Architectural Engineering and Design Management

ISSN: 1745-2007 (Print) 1752-7589 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taem20

BIM: innovation in design management, influence

and challenges of implementation

Abbas Elmualim & Jonathan Gilder

To cite this article: Abbas Elmualim & Jonathan Gilder (2014) BIM: innovation in design
management, influence and challenges of implementation, Architectural Engineering and Design
Management, 10:3-4, 183-199, DOI: 10.1080/17452007.2013.821399

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2013.821399

Published online: 08 Aug 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6960

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 41 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=taem20
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 2014
Vol. 10, Nos. 3–4, 183– 199, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2013.821399

BIM: innovation in design management, influence and challenges of

implementation
Abbas Elmualim∗ and Jonathan Gilder

School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 219,
Reading RG6 6AW, UK
(Received 1 November 2012; accepted 12 June 2013)

The construction industry is widely being criticised as a fragmented industry. There are
mounting calls for the industry to change. The espoused change calls for collaboration as
well as embracing innovation in the process of design, construction and across the supply
chain. Innovation and the application of emerging technologies are seen as enablers for
integrating the processes ‘integrating the team’ such as building information modelling
(BIM). A questionnaire survey was conducted to ascertain change in construction with
regard to design management, innovation and the application of BIM as cutting edge
pathways for collaboration. The respondents to the survey were from an array of
designations across the construction industry such as construction managers, designers,
engineers, design coordinators, design managers, architects, architectural technologists and
surveyors. There was a general agreement by most respondents that the design team was
responsible for design management in their organisation. There is a perception that the
design manager and the client are the catalyst for advancing innovation. The current state of
industry in terms of incorporating BIM technologies is posing a challenge as well as
providing an opportunity for accomplishment. BIM technologies provide a new paradigm
shift in the way buildings are designed, constructed and maintained. This paradigm shift
calls for rethinking the curriculum for educating building professionals, collectively.
Keywords: BIM; innovation; design management; FM; integration and collaboration

1. Introduction
It has been more than 18 years since the publication of Sir Michael Latham’s report (Latham,
1994) that was followed by Sir John Egan’s report (Egan, 1998) and still there are mounting
calls for change in the construction industry (Elmualim, 2010). Clients and end-users argue a
building takes too long, costs too much or is of poor quality standards. ‘Why when so much
has changed has so much stayed the same?’ (Morton, 2008). The most documented examples
include the early reports by Sir Michael Latham (1994) ‘Constructing the team’ and Sir John
Egan (1998) titled ‘Rethinking Construction’ both of which demanded the ultimate goal of
further satisfying clients’ requirements. The Latham report of 1994 aimed to make the customer
the leader of the process. Prior to the 1990s, he saw the industry as fragmented and hierarchical
with a reluctance to introduce innovative solutions to customers’ requirements. Clients did not
always get what they asked for, he articulated. Recommendations were aimed to align the

∗
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

184 A. Elmualim and J. Gilder

design function with the interests of the client, with particular regard to the organisation and man-
agement of the construction process (Adamson & Pollington, 2006). Building information mod-
elling (BIM) has been presented as the panacea, the much needed change in construction. Owing
to its project nature, the construction industry, adequately articulated in both these major reports,
is widely viewed as a fragmented/diverse industry. The dominant cultural characteristics of the
industry are: adverse relationship, low cost and lack of trust (Elmualim, 2010). The required
change is cultural as well as technological. The espoused change calls for collaboration as well
as embracing innovation in the process of design, construction and facilities management and
across the supply chain.
This paper endeavours to engender a dialogue within the construction industry, particularly
with regard to design management, innovation and the application of BIM as ground-breaking
vehicles for collaboration. The aim of the paper is to contribute to a coherent and mutual under-
standing among construction participants, in design, construction and facilities management, of
each other and advance the course of collaboration within the industry by adopting emerging
digital technologies such as BIM.

1.1 Background
Since the 1940s, and specifically after the end of World War II, the construction industry has been
continually pressurised to improve its practices, sustaining criticism for its poor performance by
several government and institutional reports over the years. Most reports’ authors concluded that
the fragmented nature of the industry, lack of coordination and communication between parties,
informal and unstructured learning process and lack of customer focus inhibits overall perform-
ance (Barrett, 2008; Egan, 1998; Elmualim, 2010; Latham, 1994). However, the diversity and
fragmentation of the industry are due to various cultural values, processes and interests of
diverse participating organisations in project delivery (Elmualim, Czwakiel, Valle, Ludlow, &
Shah, 2009). Dainty, Green, and Bagilhole (2007) stated that each project is different in terms
of both the product and the people involved. Diverse groups of people are expected to readily
establish cooperative working relationships while engaged on different terms and conditions
(Dainty et al., 2007).
Unquestionably, construction is one of the most important industries in all national economies
worldwide (Rodwin, 1987). It accounts for over 4.5% of employment within the UK. According
to recent figures, the UK construction industry employs more than 1.9 million people with 40%
registered as self-employed. The UK construction industry is dominated by small and medium-
sized enterprises with an annual output of more than £83.5 billion in 2007 (Office of National
Statistics, 2010).
There are many professional groups that play a vital role in construction projects. These
include architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, construction managers and facilities manage-
ment. Fragmentation exists in the division of responsibility between the professions, professionals
and contractors. These groups usually operate outside construction firms as independent consult-
ants generating a high degree of misunderstanding and hostility (Morton, 2008). These conditions
are the basis of the adversarial culture between contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and their
clients. The goal within construction is to deliver a well-designed, quality product to meet
clients’ requirements, on time and within budget (Adamson & Pollington, 2006). However,
this is rarely the case (Egan, 1998; Latham, 1994). According to Halliday (2008) ‘the industry
continues to design resource inefficient buildings, utilising polluting materials, over-specifying
inefficient equipment, with poor attention to long-term communities’. The problems of poor
industry performance can be associated with the common model for UK construction. The
client commissions an architect who designs and then builders are found to build (Layard,
 Architectural Engineering and Design Management 185

Davoudi, & Batty, 2001). The architect or the design management team then relies on the services
engineer to make them habitable (Turrent, 2007). Although there has been a shift towards con-
struction managers taking control of the whole design and build process, work is still predomi-
nantly based on this common model. Indeed, this adds a new dimension of conflict with
regard to the full control and responsibilities of design and construction projects management par-
ticularly when BIM is exploited. The issues of buildability are restricted at the design stage which
inhibits speed, effective learning and cost control. Cost saving has dominated the construction
industry’s decision-making which does not always provide value (Halliday, 2008; Turrent,
2007). The traditional design method of construction gives little thought to the operational
phase particularly from sustainable design point of view (Sassi, 2006; Vakili-Ardebili & Boussa-
baine, 2007). Calls for facilities management into the processes are mounting (Jensen, 2009),
which further exacerbate the challenges for the industry in applying BIM. The client finds it
hard to imagine how they or the end-users can operate the facilities once the design and construc-
tion were completed. Without engaging the end-user, the creative design process is lost, which
often leads to long-term dissatisfaction. A common industry complaint is that members of
design teams act independently of each other or may act against each other (Blyth & Worthington,
2001). This raises the questions on who have the most influence on the application of BIM and
how the team can be integrated to enhance the possibilities offered by using BIM.

1.2 Advocated change

Latham (1994) gave a significant role to clients in promoting good design to provide value for
money in terms of both cost and cost in-use. A well-designed building may not require a high
level of specification, yet many buildings in the UK are over specified at an unnecessary cost.
Problems emerge through lack of coordination between design and construction. Following the
substantial critique of Latham (1994), Egan’s report of 1998 proposed a change revolution.
There was deep concern that the industry was under-achieving in terms of meeting its own
needs and those of the client. Egan (1998) found there were too many clients who still equate
price with cost, driving them to select designers almost exclusively on the basis of tendered
price. The drivers for change included:

. Committed leadership of management to drive improvement.

. Customer focus and end-user value.
. Drive quality through innovation, on budget, on time, reduce wastage, after-sales care and
reduced operational costs.

A fundamental shortfall in the industry is the separation of design from the project process
which results in poor building performance in terms of flexibility in use, operating and mainten-
ance costs and sustainability. Designers must work in close collaboration with other participants
in the project process and design for whole life costs. However, the same problems can still be
observed today, well over 10 years after the publication of those two milestone reports
(Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998). Inefficiency and waste accounts for almost 30% of the capital
costs of construction and much of this could be avoided through cooperative working (Egan,
1998). Design management, as a process, is still, and to a great extent, divorced from the construc-
tion and operational phases leading to buildings not performing to their intended outputs. This is
indeed documented as the ‘creditability gap’ in the Post-Occupancy Review of Buildings and
their Engineering programme that studied 23 buildings (Bordass, Cohen, Standeven, &
Leaman, 2001). The gap between design and operation is due to the fragmentation of the industry
and cultural difference and cost implications (Way & Bordass, 2005; Elmualim et al., 2009).
186 A. Elmualim and J. Gilder

Furthermore, clients and their building designer do not invest in post-occupancy evaluation (POE)
studies of their assets as it is difficult to establish who should pay and who should conduct such
studies (Bordass & Leaman, 2005). It is argued that such fragmentation inhibits performance
improvements and prevented continuity of teams that are essential for efficiency (Egan, 1998).
The shortfalls of the UK construction industry require significant changes in culture, attitudes
and working practices. The trend in construction procurement is to move away from fee compe-
tition towards a selection process based on the balance of quality and price. Competitive tendering
based on lowest cost could become a thing of the past. Collaboration throughout the construction
process is paramount (Egan, 1998). A holistic view of construction taking into account design and
construction, management of the facility and demolition should be used (Martin & Guerin, 2006;
Duffy, 2000). This idea can be orientated towards the primary objective of creating and sustaining
appropriate built environments for users. This requires a shared vision among key stakeholders for
maximising value across the life cycle (Barrett, 2008; Elmualim, 2010). The conventional con-
struction process is generally planned, designed and constructed; which often acts as a barrier
to utilising the skills and knowledge of suppliers and constructors effectively in the design and
planning of projects (Egan, 1998).
The design of a facility must consider the needs and requirements of the end-user to meet
organisational requirements. Design management decisions should not be limited to one
person, but involve a number of professions to consider all possible outcomes. It is important
to get the design right as more can be done to enhance value and meet the needs of end-users.
Design management decisions should focus on the end-product (Atkin, Borgbrant, & Josephson,
2003). Barrett (2008) called for extensive communication between building design and construc-
tion, and maintenance. If a building costs £10 million to construct, then in 20 years the building
will have cost £20 million to operate and maintain. Other debated ratios include 1 : 5: 200, where
for every one pound spent on design and construction, there are £5 spent on maintenance and
£200 on the running cost of business (Macmillan, 2004). Sexton and Lu (2009) advocated action-
able research for improving construction performance. It is argued that design management is the
most crucial stage in the process and should have scope for adaptation throughout the construction
stage. Most of the effort in construction is in reducing the 1, but designers need to reduce the 5 and
200 through good briefing and design management (Macmillan, 2004). Design management
decisions on a final design before fully assessing client and user needs and problems may
prove very costly (O’Reilly, 1987).

1.3 Design management and innovation

In the construction industry, creative minds develop the designing process into a complex multi-
disciplinary process that needs to be carefully managed in order to improve the efforts of many
people who represent the welfares of their respective organisations. Hence, design management is
a prerequisite from the very early phases of a project so as to help with the congress of organis-
ations and individuals and to help manage their collective actions (Emmitt, Matthisjs, & Otter,
2009). To understand design management, it seems apparent that an individual (or a group of indi-
viduals) needs a common understanding between ‘design’ and ‘management’ if the complemen-
tarities of the architects’ and managers’ competencies are to be imposed effectively. There are
myriads of definitions and understanding for the term ‘design management’. Emmitt (1999)
was critical of the evolving discipline and the existence of the design manager. However, there
has been a rapid growth of architectural design practises with multiple design partners in multi-
disciplinary projects and this has resulted in the emergence of ‘design management’ as a disci-
pline as well as an academic field of enquiry (Emmitt et al., 2009; Sebastian & Prins, 2009).
 Architectural Engineering and Design Management 187

It has been observed that the categorisation of design management approaches, can be seen
within design organisations and design projects by focusing on the design actors (people),
design processes and design products (Boyle, 2009; Sebastian & Prins, 2009). Sebastian and
Prins (2009) further go on to recognise design management in design organisations (mainly focus-
ing on people and processes) through their approach in managing business strategies and working
processes within the architectural firm, and also the inter-organisational relationships between the
architectural firm, client and other stakeholders (Sebastian & Prins, 2009). Design management in
design projects (mainly focusing on processes and products) are recognised through their
approach for managing the architectural quality, design tasks and information and creative team-
work in design (Sebastian & Prins, 2009). Most organisations attempt to manage design projects
by applying systematic planning, communication techniques and decision-making protocols
(Emmitt, 1999). Mainstream architectural design practises are changing. Collaborative processes
in the design stage are taking new forms (Sebastian & Prins, 2009) particularly where emerging
technologies are used.
To meet these changes and challenges, architectural design management skills need to be re-
evaluated to advance new and innovative design strategies, for an open building, as well as influ-
encing the final product across the supply chain. Studying innovation is widely becoming a main-
stream discipline in economics and business management particularly to understand and evaluate
technological and organisational change (Gann, 2003). The discipline as an academic field con-
tains a large volume of knowledge about concepts, theoretical models, case studies, technology
modelling tools and government and industry strategies and policies. Innovation is tied consider-
ably with organisations abilities to improve on their current products, services, processes and
working practices for competition, market growth and economic performance as well as customer
choice, social and environmental sustainability and quality of life as a whole (Gann, 2003). Con-
trary to the general practice of low cost tendering in the construction industry, innovation is
widely envisaged as the driver for sustained competitiveness and economic growth. It is the
force behind which firms fail or succeed/decline or thrive (Baumol, 2002). Innovation,
however, is intertwined with human creativity which is linked to other similar concepts of
human intelligence, adaptation and agency (Gann, 2003). Innovation can be seen as the creation
of solutions that resonate with the concern of the time. Solutions that enable adaptation within the
changing context of space and time. ‘Innovation is often or always created through analogy and
metaphor – through associations of ideas, so that change is slow and gradual’. ‘Innovation often
occurs when we just “see what happens if I try this”’ (Hodder, 1998). Innovative creativity is trig-
gered by linking and making good sense of multi-faceted things that are defined within estab-
lished and contextualised terms. It can be seen, therefore, as establishing links rather than
creating differences within a given context (Hodder, 1998).
Within the construction industry, innovation is notoriously known to be difficult to define and
proceduralise (Green, Newcombe, Fernie, & Weller, 2004). Furthermore, current debates of inno-
vation continue to raise further questions about the nature and characteristics of innovation as well
as construction. The concept of innovation is further related with aspects of knowledge creation
for continuous improvement in product design and delivery. Within construction academia, the
understanding of innovation is still considered to be under-developed and highly fragmented
(Green et al., 2004). However, innovation is practiced when knowledge from previously separated
domains is exchanged and combined in new ways (Justesen, 2004). The result of this innovative
practice is innovation when and only when this combination of domains leads to the successful
diffusion of a new product, process or service. Innovative practice is therefore not merely about
getting new ideas and generation of an invention, but equally about successful exploitation and
diffusion of that invention (Rogers, 1983). Justesen (2004) further strengthens this perspective
when she defines innovation as the practice of creation, conversion and commercialisation.
188 A. Elmualim and J. Gilder

Innovation and innovative practice therefore rely very much on the existing knowledge networks
in an organisation, and how such networks of conversation allow for or prevent different domains
of knowledge from being connected in new and meaningful ways.
Egbu (2004) stated that there is still ongoing debate on whether the construction industry and
many of the construction organisations are innovative or not. He argues that there are those who
suggest that the construction industry is less innovative than many other industries and they do
so on the basis of a weak premise. However, although Egbu (2004) presented many arguments
on why innovation is important to the construction industry and builds a case on why building
dynamic capabilities is vital for organisational innovations, he does not present a clear case on
how innovation actually takes place within construction firms (Egbu, 2004). In his argument he
mentions that because construction organisations are project-based organisations networking,
communities of practices, storytelling, coaching, mentoring and quality circles are important mech-
anisms for sharing and transferring tacit knowledge in project environments. He goes on further to
state that communities of practices are needed to encourage individuals to think of themselves as
‘members of professional families’ with a strong sense of reciprocity and that the networking pro-
cesses which encourage sharing and the use of knowledge for project innovations are important.
Having said that, innovation, as a practice in the construction industry, has been characterised
as important, but ill-defined as a concept (Sundbo, 1997) although incremental process inno-
vations are common and highly regarded for cultural change. However, the industry attitude
towards risk inhibits innovation and the prolonged imposition of process innovations by clients
has led to initiative overload (Green et al., 2004). Incremental innovations are defined as
small-scale changes based on current knowledge. Their effect is minimal and predictable and
they emanate from within the organisation. Incremental innovations are distinguished from
radical innovations which are characterised by breakthroughs and large-scale change, which
are unpredictable in appearance and effect. Radical innovations tend to emanate from outside
the current industry, and provide a new way of understanding a phenomenon and formulating
approaches to problem solving. Radical innovation is very rare because by their nature they
result in significant change (Egbu, 2004; Green et al., 2004). It is interesting thus to note that
the social capital aspects of innovation do not feature very much in the debates on innovation
in the construction industry.
It is evident that innovation while developing as a discipline lacked a common definition and
hence the concept used in construction provision is ambiguous (Green et al., 2004; Sundbo, 1997).
Rogers (1983) states that, ‘an innovation is an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by
an individual or unit of adoption’ (Rogers, 1983). Rogers (1983) found that the rate of adoption of
any innovation is in its suitability to fit in with the values, beliefs and past experiences of the social
system it is being introduced to. Rogers (1983) states, ‘the diffusion of innovations is often a social
process, as well as a technical matter’. Henderson states that ‘despite rhetoric to the contrary,
design work does not flow in a neat linear pattern, but rather is beset, like those on the “yellow
brick road to Oz”, with innumerable diversions, mishaps and patch-ups’ (Henderson, 2007).
These ‘diversions, mishaps and patch-ups’ must reach a consensus to enable the technology to
meet the needs of the organisation that it is being created in. Indeed, there are various models
of innovation that help to understand innovation as a process (Noor & Pitt, 2009). While in con-
struction innovation is considered to be a social process, within facilities management, for
example, innovation is seen mostly as a technical process (Cardellino & Finch, 2006).
Innovation is considered as one of the most pressing components of the competitive advan-
tage of organisations (Porter, 1998). Goyal and Pitt (2007) considered innovation as essential for
survival of the organisation. This is particularly true in construction due to the complex nature of
the industry and the financial pressures facing it. Innovation as a process is vital for the construc-
tion industry to advance and deliver the aspired change agenda.
 Architectural Engineering and Design Management 189

1.4 Building information modelling

BIM is the process of generating and managing building data during its life cycle (Kymmell,
2008). It uses three-dimensional (3D) and real-time dynamic building modelling software to
increase productivity in building design and construction (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks, & Liston,
2008; Holness, 2008; Kymmell, 2008; Sacks, Radosavljevic, & Barak, 2010) and even into facili-
ties management (Asojo & Pober, 2009). BIM can be described as virtual design and construction
with a prerequisite for collaboration Harvey, Bhagat, Gerber, Kotronis, & Pysh, 2009). BIM can
be used to demonstrate the entire building life cycle, including the processes of construction and
facility operation. Quantities and shared properties of materials can be extracted. Scopes of work
can be isolated and defined by using various parameters of BIM software. Systems, assemblies
and sequences can be shown in a relative scale with the entire facility or group of facilities
(Kymmell, 2008; Sinopoli, 2010). Furthermore, it can provide a common platform for collabor-
ation by sharing both graphical and non-graphical information of any building or infrastructure
project (Shen, Shen, & Sun, 2012).
The interoperability requirements of construction documents include the drawings, procure-
ment details, environmental conditions, submittal processes and other specifications for building
quality. It is anticipated by proponents that BIM can be utilised to bridge the information loss
associated with handing a project from design team, to construction team and to building oper-
ators (facilities managers), by allowing each group to add to and reference back to all information
they acquire during their period of contribution to the BIM model (Kymmell, 2008). Therefore,
BIM can save time and reduce cost by reducing construction change orders (Sinopoli, 2010).
There is little doubt that object-based parametric modelling has had an enormous influence on
the emergence of BIM. There are many design, analysis, checking, display and reporting tools
that can contribute to BIM of a building such as, Revit, Bentley Systems, ArchiCAD, Digital
Project, Architectural Desktop (AutoCAD – based applications), Tekla Structures, DProfiler,
etc. Many information components and information types are needed to fully design, develop
and construct a building (Eastman et al., 2008). The BIM tools considered here are only the
latest in several generations of tools, but they are also proving to be revolutionary in their influ-
ence (Eastman et al., 2008). Object-based parametric modelling resolves many of the fundamental
issues in architecture and construction and it makes way for an easy and rewarding transition for
those in the industry (Kymmell, 2008). Eastman et al. (2008) have reported a reduction in drawing
errors due to a central building model, elimination of repetitive designing and drawing, elimin-
ation of errors due to spatial interferences and design ambiguities and a central database of
data to be some of the immediate payoffs. There are various challenges in adopting BIM such
as resistance to change, adaptation of existing workflows to lean-oriented programmes, training,
clear understanding of responsibilities among the team and lack of understanding of the required
high-end hardware resources (Arayici et al., 2011). However, the technology is fast advancing and
further integrated into gaming for real-time visualisation (Yan, Culp, & Graf, 2011). BIM is
further utilised for its economic effects (Jung & Joo, 2011) and for addressing conflicts and
safety problems (Zhang & Hu, 2011). Furthermore, BIM systems are increasingly being utilised
for sustainable design processes and design rating analysis such as LEED and BREAM (Azhar,
Carlton, Olsen, & Ahmed, 2011).

2. Method
The objective of this study was to carry out a comparative review on the perception and status of
this important technology, BIM, within design management to identify the key drivers and bar-
riers to its commercial exploitation, and to recommend a strategy for the future. The research
190 A. Elmualim and J. Gilder

work paradigm is well positioned within an interpretative research context (Denzin & Lincoln,
1998) as the aim is to critically review the change agenda within construction and the implications
of the adoption of innovative technologies such as BIM. Furthermore, the research paper uses a
critical literature review of the main three threads of the paper; construction change, innovation
and design management and the use of BIM coupled with a questionnaire survey. The question-
naire survey was carried out and was open for three weeks in May 2009 using an online survey
programme that automatically administers and gathers data from the responses. In total, 143
responses were received.

2.1. Respondents demographics

Out of the 143 respondents, more than three-quarters were from mainland UK and the Republic of
Ireland, and most were from England. European participants accounted for about 1%, whereas the
rest, about 24%, came from countries such as USA, India, Ghana, China, Russia, South Africa,
Australia, Canada, Malaysia, UAE and some other middle-eastern countries. The respondents
were from an array of designations across the construction industry such as construction man-
agers, designers, engineers, design coordinators, design managers, architects, architectural tech-
nologists and surveyors. A majority of them (47.6%) were based in a ‘Building Contractor’
organisation, followed by construction management consultants (11.2%) and those in an architec-
tural design practise (9.8%). The organisations were mostly of the ‘large-scale operation’ type;
that is, almost 47% of the respondents came from an organisation of over 500 employees. This
shows that most respondents represented large construction organisations in the UK. The rest
came from what could be described as small and medium enterprises (SME). Only about 14%
of the respondents came from those operating with less than 10 people. Demographics infor-
mation shows that these organisations largely dealt with commercial operations (about 70% of
them). Other projects such as schools (43.7%), industrial (34.5%), infrastructure (27.5%),
repairs and maintenance followed suit with 25.4%. Social and private housing accounted for
30.3 and 31.7%, respectively.

3. Results and discussion

There was a general agreement by most respondents (44%) that the design team was responsible
for design management in their organisation – with the design manager/director having overall
control. Other popular responses included project manager, senior/management/director, architect
and engineer. Some respondents stated that the person responsible varied depending on the project
size and the stage in the process.
Most of the organisations stated that they employ design managers. The majority of them (up
to 73%) in fact believe that design management is necessary to ensure clarity during the process, a
better quality build and to also ensure that projects were completed to the required specification on
time and on budget. It was also observed that to ensure the design was properly managed and to
reduce the project risk, up to 59% of these organisations employed design managers, leaving only
35% without one while the remaining, approximately 6%, were still considering the option.
Many respondents stated that it is hard to define what a design manager is because the role
varies depending on the project size and type, as well as the organisation. There is a general con-
sensus in the view that a design manager is someone who manages and coordinates the design
process from the procurement stage through to completion of the project. Responses indicated
that the design manager is responsible for ensuring the project is completed to specification, on
time and on budget.
 Architectural Engineering and Design Management 191

In recent times, the role of the architect has moved away from being a ‘master builder’. This
has occurred over time whereby the industry has got fragmented into various specialised
branches, with the latest being that of a ‘Design Manager’. In fact, the survey points out
(Figure 1), that around one-third of the people agree on the design manager having a relatively
strong role to play in innovation. This comes from a fraternity of professionals, who believe
that their organisation gives relatively high priority for innovation and also agree that their organ-
isation gives support to design managers to explore innovative solutions to tackle problems.
It is an academic view that innovation and the opportunity for maximum effect for innovation
to be effective, is during the early stages of the project. Once the drawings of plans and quantities
have been chalked out, the possibility curve to review and press for innovation exponentially
decreases. This viewpoint is shared within the construction industry too as Figure 2 shows,
whereby over two-thirds of the respondents agree that the design manager has the maximum influ-
ence on innovation during outlining of the proposal itself. Some have pointed out that the point of
maximum influence is even before this and should happen during strategic briefing of the project
(Figure 3). There is, however, still some disparity within the fraternity itself regarding who they
believe has the most control on innovation. Around one-third of the respondents, as shown in
Figure 2, thought that the project architect plays the major role with his holistic vision of the
building whereas some believe that the design manager and the client hold the leash on innovation
(23.8 and 21.7%, respectively). A small fraction of the respondents were inclined towards the
project manager to have maximum control (14.7%). Indeed, this showed a polarised view on
control of the process of innovation in practice. The results show the disparity in the responses
and hence can be seen as a reflection on the fragmentation of the industry.
Innovation is not necessarily throwing out the old but instead, it is about refreshing the old to
make it relevant to the new. In an industry where the stakes are high, such as construction, inno-
vation is far and in between and stakeholders are generally unconvinced by the chances of suc-
cessful execution of an untested product/process/idea to work (Green et al., 2004). However, it is
observed in Figure 4, that the majority of respondents in this survey (a little over 50%) agree that
the benefit of innovation lies in an enhanced project value for the customer. Most do agree that
innovation brings in an element of efficiency to construction of the building. There is more or
less, a neutral response as to whether innovation ultimately increases the profitability of a
project. This is understandable as there tends to be a disparity between the predicted benefits
of innovations as compared with reality. However, what most (about half) of the respondents

Figure 1. Importance of innovation and role of the design manager in innovation (1¼ strongly agree; 5¼
strongly disagree).
192 A. Elmualim and J. Gilder

Figure 2. Who do you feel has the most control on innovation?

Figure 3. When do you feel a design manager has the most influence on innovation?

agreed upon was that innovation has no benefit in reducing the programme of construction
projects.
The above answer calls for understanding who the respondents think is involved in assessing
innovation itself. The results show that 79.7% agree on the design manager getting a lead in this
role, with the project architect getting an approval of about 72%. In declining order of selection,
the project manager, the client, the quantity surveyor and the project quantity surveyor (QS) have
been a part of the selection with decreasing percentages of 69.9, 55.2, 49.7 and 37.8%, respectively.
The above observation is also well reflected with the results as to who the respondents believe
has the most influence on innovation. The design manager is the choice with the largest agreement
of 42.7%. However, here the respondents thought that the client has a larger influence than the
project architect with a 42% agreement on the client over the project architect of 37.8%. The
rest to follow are the project manager (30.1%), quantity surveyor (13.3%) and the project QS
(11.9%).
The respondents were given a few key benchmarks against which they would assess a new
idea. The most crucial benchmark selected by a majority of the respondents was cost with a selec-
tion by almost 86.7% of the respondents. Given the practical realm from which the respondents
 Architectural Engineering and Design Management 193

Figure 4. What benefit do you think innovation brings to a construction project? (1¼ strongly agree; 5¼
strongly disagree).

came, buildability followed second on the list with a majority of 75.5% of the respondents agree-
ing on it. The rest to follow with declining order of importance were, time (60.1%), environmental
(44.1%), legislation (34.3%) and others (14%). The survey also reveals an important trend that
tends to highlight the general approach of professionals in the construction industry. When the
respondents were asked if they carry out a normal assessment process of an innovation after
the project was completed, only 42% of them agreed. An emerging field of POE is on the rise
and is being implemented by most clients to understand the benefits or pitfalls of decisions
made during planning stages. However, POE as a means of assessment was absent in the
responses to the survey. This further strengthens the argument of the ‘credibility and the knowl-
edge gap’ between the design and operation of facilities (Bordass et al., 2001; Bordass & Leaman,
2005, Elmualim et al., 2009; Way & Bordass, 2005).
When the respondents were given a list of options as to what they thought best defined BIM,
as shown in Figure 5, the majority (38.7%) selected BIM to be a 3D modelling software, that does
the analysis and documentation for the buildings life cycle. The other selection that was thought to
be appropriate (31.7%) was software that uses 3D and intelligent computable data for project col-
laboration. Other selections included definitions such as: a computer modelling programme with
3D visualisation (14.1%); software that creates an intelligent and computable 3D data set (9.9%);
and leveraging 3D software for internal design and coordination (1.4%).
With regard to the usage of BIM, presently around one-third of the organisations that the
respondents came from have already started using BIM. The survey also shows that the respon-
dents believe that a greater use of BIM will result in an overall improvement in construction best
practise with up to 63% agreement. It was also observed that almost 31% of the respondents felt
that they do not know enough about BIM to have an opinion on its incorporation, whereas only
6% declined its improvement potential. The results showed that there is a need for increasing
awareness, education and research work to stipulate the potentialities of using BIM.
Other surveys conducted in the USA showed similar trends. Complementary to these results
and according to Eastman et al. (2008) ‘25% of US architectural firms surveyed in 2007 reported
194 A. Elmualim and J. Gilder

Figure 5. What do you understand to be the best definition of BIM?

already using BIM tools for “intelligent modelling”’. More specifically, 74% of the firms sur-
veyed reported using 3D/BIM tools, but only 34% of those claimed they use it for ‘intelligent
modelling’ (i.e. not simply for generation of 2D drawings and visualizations).
When the respondents were asked what they believed was the percentage of organisations that
are currently using BIM for some of their projects, the survey shows that 42.3% of the respon-
dents believe that less than 5% of the organisations are currently using BIM and almost 27.5%
of them think that the range is more between 5 and 10%. Only about 2.1% of the respondents
thought that more than 50% of the organisations are currently using BIM.
In the USA, it is estimated that in the next five years, building designers will continue to adopt
BIM, and by the end of the period, 60– 70% of firms will have worked on a project making full
use of BIM, compared with the 25% that use it today (Eastman et al., 2008). Eastman et al. (2008)
further stated that the two main drivers for broad adoption of BIM are client demand for enhanced
quality of service; and productivity gain in preparing documentation.
The apparent reasons for BIM systems not having permeated into mainstream organisations
are variable and diverse. When the respondents were asked the same reason for their own organ-
isation 46.4% of them acknowledged not being familiar enough with BIM to use it, whereas
another 22.7% indicated that they do not know it at all. Only about 14.4% said that they have
not had the opportunity to use it yet, whereas 3.1% decided not to implement BIM for any specific
reason.
Specific reasons for not implementing BIM were variable across the fraternity from about
20.4% stating that they lack the capital to invest in getting started with the hardware and software
to about 2% stating that BIM is too risky from a liability standpoint to warrant its use. Other pro-
minent responses as shown in Figure 6 were: 15.3% stating that the benefits of BIM do not out-
weigh the cost to implement it; another 15.3% state that the benefits are not tangible enough to
warrant its use. About 8.2% of the respondents also said that they were reluctant to initiate
new workflows, or to train its staff. However, almost 37.8% did not know themselves as to
why they had not implemented BIM as yet.
 Architectural Engineering and Design Management 195

Figure 6. What was the primary reason for not implementing BIM?

There are various challenges that are facing the construction industry in the installation of
BIM. The three major factors ranked by the respondent as challenges were: training staff on
new process/workflows (56.8%), effectively implementing the new process/workflow (another
56.8%) and understanding BIM enough to implement it (54.5%). Other popular reasons were:
training staff on new software/technology (47.7%), establishing the new process/workflow
(34.1%) and realising the value from a financial perspective (36.4%). Some other reasons fol-
lowed such as trying to understand and mitigate the liability (9.1%) and purchasing software/tech-
nology (13.6%).
If the issues of penetrating BIM into mainstream construction are to be mobilised, the industry
needs to also understand what kind of assistance the organisations would like to receive if they
decided to adopt BIM. Majority of respondents, about 70.2%, indicated that they would like to
have a clear understanding of the benefits that outweigh the cost and other factors included in
adopting BIM. Another 35.1% said that they would like to attend workshops to discuss BIM
uptake and for further information. Another 19.1% said that they would like to receive a rec-
ommendation of a way forward with regards to software and hardware, whereas about 18.1%
said that their organisation would like to receive the required training and technical know-how.
This study further researched into the changes in service provisions since the implementation
of BIM within the respondents’ business/organisation (for those who have already implemented it
– 31%). About one-third (34.1%) of the respondents reported that there has been a change in their
third-party integration and consulting. About 18.2% of the respondents have reported a change in
the process in which the shop drawings were produced and submitted. Another 20.5% have
reported a change in their construction management department. Some 27.3% are not really
196 A. Elmualim and J. Gilder

sure if there was any change at all, while about 15.9% reported no change at all. And finally, the
respondents were asked as to what are the issues or problems that can be overcome by the
implementation of a BIM system within an organisation. The highest ranked response of
64.3% was that it brings about an efficient collaboration among the construction stakeholders.
Another set of respondents (54.8%) stated that BIM has an ability to assess the design alternative
and life cycle effects. Many agreed (about 52.4%) that it makes available an accurate documen-
tation of building development. Some (47.6%) even agreed that it brings about a transparency
within various sectors in common understanding of project cost, schedules and project progress.

4. General observations
As the results have shown, the respondents felt that BIM is certainly most likely to affect the con-
struction key performance indicators of ‘Quality’ and ‘Time completion’ in a positive way. The
results were encouraging as what is witnessed was a first-hand response from a knowledgeable
group of individuals from the architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) fraternity.
More such research is needed in order to corroborate the ‘BIM-favourable’ results presented in
this paper.
This survey needs to be read within a larger perspective and with an understanding that the
respondents filling out this survey would have a partiality for being more favourable to BIM
than the typical industry professional due to their interest in the field and willingness to take
time to fill the survey. It would be very interesting to also look at the effect of a BIM approach
through real-world construction case studies. This shall offer a more compelling argument for
BIM adoption by AEC firms than simply the perceptions described herewith.

5. Conclusions
According to its critics, the construction industry has to change. The espoused change of industry
renowned for its adversarial relationship and lack of trust is based on collaboration and inno-
vation. This paper investigated the relationship between design management, innovation and
the role of BIM in advancing collaboration in response to the required change. The paper pre-
sented results of questionnaire survey that was conducted to establish the understanding and per-
ception with regard to design management, innovation and the adoption of BIM. Majority of
respondents were based in the UK with other respondents representing Europe, USA, India,
Ghana, China, Russia, South Africa, Australia, Canada, Malaysia and UAE.
The literature documented that innovation is a difficult concept to grasp and ill-defined in con-
struction. The survey results show that there were variations on the views on who has most influ-
ence on innovation. The respondents were divided between the project architect (30%), design
manager (24%) and the client (22%). This clearly can be seen as indication of the diversity
and fragmentation of construction. Most of the respondents come from organisations that
employ design managers. The majority of them (up to 73%) in fact believe that design manage-
ment is necessary to ensure delivery in time and specified cost with control over the innovation
process particularly during outlining of the proposal of projects. More than half of the respondents
indicated that the benefit of innovation lies in enhancing project value for the client. With regard
to the usage of BIM as an innovation tool, presently around one-third of the organisations that the
respondents came from have already started using BIM. The survey also showed that the respon-
dents believe that a greater use of BIM will result in an overall improvement in construction best
practise with up to 63% in agreement. Specific reasons for not implementing BIM were variable
across the fraternity from about 20.4% stating that they lack the capital to invest in getting started
with the hardware and software to about 2% stating that BIM is too risky from a liability
 Architectural Engineering and Design Management 197

standpoint to warrant its use. Other responses were stating that the benefits of BIM do not out-
weigh the cost to implement it; another 15.3% stated that the benefits are not tangible enough
to warrant its use. About 8.2% of the respondents also said that they were reluctant to initiate
new workflows, or to train its staff. However, almost 37.8% did not know themselves as to
why they had not implemented BIM as yet.
There are various challenges that are facing the construction industry in the application of
BIM. The three major factors ranked by the respondents were: training staff on new process/work-
flows; effectively implementing the new process/workflow; and understanding BIM enough to
implement it. Other reasons were: training staff on new software/technology; establishing the
new process/workflow; and realising the value from a financial perspective.
It seems there are a number of economic, technological and social factors that are likely to
drive BIM into the mainstream construction practices. The possibility of moving into the pro-
duction of building components will increase the demand for highly accurate and reliable
design information, so that these components can be transported with a higher degree of confi-
dence. Specialisation and commoditisation of design services is another economic driver in
favour of BIM. The demand for close collaboration between the design and construction
models will eventually drive the adoption and development of BIM even further. Perhaps, the
most important economic driver for BIM systems and their adoption could be the intrinsic
value that their quality of information will provide to building clients and users.
However, there are numerous obstacles to the progress of BIM too within the industry such as,
technical barriers, legal and liability issues, resistance to changes in employment patterns, the
need for education and training and regulations. The value to be driven from the application of
BIM will undoubtedly stimulate the debate around the industry transformation. In an industry
renowned for its complex project-based nature and domination of SMEs, BIM provides a para-
digm shift in the way buildings are designed, constructed and maintained. Such a paradigm
shift illustrated the stringent need for trans-disciplinary curriculum in the industry.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) in produ-
cing this report.

References
Adamson, D., & Pollington, T. (2006). Change in the construction industry reform movement 1993–2003.
London: Routledge.
Arayici, A., Coates, P., Koskela, L., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2011). Technology adoption
in the BIM implementation for lean architectural practice. Automation in Construction, 20, 189–195.
Asojo, A., & Pober, E. (2009). Building information modeling (BIM) strategies: Pedagogical models for
interior design. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 3(2), 159–186.
Atkin, B., Borgbrant, J., & Josephson, P.-E. (2003). Construction process improvement. London: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Azhar, S., Carlton, W. A., Olsen, D., & Ahmed, I. (2011). Building information modelling for sustainable
design and LEED rating analysis. Automation in Construction, 20, 217–224.
Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University
Press.
Barrett, P. (2008). Revaluing construction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blyth, A., & Worthington, J. (2001). Managing the brief for better design. London: Spon Press.
Bordass, B., Cohen, R., Standeven, M., & Leaman, A. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 2:
Technical performance of the probe buildings. Building Research and Information, 29(2), 103–113.
Bordass, B., & Leaman, A. (2005). Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 3: Case studies
of the use of techniques in the feedback portfolio. Building Research and Information, 33(4), 361–375.
198 A. Elmualim and J. Gilder

Boyle, G. (2009). Design project management. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Cardellino, P., & Finch, E. (2006). Evidence of systematic approaches to innovation in facilities manage-
ment. Journal of Facilities Management, 4(3), 150 –166.
Dainty, A., Green, S., & Bagilhole, B. (2007). People and culture in construction. London: Spon.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. London,
UK: Sage Publications, Inc.
Duffy, F. (2000). Design and facilities management in a time of change. Facilities, 18(10/11/12), 371–375.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, T., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2008). The BIM handbook – A guide to building infor-
mation modeling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Egan, J. Sir. (1998). Construction task force: Rethinking construction. Retrieved September 2009, from
http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/download.jsp?&url=/pdf/rethinking%20construction/
rethinking_construction_report.pdf
Egbu, C. O. (2004). Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational innovations in
the construction industry: An examination of critical success factors. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 11(5), 301 –315.
Elmualim, A. A. (2010). Chapter 11: Culture and leadership in stakeholder management. In E. A. Chinyio &
P. Olomolaiye (Eds.), Construction stakeholders management (pp. 174–192). London: Wiley-Blackwell
Publishing.
Elmualim, A. A., Czwakiel, A., Valle, R., Ludlow, G., & Shah, S. (2009). The practice of sustainable facili-
ties management: Design sentiments and the knowledge chasm. In S. Emmitt. (Guest Editor), Special
Issue: Design Management for Sustainability. Architectural Engineering and Design Management,
5(1/2), 91–102.
Emmitt, S. (1999). Architectural management in practice: A competitive approach. Harlow: Longman.
Emmitt, S., Matthisjs, P., & Otter, A. (2009). Architectural management: International research and prac-
tice. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gann, D. M. (2003). Guest editorial: Innovation in the built environment. Construction Management and
Economics, 21(6), 553 –555.
Goyal, S., & Pitt, M. (2007). Determining the role of innovation management in facilities management.
Journal of Facilities Management, 25(1/2), 48–60.
Green, S. D., Newcombe, R., Fernie, S., & Weller, S. (2004). Learning across business sectors: Knowledge
sharing between aerospace and construction. Reading: The University of Reading, p. 84.
Halliday, S. (2008). Sustainable construction. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Harvey, R., Bhgat, T., Gerber, D., Kotronis, J., & Pysh, D. (2009). BIM as a risk management platform
enabling integrated practice and delivery. Journal of Building Information Modeling, (Fall), 14–17.
Henderson, H. (2007). Achieving legitimacy: Visual discourses in engineering design and green building
code development. Building Research and Information, 35(1), 6 –17. Routledge Taylor and Francis.
Hodder, I. (1998). Creative thought: A long term perspective. In S. Mithen (Ed.), Creativity in human evol-
ution and prehistory (pp. 61–77). London: Routledge.
Holness, G.V. R. (2008). Building information modeling gaining momentum. ASHRAE Journal, 50(6),
28– 40.
Jensen, P. A. (2009). Design integration of facilities management: A challenge of knowledge transfer.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 5(3), 124–1135.
Jung, Y., & Joo, M. (2011). Building information modelling (BIM) framework for practical implementation.
Automation in Construction, 20, 126– 133.
Justesen, S. (2004). Innoversity in communities of practice. In P. Hildreth & C. Kimbe (Eds.), Knowledge
networks: Innovation through communities of practice (pp. 79 –95). London: Idea Group.
Kymmell, W. (2008). Building information modelling: Planning and managing construction projects with
4D CAD and simulation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Latham, M. Sir (1994). The Latham Report: Constructing the Team. Retrieved September 2009, from http://
www.specify-it.com/CIS/Doc.aspx?AuthCode=&DocNum=84343
Layard, A., Davoudi, S., & Batty, S. (2001). Planning for a sustainable future. London: Spon Press.
Macmillan, S. (2004). Designing better buildings: Quality and value in the built environment. London: Spon.
Martin, C. S., & Guerin, D. A. (2006). Using research to inform design solutions. Journal of Facilities
Management, 4(3), 67 –180.
Morton, R. (2008). Construction UK: Introduction to the industry (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Noor, M., & Pitt, M. (2009). A critical review on innovation in facilities management service delivery.
Facilities, 27(5/6), 211–228.
 Architectural Engineering and Design Management 199

Office of National Statistics. (2010). Construction statistics annual, London. UK: Office of National
Statistics.
O’Reilly, J. J. N. (1987). Better briefing means better buildings. Watford, UK: Building Research
Establishment.
Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6),
77– 91.
Rodwin, L. (1987). Shelter, settlement and development. Nairobi: UNCHS (Habitat).
Rogers, E. (1983). The diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Sacks, R., Radosavljvic, M., & Barak, R. (2010). Requirements for building information modelling based
lean production management systems for construction. Automation in Construction, 19, 641–655.
Sassi, P. (2006). Strategies for sustainable architecture. London: Taylor and Francis.
Sebastian, R., & Prins, R. (2009). Collaborative architectural design management. In S. Emmitt, P. Matthisjs,
& A. Otter (Eds.), Architectural management: International research and practice (pp. 105–118).
London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sexton, M., & Lu, S. (2009). The challenges of creating actionable knowledge: An action research perspec-
tive. Construction Management and Economics, 27(7), 683– 694.
Shen, W., Shen, Q., & Sun, Q. (2012). Building information modeling-based user activity simulation and
evaluation method for improving designer-user communications. Automation in Construction, 21,
148 –160.
Sinopoli, J. (2010). Smart building systems for architects, owners, and builders. Oxford: Elsevier
(Butterworth-Heinemann).
Sundbo, J. (1997). Innovation in services – Denmark. service development, internationalization and com-
petences (Working Paper No. 2). Roskilde: Roskilde University
Turrent, D. (2007). Sustainable architecture. London: RIBA Publishing.
Vakili-Ardebili, A., & Boussabaine, A. H. (2007). Creating value through sustainable building design.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 3, 83 –92.
Way, M., & Bordass, B. (2005). Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 2: Soft landings –
involving design and building teams in improving performance. Building Research and Information,
33(4), 353– 360.
Yan, W., Culp, C., & Graf, R. (2011). Integrating BIM and gaming for real-time interactive architectural visu-
alisation. Automation in Construction, 20, 446 –458.
Zhang, J. P., & Hu, Z. Z. (2011). BIM- and 4D based integrated solution of analysis and management for
conflicts and structural safety problems during construction: 1. Principles and methodologies.
Automation in Construction, 20, 155– 166.