guidelines, standards,etc.) should be in place
as a set of guiding practices (descriptive, prescriptive and/or mandate) that a particular AEC firm
needs to comply with in order to ensure the achievement of sustained performance.
A BIM-enabled vision refers to the understanding of the role that BIM should play in the organis-
ation and aids firms in identifying success criteria and in tracking key goals. The vision must be coher-
ent, integrative and broad in scope (Linderoth, 2010). It must additionally be powerful enough to
engender commitment across a range of levels. BIM vision guides transformative initiatives within
AEC firms and can, therefore, be regarded as a ‘promotional metaphor’ (Miettinen & Paavola,
Table 3. Strategic initiative enablers for BIM implementation.

Cost–
Top Mechanism to BIM- Strategic Strategic benefit-
management incorporate enabled implementation stakeholder BIM risk
Author(s) support user’s input vision plan analysis policy analysis
Dowsett and X
Harty (2019)
Liao and Teo X X
(2018)
Juan et al. (2017) X
Lines and X X
Vardireddy
(2017)
Wang and Song X X X
(2017)
Howard et al. X
(2017)
Sackey and X
Akotia (2017)
Ozorhon and X
Karahan (2017)
Ahuja et al. X
(2016)
Son et al. (2015) X
Sackey et al. X X X
(2015)
Lee et al. (2015) X X X
Poirier et al. X X
(2015a)
Poirier et al. X
(2015b)
Tsai et al. (2014) X
Enegbuma et al. X
(2014)
Won et al. (2013) X
Chunduri et al. X X
(2013)
Jensen and X
Jóhannesson
(2013)
Davies and Harty X
(2013)
Khosrowshahi X
and Arayici
(2012)
Arayici et al. X
(2012)
Mom et al. X
(2014)
Jung and Joo X X
(2011)
Arayici et al. X
(2011b)
Arayici et al. X X X
(2011a)
Coates et al. X
(2010)
Sebastian and X
Van Berlo
(2010)
Aranda-Mena X X
et al. (2009)
Succar (2009) X
Nikas et al. X
(2007)
2014). Establishing BIM as a means to merely promote technological capability negates the role of
human and social requirements within BIM implementation. In addition, considering BIM as a reac-
tion to the need for cost reduction and control diminishes BIM as an expense that should be strin-
gently monitored. Consequently, this can limit the resources allocated to BIM implementation as
well as discourage its capacity to change business processes and outcomes. Hence, it is critical for
organisations to have a clear understanding on how BIM adoption supports their organisational
vision, strategies and objectives. Failure to do so may result in organisations missing out on the
benefits of BIM.
Various stakeholders and supply chain partners may have different perceptions of BIM, creating
confusion over what the unique characteristics and benefits actually are (Barlish & Sullivan, 2012).
Moreover, BIM enabled business process is reliant on what is meant by BIM (Malik, Kirti, &
Stephen, 2012). Different people use the term ‘BIM’ to mean different things which causes much con-
fusion about what the unique characteristics and real benefits of BIM are. Understanding the possible
impact implementation may have on these actors and additionally, clarifying the definitions and
scope of BIM during the planning stages may help BIM leaders to alleviate uncertainty and
manage the process more effectively (Arayici et al., 2011a). BIM-related definitions can be extracted
from BIM standards and/or online BIM dictionary platform (Succar & Bolpagni, 2020).
Furthermore, various BIM-authoring software and technologies are available in the market. As
employees have different perceptions and attitudes towards these sets of different software
(Arayici et al., 2011b), proper vendor selection during the initial planning is crucial (Arayici et al.,
2011b; Khosrowshahi & Arayici, 2012; Tsai, Mom, & Hsieh, 2014; Won, Lee, Dossick, & Messner,
2013). Won et al. (2013) found the key criteria for selecting BIM-authoring software as: the degree
that software application supports services of interest, availability of successful cases of the BIM-
authoring software application, interoperability of a software application with other applications,
expected return on investment, the capabilities of the software to handle large models (scalability),
application of software by major supply chain and business partners, and its perceived ease of use.
Learning capacity enablers

Another key component for BIM implementation is creating an environment conducive to learning.
Learning orientation organisations distinguish environments where employees feel uninhibited by
the fear of failure and simultaneously, willingly to participate in experimentation and risk-taking by
‘the presence of interrelated practices and beliefs within an organisation that enable employees to
develop their own skills and learning’ (Klein & Knight, 2005). Kokkonen and Alin (2016) recognise
reflective learning amidst BIM organisational change as a form of ‘deconstruction’ (different way of
performing work) and ‘reconstruction’ (correcting something for the better). It is discussed that,
through a process of ‘learning-by-doing’, members can more readily identify efficiencies in BIM
implementation (Arayici et al., 2011b; Arayici, Egbu, & Coates, 2012). Initial small-scale implemen-
tation and pilot projects are perceived as useful approaches that allow learning-by-doing to take
place. Companies should then link lessons learned to their overarching strategy.
AEC organisations need to develop informal learning networks in the form of a community of
practices for knowledge acquisition to take place. Community of practices, which is defined as
‘groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it
better as they interact regularly’ (Wenger, Mcdermott, & Snyder, 2002) helps firms leverage the
tacit knowledge that is embedded within individuals. Ultimately, this can aid in the facilitation of
knowledge sharing drawn from experience (Arayici et al., 2011b).
Successful completion of BIM task domains, particularly complex tasks, is dependent on the struc-
ture and design of tasks, the resources allocated to learners, and the competencies of individuals
responsible to complete tasks. To create a learning environment and to enhance learning capacity,
candidate competencies need to be identified, measured and tracked (Boud, 2013). According to
Succar et al. (2013), individual competency assessments provide valuable information on (1)
identifying employee knowledge and experience; (2) identifying areas for improvement in training
and knowledge sharing practices; (3) guiding individuals to seek help when necessary; (4) evaluating
employment applications; and (5) matching competency to specific roles or project requirements. An
individual competency certification as a BIM qualification assessment can be used to facilitate the
recognition of the key expertise within the industry.
The term ‘expertise’ is broad in scope however refers mostly to the possession of extensive knowl-
edge about particular tools, techniques or managerial domains of the BIM implementation process.
The lack of BIM expertise is a major obstacle to BIM implementation (Eadie, Browne, Odeyinka,
Mckeown, & Mcniff, 2013; Ku & Taiebat, 2011) and often results from the misconstruction of
meaning between the terms ‘skill’, ‘competency’ and ‘expertise’. While ‘skill’ is what an individual
can do and ‘competency’ is ‘the acquisition and consolidation of a set of skills needed for perform-
ance in one or more domains’ (Elliot & Dweck, 2013), ‘expertise’ is the ‘acquisition and consolidation
of a set of skills needed for a high level of mastery in one or more domains’. Necessarily, experts are
those who have ‘developed their competencies to a high level’ (Elliot & Dweck, 2013). BIM experts
must not only possess superior software skills but also the ability to develop a thorough understand-
ing of BIM-enabled processes. Skill and competency can, therefore, be considered subsets of exper-
tise. The learning capacity enablers are summarised in Table 4.
Cultural readiness enablers

When change takes place within an organisation, its members may not realise the need for change.
Some organisations harbour a fear-based culture; mistakes and errors are not allowed, and
Table 4. Learning capacity enablers for BIM implementation.

Individual
Collegial BIM competency Learning-by- Community of Learning from past
Author(s) help expertise assessment doing practice experiences
Wu et al. (2018a) X
Wu et al. (2018b) X
Hosseini et al. X
(2018)
Sackey and Akotia X
(2017)
Ozorhon and X X
Karahan (2017)
Ahn et al. (2016) X X
Ahuja et al. (2016) X X
Kokkonen and Alin X X
(2016)
Sackey et al. (2015) X
Poirier et al. X
(2015a)
Miettinen and X
Paavola (2014)
Pour Rahimian X
et al. (2014)
Eadie et al. (2013) X
Succar et al. (2013) X
Mayo et al. (2012) X
Arayici et al. X
(2011b)
Arayici et al. X
(2011a)
Ku and Taiebat X
(2011)
Peansupap and X X
Walker (2005)
employees become used to concealing their errors. However, BIM initiatives flourish in open and safe
environments (Grilo & Jardim-Goncalves, 2010) if mistakes are allowed to be perceived as improve-
ment opportunities.
Changes resulting from the introduction of BIM may cause resistance. Effective communication,
which allows individuals to feel more involved with the implementation process and dually, informed
about organisational practices, expectations and goals, is therefore critical (Ahn et al., 2016; Dossick &
Neff, 2010; Gu & London, 2010). Ultimately, an organisational culture that is receptive to change and
that comprises shared common values and goals is most likely to overcome the barriers to implemen-
tation. Managers must also involve users as early as possible. BIM user’s input should be managed in
obtaining their requirements, comments, reactions and approval (Aranda-Mena, Crawford, Chevez, &
Froese, 2009; Arayici et al., 2011b; Won et al., 2013). By doing so, resistance to change can be
diminished.
The presence of an internal change agent (leaders) with the necessary knowledge, experience and
leadership skills to communicate the benefits of BIM is critical (Bin Zakaria, Mohamed Ali, Tarmizi
Haron, Marshall-Ponting, & Abd Hamid, 2013). Leaders of this kind are accountable for strategy
implementation and the diffusion of BIM philosophy and benefits. User acceptance of BIM tools
and systems is vital to organisational performance (Lee, Yu, & Jeong, 2015; Wang & Song, 2017)
and implementation leaders must, therefore, identify and analyse the sources of resistance as well
as employ strategies to deal with them effectively in order to drive consensus throughout the
implementation process (Blayse & Manley, 2004). Change agents are also required to develop skills
and abilities on behaviour modification and to aid the transition of attitudes and habits towards
BIM tools and concepts (Succar et al., 2013). The extent to which each cultural readiness enabler is
covered in the existing literature is shown in Table 5.
IT leveragibility and knowledge-sharing capability enablers

Knowledge sharing and communication play a pivotal role in alleviating resistance to change and
reducing the risk and uncertainty associated with new systems, processes and technologies (Hender-
son, 2010). Knowledge sharing further requires the development of storage and retrieval mechanisms
for easy access to information that is utilised for adjusting strategic direction and problem-solving.
The challenge for each individual firm is to transfer and utilise the knowledge and lessons learnt
from BIM implementation efforts for coming projects (Linderoth, 2010). Development of a BIM knowl-
edge management (KM) system facilitates the codification of internal routines, the learning experi-
ence of employees, builds upon knowledge, coordinates complex change activities, diffuses
knowledge and ultimately increases organisational dynamic capability (Ahn et al., 2016). Without
developing a KM system, firms are handicapped in their ability to properly capture and re-use
gained knowledge and experience. IT leveragability and knowledge-sharing capability enablers
covered in the existing literature are shown in Table 6.
Table 5. Cultural readiness enablers for BIM implementation.

Existence of change Early user Open communication and information
Author(s) agents involvement sharing
Liao and Teo (2018) X
Cidik et al. (2017) X
Lines and Vardireddy (2017) X X
Ahn et al. (2016) X
Poirier et al. (2015b) X
Miettinen and Paavola X
(2014)
Bin Zakaria et al. (2013) X
Chunduri et al. (2013) X
Dossick and Neff (2010) X
Table 6. IT leveragability and knowledge-sharing capability enablers for BIM implementation.

Author(s) BIM-based KM system Use of communication technologies
Hong et al. (2019) X
Lines and Vardireddy (2017) X
Ozorhon and Karahan (2017)
Ahn et al. (2016) X
Volk et al. (2014) X
Arayici et al. (2012) X
Jung and Joo (2011) X
Gu and London (2010) X
Nikas et al. (2007) X
Network relationships enablers

The organisations in charge of driving the implementation process need to work collaboratively with
external vendors (Arayici et al., 2011b), consultants (Sebastian & Van Berlo, 2010), supply chain part-
ners (Papadonikolaki, Verbraeck, & Wamelink, 2017; Papadonikolaki, Vrijhoef, & Wamelink, 2016) as
well as internal divisions such as R&D (Cerovsek, 2011) to effectively deal with information exchange,
integration, IT systems and software problems. The availability of high-quality external parties such as
consultants and software vendors is particularly important as most AEC firms, particularly small and
medium enterprises (SMEs), do not usually possess the in-house expertise or resources to deal with
BIM implementation. Consultants may introduce requirements for and analysis of business needs,
develop protocols and documentation, and make recommendations for suitable computer hardware
and software. At times, software vendors may play the consultant role as well.
Building strategic and enduring relationships with external entities and supply chain partners is of
paramount significance when BIM implementation is mandated. Maintaining close and trustworthy
relationships with external entities that possess rich information in BIM offers opportunities to
accumulate knowledge and learning regarding BIM implementation aspects. Inter-organisational
and cross-functional (intra-organisational) network relationship enablers are shown in Table 7.
Change management enablers

As BIM implementation has the potential to raise resistance among employees, the presence of a
change management programme is crucial (Arayici et al., 2011b; Coates et al., 2010). BIM uptake
should not take place until a positive attitude is formed and sustained among the potential users.
Hence, managing the readiness for change is a critical facilitator for BIM implementation (Khosrow-
shahi & Arayici, 2012). The sources and types of resistance are many and can be identified by ques-
tionnaire, interview and observation methods (Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007). Further,
proficient and well-designed training and education programmes help to upskill staff and expand
their understanding about BIM concepts and tools (Ahn et al., 2016). Training and education may
Table 7. Network relationship enablers for BIM implementation.

Inter-organisational coordination and Cross-functional coordination and
Author(s) collaboration collaboration
Cao et al. (2018) X
Dowsett and Harty (2019) X
Hosseini et al. (2018) X
Papadonikolaki and Wamelink X
(2017)
Ozorhon and Karahan (2017) X
Papadonikolaki et al. (2016) X
Sackey et al. (2015) X
Jensen and Jóhannesson (2013) X
Cerovsek (2011) X
Homayouni et al. (2010) X
fall within broader categories of individual characteristics, training intervention design and delivery,
workplace contextual influences, and training performance evaluation (Burke & Hutchins, 2007;
Gegenfurtner, Veermans, Festner, & Gruber, 2009).
Individual characteristics range from attitudes towards training, motivation, and personality traits
as well as self-efficacy, expectancies and training reactions. Training intervention, design and delivery
also should be envisaged via analysis, learning objectives, content relevance, instructional strategies,
the promotion of favourable perceptions and readiness in the pre-training stages and learning
assessments (Gegenfurtner et al., 2009). Workplace contextual factors comprise organisational
culture, job characteristics as well as work-environment support (Burke & Hutchins, 2007; Gegenfurt-
ner et al., 2009). Training performance evaluation should incorporate assessments of learning out-
comes, behavioural reactions and expectations on whether training programmes have enhanced
trainee values and to what degree new knowledge and skills have resulted in improved job perform-
ance. Comprehensive training and education is critical in meeting and exceeding end-users’ needs
and is equally essential in facilitating long-term focus on continued improvement (Peansupap &
Walker, 2006). A summary of BIM related change management enablers is shown in Table 8.
Process and performance management enablers

Key process and performance management tools can be categorised in different taxonomies includ-
ing: (1) those that aim to measure the status of BIM implementation within the internal context of
organisations and projects such as capability and maturity assessment tools; (2) those that aim to
facilitate the external benchmarking such as BIM cloud score (Du, Liu, & Issa, 2014); and (3) those
that aim to determine the effectiveness of BIM implementation efforts such as BIM benefit assessment
tools.
Several capability and maturity assessment tools have been developed to measure and improve
BIM performance (Kam, Senaratna, Mckinney, Xiao, & Song, 2013; Liang et al., 2016; Sebastian & Van
Berlo, 2010; Succar, Sher, & Williams, 2012). The BIM maturity model allows organisations to gain an
insight into the reality of their implementation processes, and whether and how they should pursue
higher maturity levels. The purpose and application of these tools may range from assessing readi-
ness, to organisational capabilities and internal benchmarking. Differences exist between maturity
models and tools in terms of their scope and applicability, however, those with clear and well-
defined stages can guide organisations to higher maturity levels. For example, the UK maturity
model is more an industry roadmap and ill-equipped in assessing the abilities of organisations
(Succar, 2015). Maturity assessment tools and models can be broadly grouped into project-oriented
ones such as VDC Scorecard (Kam et al., 2013), organisation-oriented tools such as BIM MM (Succar
et al., 2012) and Macro maturity model (Succar & Kassem, 2015). Hence, measurements targets need
to be spelled out before the selection of BIM tools (Wu, Xu, Mao, & Li, 2017). While a maturity model
may serve as a reference framework from which the status of current BIM implementation should be
evaluated, the assessment methods/tools (questionnaire, interviews, etc.) should be employed as a
means of collecting data and examining BIM-enabled processes and components. BIM leaders and
managers then can utilise the information obtained from performance assessments to ensure the
performance of BIM practices is complaint with established BIM plans and policies.
Central to maturity assessment is the concept of process perspective. In process perspective, organ-
isations are considered as a system of processes connected together in an integrated manner (Benner
& Tushman, 2003). This implies that BIM performance assessment can be conducted through the lens of
input-process-output model (Abdirad, 2017). Inputs refer to BIM implementation prerequisites such as
BIM tools, policy documents, and users’ requirements. BIM processes involve all business
processes (ordering of work activities) and interactions between BIM users and with BIM-authoring
technologies and are inclusive of factors such as workflows and collaboration and they can be visual-
ised and analysed through business process mapping techniques. Outputs refer to the results of BIM-
enabled processes and activities such as models and quality information (some outputs are inputs to
Table 8. Change management enablers for BIM implementation.

Rewards and recognition Training and Supportive Management readiness
Author(s) (incentives) education supervisor for change
Hong et al. (2019) X
Dowsett and Harty (2019) X
Fountain and Langar (2018) X
Siebelink et al. (2018) X
Wu et al. (2018a) X
Wu et al. (2018b) X
Liao and Teo (2018) X
Ayinla Kudirat and Adamu X
(2018)
Lines and Vardireddy (2017) X
Ngowtanasuwan and X X
Hadikusumo (2017)
Juan et al. (2017) X X
Howard et al. (2017) X
Zhou et al. (2017) X
Ozorhon and Karahan (2017) X
Ahn et al. (2016) X
Rogers (2015) X
Poirier et al. (2015a) X
Poirier et al. (2015b) X X
Sackey et al. (2015) X X
Tsai et al. (2014) X
Elmualim and Gilder (2014) X
Enegbuma et al. (2014) X
Samuelson and Björk (2013) X
Rezgui et al. (2013) X
Bryde et al. (2013) X
Eadie et al. (2013) X
Khosrowshahi and Arayici X
(2012)
Arayici et al. (2011a) X
Arayici et al. (2011b) X
Olatunji (2011a) X X
Olatunji (2011b) X
Gu and London (2010) X
Aranda-Mena et al. (2009) X
Nikas et al. (2007) X
Peansupap and Walker (2005) X X
successor processes and the final outputs of a BIM-enabled project that are hand over to a client are
called ‘BIM deliverables’). There is an imperative for companies to evaluate their outcomes and it is
crucial to establish a distinction between outputs and outcomes. While outputs refer to short-term
results and benefits, outcomes deal with long-term benefits and effects such as increased business
performance.
A number of BIM benefit assessment and management tools exist in the extant literature. BIM
benefit assessment tools/metrics can be divided into project-oriented (Barlish & Sullivan, 2012;
Bryde, Broquetas, & Volm, 2013) as well as strategic and organisational-oriented ones (Love, Mat-
thews, Simpson, Hill, & Olatunji, 2014). While the project-based benefits of BIM such as Rework
Reduction and Clash Detection will be immediately perceived, strategic and organisational BIM
benefits may take longer to materialise. Benefit management involves a spectrum of stages such
as identification, measurement, realisation and analysis. This enables BIM leaders and managers to
distinguish the value-adding and non-value adding processes and to investigate whether and in
what process areas improvement actions are required to maximise benefits. BIM benefit assessment
may serve a number of other purposes including (1) elucidating the different mechanisms and
benefits of BIM enable the establishment of business cases; (2) enhancing perceptions about the
benefits of BIM use from the perspective of different supply chain parties (which not only provides
insights about their expectations but also can be utilised as a mechanism to reduce their potential
resistance to changes); (3) enabling the comparison of BIM with other available tools and justifying
companies’ investments in BIM; and (4) as a means of creating awareness about how the combination
of different BIM outputs will contribute to the achievement of expected outcomes.
A BIM benefits-assessment approach should be aligned with organisational BIM strategy, based on
balanced scorecard (BSC) approach, and, to be realistic and valid, should be complemented by all
functions involved in BIM implementation process. BIM implementation entails large investments
across many firms, and financial aspects, therefore, remain highly important (cost effectiveness). It
is worth to note that BIM benefits as effectiveness indicators should be served as measures of objec-
tive achievement. Measures involving the use of resources should be viewed as efficiency measures
(input/output or output/input ratios).
Throughout the BIM implementation process, it is essential that companies undertake benchmark-
ing by continuously measuring and comparing their business processes against comparable pro-
cesses in other leading organisations. External benchmarking tools and metrics allow a
comparison between one enterprise’s BIM performance and that of their industry peers (Du et al.,
2014). The intention is to obtain the relevant information organisations require to identify and
implement sustained improvement (Watson, 1993). Successful BIM implementation largely
depends on embedded tacit knowledge and is therefore difficult to replicate. According to Baden-
Fuller and Winter (2005), effective cross-boundary knowledge transfer is typically accomplished by
moving knowledgeable individuals between organisations, creating industry networks among
members of different organisations, or by replicating sets of practices through regular and repeated
observations. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to BIM implementation (Almuntaser, Sanni-
Anibire Muizz, & Hassanain Mohammad, 2018), thereby each AEC firm should meticulously
examine their contingencies to appropriately align BIM best practices with business processes. The
extent to which each BIM related process and performance management enabler is covered in the
exiting literature is shown in Table 9.
Conclusion
BIM implementation is a complex and challenging process. There exists much obscurity over clear
BIM implementation guidelines at the organisational level. The difficulties associated with implemen-
tation are a primary factor in mainstream AEC organisations’ inability to realise the benefits BIM has to
offer. Successful BIM implementation requires significant structural change in existing construction
business processes. As an organisation goes through a major transformation in the course of BIM
implementation, meticulous planning and management is required. Successful BIM implementation
ultimately demands a socio-technical system approach. We believe that strategic initiatives, cultural
readiness, learning capacity, knowledge capability and collaborative network relationships uphold
the necessary change environment to help AEC firms successfully implement BIM and realise the
affilitated business outcomes and benefits it presents.
The SLR and synthesis of key BIM enablers represents an important contribution to the organis-
ation of the BIM implementation research area in (1) providing a taxonomy of BIM adoption and
implementation enablers; (2) discussing the role of key BIM adoption and implementation enablers;
(3) clarifying the confusion that exists between concepts, approaches, methods, techniques, and
components of organisational BIM implementation; and (4) highlights the knowledge gaps that
exist in the extant studies. Through a review of the existing literature, this paper has identified a
total of 27 BIM adoption and implementation enablers. Furthermore, training and education, top
management support, BIM implementation plan and BIM expertise were found to be the most
cited enablers in the existing literature. The review suggests that there are a number of other influen-
cing BIM adoption and implementation enablers that were not holistically explored. The paper
addresses this identified gap and provides a holistic interpretation of key enablers which are
valued as significant factors influencing BIM adoption and implementation. A better understanding
Table 9. Process and performance management enablers for BIM implementation.

External benchmarking tools/ Capability and maturity assessment Benefit assessment tools/
Author(s) metrics tools/metrics metrics
Yilmaz et al. (2019) X
Wu et al. (2018a) X
Siebelink et al. (2018) X
Mahamadu et al. (2017) X X
Lines and Vardireddy X
(2017)
Liu et al. (2017) X
Giel and Issa (2016) X
Liang et al. (2016) X
Chen et al. (2016) X
Al Ahbabi and Alshawi X
(2015)
Du et al. (2014) X
Love et al. (2014) X
Giel and Issa (2013) X
Kam et al. (2013) X
Bryde et al. (2013) X
Barlish and Sullivan X
(2012)
Succar et al. (2012) X
Jung and Joo (2011) X
Coates et al. (2010) X
Sebastian and Van Berlo X
(2010)
Succar (2010) X
of the identified key enablers could guide AEC firms in improving BIM adoption and implementation
processes.
Opportunities for future research

Keywords in every publication are a representation of the core content of the research explored
(Hsin-Ning & Pei-Chun, 2010). Constructing a network illustrating the relationship between these key-
words is an informative pursuit and provides knowledge behind the investigation at hand (Waltman,
Van Eck, & Noyons, 2010). A co-occurrence network of keywords can be created via the use of Gephi
software, which is suggested for investigating keyword co-occurrence relationships in construction
management literature (Hosseini, Pärn, Edwards, Papadonikolaki, & Oraee, 2018). In the context of
Gephi, there are several different algorithms for visualising how different keywords interact with
each other, however, the Fruchterman-Reingold algorithm is suggested to be most suitable within
the context of scientific literature (Nasirian et al., 2019).
Figure 4 is the Fruchterman-Reingold presentation of keywords in BIM implementation literature.
The figure encompasses 25 nodes and 147 edges constructed by the formation of a pool of keywords
extracted from the papers identified in this literature review. This has been conducted in accordance
with the following criteria: the terms with similar meaning or implications were merged to avoid con-
fusion, several general terms beyond the scope of this study were eliminated and in some cases, if the
authors assumed the indication of a keyword but inclusion of that keyword did not contribute to the
co-occurrence network, that specific keyword was excluded. If a keyword was not included in the key-
words section of a specific paper but inclusion of that keyword is relevant for the purposes of this
study, that keyword was added to the keywords co-occurrence network.
Interpretation of Gephi figures is conducted pertaining to the attributes of nodes and edges. Each
node represents a keyword. The size of every node is an indication of the number of repetitions of
that keyword in the literature, which happens simultaneously with another given keyword existing
in the current Gephi chart. To this end, when a keyword appears alone, it is not considered in co-
Figure 4. The Fruchterman-Reingold presentation of keywords in BIM implementation literature.
occurrence network presentation. Every edge connecting two nodes implies that the keywords cor-
responding to the nodes appear together in the literature. The thickness of every edge is an indi-
cation of the number of publications investigating a particular keyword simultaneously.
Figure 4 visually displays the extent to which each enabler has drawn researcher attention.
Among the identified BIM enablers, training and education, and top management support were
the most cited enablers followed by BIM implementation plan, BIM expertise and open communi-
cation. Whilst mechanisms to incorporate user input, existence of leadership and/or change agents,
individual competency assessment, learning-by-doing, and BIM-based KM System have received
moderate attention, other mechanisms have garnered far less acclaim. A comprehensive, empirical
investigation is required to assess the definitive role of each enabler across different AEC organis-
ations and their relative importance to firms at different stages of BIM implementation.
The co-occurrence relationship in this graph indicates that, in the majority of situations, top man-
agement support, training and education and BIM expertise are investigated together. A considerable
number of BIM enablers are not investigated collectively. For example, in this graph, there is no con-
nection between stakeholder analysis and some other BIM enablers such as risk-benefit analysis and
change agent. These enablers are valuable in enhancing understanding of the drivers of BIM
adoption and implementation. However, implementation is a dynamic stage-based process and

investigating enablers per se provides only a static and therefore inadequate view for describing
effective management of BIM implementation in AEC organisations. Due to the nature of BIM
implementation, the degrees to which key enablers can support BIM uptake might differ from
stage to stage. Moreover, these degrees are acutely dependent on organisational context factors
such as corporate culture and structure. Therefore, future studies must consider the organisational
context variables arising from different stages of the adoption and implementation process.
With regards to RQ3, a number of other existing research limitations and knowledge gaps on BIM
adoption and implementation have been identified. Currently, there is no consensus on the definition
of BIM in the AEC industry. The term is defined differently and applied to a broad range of contexts
and purposes, thereby obscuring the potential for a single coherent interpretation. This inconsistency
further complicates understanding of BIM and diminishes its potential to improve productivity within
the AEC industry. This may also contribute to substantial variations in research findings, thereby hin-
dering the reliable comparison of findings across studies. A commonly used term is therefore
required.
A number of existing BIM studies misconstrue the role of top management with a presumed top-
down approach (e.g. Tsai et al., 2014). There is a tendency to conflate leading and managing BIM
implementation as a single generic term and conceive top management roles and competencies
as identical to BIM leadership roles and competencies. A single explanation of BIM leadership and
management is therefore required. Further research is also encouraged to investigate BIM leadership
competencies and the mechanisms through which leaders may facilitate BIM diffusion and utilisation
in the organisational context.
Training is found to be one of the most highly cited key enablers capable of precipitating success-
ful BIM implementation. Despite this, there remains a limited number of theoretical and empirical
research on BIM training best practices, particularly with respect to intervention design and delivery
aspects from the perspective of different construction supply chain disciplines.
The majority of BIM maturity models are perceived to be descriptive rather than prescriptive and
lack practical guidance on how these should be employed (e.g. Succar et al., 2012). Scarcity of empiri-
cal studies may limit the validity, usefulness and application of BIM maturity models within AEC firms.
Future research should, therefore, be conducted on the prescriptive assessment of organisational BIM
maturity. Moreover, there is an insufficient amount of theoretical and empirical studies to investigate
whether and how an increase in the maturity level of an organisation results in improved organis-
ational business performance. Specifically, this investigation requires the viewpoints of a multitude
of diverse parties implicit in BIM-enabled processes and functions.
The available BIM benefit assessment studies largely fail to consider the dynamics involved in BIM
adoption and implementation (e.g. Barlish & Sullivan, 2012) and/or narrowly focus on the associated
realisation aspects (Love et al., 2014). However, benefit management involves a spectrum of stages
such as identification, realisation, measurement, and analysis. Furthermore, the perceived BIM
benefits can vary between project phases as well as different organisations. These variations may
additionally be influenced by discipline or BIM maturity level. Potential BIM benefits may be per-
ceived indirectly through one or more intermediary links. Another significant consideration lies in
the time interval for a given BIM benefit to materialise. These issues call for deeper investigations
of the BIM benefit management approach.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the support of Queensland University of Technology (QUT).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Behzad Abbasnejad http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0415-239X
Alireza Ahankoob http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2140-5608
References
Abdirad, H. (2017). Metric-based BIM implementation assessment: A review of research and practice. Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, 13(1), 52–78.
Ahankoob, A., Manley, K., & Abbasnejad, B. (2019). The role of contractors’ Building Information Modelling (BIM) experi-
ence in realising the potential values of BIM. International Journal of Construction Management, 1–12. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15623599.2019.1639126
Ahmed, A. L., & Kassem, M. (2018). A unified BIM adoption taxonomy: Conceptual development, empirical validation and
application. Automation in Construction, 96, 103–127.
Ahn, Y. H., Kwak, Y. H., & Suk, S. J. (2016). Contractors’ transformation strategies for adopting building information mod-
eling. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(1), 05015005.
Ahuja, R., Jain, M., Sawhney, A., & Arif, M. (2016). Adoption of BIM by architectural firms in India: Technology–organiz-
ation–environment perspective. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(4), 311–330.
Al Ahbabi, M., & Alshawi, M. (2015). BIM for client organisations: A continuous improvement approach. Construction
Innovation, 15(4), 402–408.
Almuntaser, T., Sanni-Anibire Muizz, O., & Hassanain Mohammad, A. (2018). Adoption and implementation of BIM – case
study of a Saudi Arabian AEC firm. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(3), 608–624.
Aranda-Mena, G., Crawford, J., Chevez, A., & Froese, T. (2009). Building Information Modelling demystified: Does it make
business sense to adopt BIM? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(3), 419–434.
Arayici, Y., Coates, P., Koskela, L., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2011a). BIM adoption and implementation for
architectural practices. Structural Survey, 29(1), 7–25.
Arayici, Y., Coates, P., Koskela, L., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2011b). Technology adoption in the BIM
implementation for lean architectural practice. Automation in Construction, 20(2), 189–195.
Arayici, Y., Egbu, C. O., & Coates, S. P. (2012). Building Information Modelling (BIM) implementation and remote construc-
tion projects: Issues, challenges, and critiques. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 17, 75–92.
Ayinla Kudirat, O., & Adamu, Z. (2018). Bridging the digital divide gap in BIM technology adoption. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 25(10), 1398–1416.
Baden-Fuller, C., & Winter, S. G. (2005). Replicating organizational knowledge: principles or templates? Available at SSRN
1118013.
Barlish, K., & Sullivan, K. (2012). How to measure the benefits of BIM – a case study approach. Automation in Construction,
24, 149–159.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma
revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.
Bin Zakaria, Z., Mohamed Ali, N., Tarmizi Haron, A., Marshall-Ponting, A., & Abd Hamid, Z. (2013). Exploring the adoption of
Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Malaysian construction industry: A qualitative approach. International
Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 2(8), 384–395.
Blayse, A. M., & Manley, K. (2004). Key influences on construction innovation. Construction Innovation, 4(3), 143–154.
Boud, D. (2013). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. New York: Routledge.
Brooks, T.J., & Lucas, J.D. (2014). A study to support BIM turnover to facility managers for use after construction. Proceedings
of 2014 international conference on computing in civil and building, Orlando, FL, USA (pp. 243–250).
Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. (2013). The project benefits of Building Information Modelling (BIM). International
Journal of Project Management, 31(7), 971–980.
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development
Review, 6(3), 263–296.
Cao, D., Li, H., Wang, G., Luo, X., & Tan, D. (2018). Relationship network structure and organizational competitiveness:
Evidence from BIM implementation practices in the construction industry. Journal of Management in Engineering,
34(3), 04018005.
Cerovsek, T. (2011). A review and outlook for a ‘building Information model’ (BIM): A multi-standpoint framework for tech-
nological development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(2), 224–244.
Chan, A. P. C., & Owusu, E. K. (2017). Corruption forms in the construction industry: Literature review. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 143(8), 04017057.
Chau, K. W. (1997). The ranking of construction management journals. Construction Management and Economics, 15(4),
387–398.
Chen, Y., Dib, H., Cox, R. F., Shaurette, M., & Vorvoreanu, M. (2016). Structural equation model of building information
modeling maturity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(9), 04016032.
Chunduri, S., Kreider, R., & Messner, J. I. (2013). A case study implementation of the BIM planning procedures for facility
owners. Architectural engineering conference 2013: Building solutions for architectural engineering - proceedings
of the 2013 architectural engineering national conference, State College, Pennsylvania, USA (pp. 691–701). AEI.
Cidik, M. S., Boyd, D., & Thurairajah, N. (2017). Innovative capability of building information modeling in construction
design. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(8), 04017047.
Coates, P., Arayici, Y., Koskela, K., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2010). The key performance indicators of the BIM
implementation process. In The International conference on computing in civil and building engineering (pp. 157).
Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.
Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (1999). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davies, R., & Harty, C. (2013). Measurement and exploration of individual beliefs about the consequences of Building
Information Modelling use. Construction Management and Economics, 31(11), 1110–1127.
Dossick, C. S., & Neff, G. (2010). Organizational divisions in BIM-enabled commercial construction. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 136(4), 459–467.
Dowsett, R. M., & Harty, C. F. (2019). Assessing the implementation of BIM – an information systems approach.
Construction Management and Economics, 37(10), 551–566.
Du, J., Liu, R., & Issa, R. R. A. (2014). BIM cloud score: Benchmarking BIM performance. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 140(11), 04014054.
Eadie, R., Browne, M., Odeyinka, H., Mckeown, C., & Mcniff, S. (2013). BIM implementation throughout the UK construction
project lifecycle: An analysis. Automation in Construction, 36, 145–151.
Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2013). Handbook of competence and motivation. New York: Guilford Publications.
Elmualim, A., & Gilder, J. (2014). BIM: Innovation in design management, influence and challenges of implementation.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 10(3–4), 183–199.
Enegbuma, W. I., Aliagha, U. G., & Ali, K. N. (2014). Preliminary Building Information Modelling adoption model in Malaysia.
Construction Innovation, 14(4), 408–432.
Fountain, J., & Langar, S. (2018). Building information modeling (BIM) outsourcing among general contractors.
Automation in Construction, 95, 107–117.
Gegenfurtner, A., Veermans, K., Festner, D., & Gruber, H. (2009). Integrative literature review: Motivation to transfer train-
ing: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 8(3), 403–423.
Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Tookey, J., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Azhar, S., Efimova, O., & Raahemifar, K. (2017). Building
Information Modelling (BIM) uptake: Clear benefits, understanding its implementation, risks and challenges.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75(C), 1046–1053.
Giel, B., & Issa, R. R. A. (2013). Quality and maturity of BIM implementation in the AECO industry. Applied Mechanics and
Materials, 438–439, 1621–1627.
Giel, B., & Issa, R. R. A. (2016). Framework for evaluating the BIM competencies of facility owners. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 32(1), 04015024.
Grilo, A., & Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2010). Value proposition on interoperability of BIM and collaborative working environ-
ments. Automation in Construction, 19(5), 522–530.
Gu, N., & London, K. (2010). Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Automation in Construction,
19(8), 988–999.
Henderson, J. R. (2010). Technology implementation strategies for construction organisations. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 17(3), 309–327.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational change: The systematic devel-
opment of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232–255.
Homayouni, H., Neff, G., & Dossick, C. S. (2010). Theoretical categories of successful collaboration and BIM implementation
within the AEC industry. Construction research congress 2010: Innovation for reshaping construction practice, Banff,
Alberta (pp. 778–788).
Hong, Y., Hammad, A., Sepasgozar, S., & Akbarnezhad, A. (2019). BIM adoption model for small and medium construction
organisations in Australia. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(2), 154–183.
Hosseini, M. R., Pärn, E. A., Edwards, D. J., Papadonikolaki, E., & Oraee, M. (2018). Roadmap to mature BIM use in Australian
SMEs: Competitive dynamics perspective. Journal of Management in Engineering, 34(5), 05018008.
Howard, R., Restrepo, L., & Chang, C. (2017). Addressing individual perceptions: An application of the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology to Building Information Modelling. International Journal of Project Management,
35(2), 107–120.
Hsin-Ning, S., & Pei-Chun, L. (2010). Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A first look at journal
papers in technology foresight. Scientometrics, 85(1), 65–79.
Jensen, P. A., & Jóhannesson, E. I. (2013). Building Information Modelling in Denmark and Iceland. Engineering,
Juan, Y.-K., Lai, W., & Shih, S.-G. (2017). Building information modeling acceptance and readiness assessment in Taiwanese
architectural firms. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(3), 356–367.
Jung, Y., & Joo, M. (2011). Building Information Modelling (BIM) framework for practical implementation. Automation in
Construction, 20(2), 126–133.
Kam, C., Senaratna, D., Mckinney, B., Xiao, Y., & Song, M. (2013). The VDC scorecard: Formulation and validation. Stanford,
CA: Center for Integrated Facility Engineering: Stanford University.
Kettinger, W. J., & Grover, V. (1995). Special section: Toward a theory of business process change management. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 12(1), 9–30.
Khosrowshahi, F., & Arayici, Y. (2012). Roadmap for implementation of BIM in the UK construction industry. Engineering,
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK: Keele University, 33, 1–26.
Klein, K. J., & Knight, A. P. (2005). Innovation implementation: Overcoming the challenge. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14(5), 243–246.
Kokkonen, A., & Alin, P. (2016). Practitioners deconstructing and reconstructing practices when responding to the
implementation of BIM. Construction Management and Economics, 34(7–8), 578–591.
Ku, K., & Taiebat, M. (2011). BIM experiences and expectations: The constructors’ perspective. International Journal of
Construction Education and Research, 7(3), 175–197.
Lee, S., Yu, J., & Jeong, D. (2015). BIM acceptance model in construction organizations. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 31(3), 04014048.
Liang, C., Lu, W., Rowlinson, S., & Zhang, X. (2016). Development of a multifunctional BIM maturity model. Journal of
Liao, L., & Teo, E. A. L. (2018). Organizational change perspective on people management in BIM implementation in
Building projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 34(3), 04018008.
Linderoth, H. C. J. (2010). Understanding adoption and use of BIM as the creation of actor networks. Automation in
Construction, 19(1), 66–72.
Lines, B. C., & Vardireddy, P. K. R. (2017). Drivers of organizational change within the AEC industry: Linking change man-
agement practices with successful change adoption. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(6), 04017031.
Liu, R., Du, J., Issa, R. R. A., & Giel, B. (2017). BIM cloud score: Building information model and modeling performance
benchmarking. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(4), 04016109.
Love, P. E. D., Matthews, J., Simpson, I., Hill, A., & Olatunji, O. A. (2014). A benefits realization management building infor-
mation modeling framework for asset owners. Automation in Construction, 37(1), 1–10.
Mahamadu, A. M., Mahdjoubi, L., & Booth, C. A. (2017). Critical BIM qualification criteria for construction pre-qualification
and selection. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 13(5), 326–343.
Malik, A., Kirti, R., & Stephen, E. (2012). Towards understanding BPR needs for BIM implementation. International Journal of
3-D Information Modeling (IJ3DIM), 1(4), 18–28.
Mayo, G., Giel, B., & Issa, R. R. A. (2012). BIM use and requirements among building owners. International conference on
computing in civil engineering (2012), Clearwater Beach, FL (pp. 349–356).
Miettinen, R., & Paavola, S. (2014). Beyond the BIM utopia: Approaches to the development and implementation of build-
ing information modeling. Automation in Construction, 43, 84–91.
Mom, M., Tsai, M. H., & Hsieh, S. H. (2014). Developing critical success factors for the assessment of BIM technology adop-
tion: Part II. Analysis and results. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 37(7), 859–868.
Nasirian, A., Arashpour, M., & Abbasi, B. (2019). Critical literature review of Labor multiskilling in construction. Journal of
Ngowtanasuwan, G., & Hadikusumo, B. (2017). System dynamics modelling for BIM adoption in Thai architectural and
engineering design industry. Construction Innovation, 17(4), 457–474.
Nikas, A., Poulymenakou, A., & Kriaris, P. (2007). Investigating antecedents and drivers affecting the adoption of collab-
oration technologies in the construction industry. Automation in Construction, 16(5), 632–641.
Olatunji, A. (2011a). Modelling the costs of corporate implementation of Building Information Modelling. Journal of
Financial Management of Property and Construction, 16(3), 211–231.
Olatunji, A. (2011b). Modelling organizations’ structural adjustment to BIM adoption: A pilot study on estimating organ-
isations. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 16, 653–668.
Ozorhon, B., & Karahan, U. (2017). Critical success factors of building information modeling implementation. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 33(3), 04016054.
Papadonikolaki, E., Verbraeck, A., & Wamelink, H. (2017). Formal and informal relations within BIM-enabled supply chain
partnerships. Construction Management and Economics, 35(8-9), 531–552.
Papadonikolaki, E., Vrijhoef, R., & Wamelink, H. (2016). The interdependences of BIM and supply chain partnering:
Empirical explorations. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(6), 476–494.
Papadonikolaki, E., & Wamelink, H. (2017). Inter- and intra-organizational conditions for supply chain integration with BIM.
Building Research & Information, 45(6), 649–664.
Peansupap, V., & Walker, D. (2005). Factors affecting ICT diffusion: A case study of three large Australian construction con-
tractors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12(1), 21–37.
Peansupap, V., & Walker, D. H. T. (2006). Innovation diffusion at the implementation stage of a construction project: A case
study of information communication technology. Construction Management and Economics, 24(3), 321–332.
Poirier, E., Staub-French, S., & Forgues, D. (2015a). Embedded contexts of innovation: BIM adoption and implementation
for a specialty contracting SME. Construction Innovation, 15(1), 42–65.
Poirier, E., Staub-French, S., & Forgues, D. (2015b). Measuring the impact of BIM on labor productivity in a small specialty
contracting enterprise through action-research. Automation in Construction, 58, 74–84.
Pour Rahimian, F., Ibrahim, R., & Murphy, M. E. (2014). Implementing innovation: A stakeholder competency-based
approach for BIM. Construction Innovation, 14(4), 433–452.
Rezgui, Y., Beach, T., & Rana, O. (2013). A governance approach for BIM management across lifecycle and supply chains
using mixed-nodes of information delivery. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(2), 239–258.
Rogers, J. (2015). Adoption of Building Information Modelling technology (BIM): Perspectives from Malaysian engineering
consulting services firms. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 22(4), 424–445.
Sackey, E., & Akotia, J. (2017). Spanning the multilevel boundaries of construction organisations: Towards the delivery of
BIM-compliant projects. Construction Innovation, 17(3), 273–293.
Sackey, E., Tuuli, M., & Dainty, A. (2015). Sociotechnical systems approach to BIM implementation in a multidisciplinary
construction context. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(1), A4014005.
Saka, A. B., & Chan, D. W. M. (2019). Knowledge, skills and functionalities requirements for quantity surveyors in Building
Information Modelling (BIM) work environment: An international Delphi study. Architectural Engineering and Design
Management, 16(3), 1–20.
Samuelson, O., & Björk, B. C. (2013). Adoption processes for EDM, EDI and BIM technologies in the construction industry.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(1), S172–S187.
Sebastian, R., & Van Berlo, L. (2010). Tool for benchmarking BIM performance of design, engineering and construction
firms in the Netherlands. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 6(4), 254–263.
Siebelink, S., Voordijk, J. T., & Adriaanse, A. (2018). Developing and testing a tool to evaluate BIM maturity: Sectoral analy-
sis in the Dutch construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(8), 05018007.
Son, H., Lee, S., & Kim, C. (2015). What drives the adoption of building information modeling in design organizations? An
empirical investigation of the antecedents affecting architects’ behavioral intentions. Automation in Construction, 49,
92–99.
Succar, B. (2009). Building Information Modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stake-
holders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357–375.
Succar, B. (2010, May). The five components of BIM performance measurement. CIB world congress, Salford, UK (p. 14).
Succar, B. (2015). Episode 22 [online video]. BIM ThinkSpace. Retrieved from http://www.bimthinkspace.com/2015/02/
episode-22-the-wedge-and-the-s-curve
Succar, B., & Bolpagni, M. (2020). BIM dictionary [online]. Retrieved from https://bimdictionary.com/
Succar, B., & Kassem, M. (2015). Macro-BIM adoption: Conceptual structures. Automation in Construction, 57, 64–79.
Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2012). Measuring BIM performance: Five metrics. Architectural Engineering and Design
Management, 8(2), 120–142.
Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2013). An integrated approach to BIM competency assessment, acquisition and appli-
cation. Automation in Construction, 35, 174–189.
Tsai, M.-H., Mom, M., & Hsieh, S. H. (2014). Developing critical success factors for the assessment of BIM technology adop-
tion: Part I. Methodology and survey. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 37(7), 845–858.
Volk, R., Stengel, J., & Schultmann, F. (2014). Building information modeling (BIM) for existing buildings – literature review
and future needs. Automation in Construction, 38, 109–127.
Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric net-
works. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635.
Wang, G., & Song, J. (2017). The relation of perceived benefits and organizational supports to user satisfaction with build-
ing information model (BIM). Computers in Human Behavior, 68(C), 493–500.
Watson, G. H. (1993). Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best. New York:
Wiley.
Wenger, E., Mcdermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge.
Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Won, J., Lee, G., Dossick, C., & Messner, J. (2013). Where to focus for successful adoption of building information modeling
within organization. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(11), 04013014.
Wu, W., Mayo, G., Mccuen, T. L., Issa, R. R. A., & Smith, D. K. (2018a). Building information modeling body of knowledge. I:
Background, framework, and initial development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(8),
04018065.
Wu, W., Mayo, G., Mccuen, T. L., Issa, R. R. A., & Smith, D. K. (2018b). Building information modeling body of knowledge. II:
Consensus building and use cases. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(8), 04018066.
Wu, C., Xu, B., Mao, C., & Li, X. (2017). Overview of BIM maturity measurement tools. Journal of Information Technology in
Construction (ITcon), 22(3), 34–62.
Yilmaz, G., Akcamete, A., & Demirors, O. (2019). A reference model for BIM capability assessments. Automation in
Construction, 101, 245–263.
Zhou, Y., Ding, L., Rao, Y., Luo, H., Medjdoub, B., & Zhong, H. (2017). Formulating project-level building information mod-
eling evaluation framework from the perspectives of organizations: A review. Automation in Construction, 81, 44–55.

Building Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption and Implementation Enablers in AEC Firms - A Systematic Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption and Implementation Enablers in AEC Firms - A Systematic Literature Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption and Implementation Enablers in AEC Firms - A Systematic Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Architectural Engineering and Design Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taem20

Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption

Behzad Abbasnejad , Madhav Prasad Nepal , Alireza Ahankoob , Araz

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1793721

Published online: 16 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption and

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

BIM implementation as a business process change

Table 1. Search strings and keywords.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

. Is the paper peer-reviewed?

Table 2. Search results for relevant publications.

. Main topic area

. Description of key BIM adoption and implementation enablers

Figure 3. BIM implementation framework.

Strategic initiative enablers

Table 3. Strategic initiative enablers for BIM implementation.

Learning capacity enablers

Cultural readiness enablers

Table 4. Learning capacity enablers for BIM implementation.

IT leveragibility and knowledge-sharing capability enablers

Table 5. Cultural readiness enablers for BIM implementation.

Table 6. IT leveragability and knowledge-sharing capability enablers for BIM implementation.

Network relationships enablers

Change management enablers

Table 7. Network relationship enablers for BIM implementation.

Process and performance management enablers

Table 8. Change management enablers for BIM implementation.

Table 9. Process and performance management enablers for BIM implementation.

Opportunities for future research

Figure 4. The Fruchterman-Reingold presentation of keywords in BIM implementation literature.

adoption and implementation. However, implementation is a dynamic stage-based process and

You might also like