BrIM 5D models and Lean Construction for planning work activities in reinforced

concrete bridges with a case study

By

BASSAM WAZIR BDAIWI BDAIWI

(203724113)

ABSTRACT

Integrating Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Lean Construction (LC) can improve the
reinforced concrete bridging planning process, due to the possibility of managing the project
information with BIM to obtain accurate input data that benefit the application of LC principles. The
application of BIM to bridges is called Bridge Information Modeling (BrIM). In this paper, we study
the feasibility of jointly apply BrIM technology and LC philosophy, instead of the individual use of
BrIM models for planning reinforced concrete bridges. We used an investigative approach based on a
case study, divided into two stages: in the first, we planned the case study with BrIM 3D models; and
in the second, with BrIM 5D models and LC. The integration of BrIM and LC improve the results of
the project planning stage by early detecting problems and constraints; this detection has the
visualization and information management advantages provided by BIM, which along with the
application of LC principles improve project planning, and encourage waste reduction.

Keywords: Bridge Information Modeling; Building Information Modeling; Lean Construction; Last
Planner System.
1. Introduction

Nowadays, the BIM technology approach has changed the stages of the life cycle of construction
projects, from design to operation. BIM allows to elaborate models taking into account different
dimensions, BIM 3D, 4D, and nD. The 3D dimension is a representation of the project space,
associated with information based on geometries, materials, and suppliers, among others. The 4D
dimension is obtained by adding time, which allows to obtain a virtual simulation of the construction
process. The fifth dimension is obtained by adding the cost, thus obtaining a BIM 5D model [1-5]. The
application of BIM 5D technology to bridge modeling, known as Bridge Information Modeling or
BrIM 5D, improves the three main concerns of the team planning a bridge construction: quality, work
planning, and cost [6]. BrIM creates an environment of coordination and coherence between the
information that is transmitted from the design stage to the maintenance and operation stage.

In bridge construction planning, BrIM 3D and BrIM 5D models allow to simulate the building
process before starting the construction phase of the project, facilitating a more accurate estimate of the
total project cost [1-4, 6-9]. Modeling and simulating the different stages of the construction process in
BrIM 5D offers several advantages; the most significant are cost reduction in different phases of the
project, storage and management of detailed information of the processes, estimation of construction
quantities [2-7, 10], possibility of collaboration with professionals in different geographical locations,
detection of inconsistencies in the project design [7], optimization of the work space [2-11], resource
planning [2-7, 12], and the possibility of detecting failures and inconsistencies in planning, among
others.

The Lean Construction (LC) philosophy is oriented toward administering the production in the
construction sector [13-15]; its main objective is to reduce or eliminate activities that add no value to
the project, and optimize activities that do; it is mainly focused on creating specific tools applied to the
project execution process, and on producing a system that minimizes waste [12-16], understanding by
residues everything that add no value to the activities necessary to complete the project.

The application of LC facilitates the creation of production systems that allow to optimize, reduce
or eliminate flows and waste, with the goal of improving the execution times of the different
construction processes [17, 18]. LC uses the scheduling system called Last Planner System (LPS),
based on a cascade schedule, which focuses on reducing variability in the scheduling of project
activities, and is divided into three schedules: general, intermediate, and weekly work [19-22]. The
general schedule shows the whole set of activities that must be complete to finish the project; the
intermediate schedule breaks down the general schedule into activities that have a high probability of
being executed through a filtering process, which takes into account the necessary requirements
(materials, equipment, tools, prerequisites, and others) to execute an activity; finally, the weekly
schedule allows establishing a detailed work plan, executable week by week. The implementation of
BIM, along with the LC philosophy principles of waste reduction, is an effective combination for
reducing uncertainty and wastes associated with the construction process. This combination is ideal for
the planning stage of construction projects [23].
 In this paper, we study the feasibility of using LC philosophy and BrIM 5D models in planning
reinforced concrete bridges, compared to the planning method that only uses BrIM models. The
benefits obtained from the implementation of BrIM 5D models and LC philosophy are shown in the in
the planning process of construction projects.

2. Literature review

An investigation by Kuenzel et al. (2016) indicated that close to 90% of the analyzed
construction projects suffered from coordination problems and unsuccessful project management and
exceeded project deadlines [11]. In the same year, Oesterreich et al. (2016) revealed organizational
issues in construction projects to be a fundamental cause of project failure [2]. Oppong et al. (2017)
discovered the insufficient commitment of stakeholders to the project to be an important reason for
project failures [1]. Further investigative approaches have shown that planning issues, complications in
project organization, and stakeholder disagreements allows projects to exceed their schedules and
budgets. Increasing project complexity, constantly changing customer requests, and a wide variety of
regulations result in even greater planning and execution efforts [3,12–14]. Moreover, the sophisticated
technical requirements and high quantity of project participants greatly affect the deployment efforts in
project management and control. Kim et al. discovered a further issue in 2018 that concerns project
workflow interruptions caused by sloppy integration of the supply chain to the project execution
process. Many planners, contractors, and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) source their
information, goods, and services via highly fragmented, unstructured supply chains. Moreover, due to
the use of mostly impossible just-in-time distribution options, the delivery of goods is rarely in line
with the project’s progression. Thus, the flow of a project is continually disturbed, which leads to
significant project time and budget issues that negatively impact the project’s outcome and customer
satisfaction [3,4,11].

Sambasivan stated in 2007 that the issue of delays and schedule overruns in construction projects
can be understood as a global phenomenon, with conclusive evidence in many studies [15]. A paper by
Olawale and Sun (2015) evaluated several international investigations concerning exceeded costs and
mismanaged time in construction projects; according to this paper, Hoffman et al. determined in 2007
that 72% of 332 public US-facility projects were delivered late, and 47% exceeded the project timeline
by more than 4 months [16,17]. The German Federal Ministry of Construction conducted an analysis
between 2000 and 2015 and found exceeded costs and mismanaged timelines in 300 building projects
(>10 m EUR). Only 65% achieved their scheduled targets [18]. According to an investigation by Assaf
and Al-Hejji (2006), 59% of 76 evaluated projects in Saudi Arabia were considered delayed [14].

However, the examples are not only negative. Salem et al. presented a construction project case
study in 2006, where the application of specific agile organization and lean construction approaches
(applied lean construction elements: Last Planner System; Increased Visualization; Huddle Meetings;
First Run studies; 5S; Fail Save for Quality) brought the project’s progression up to three weeks ahead
of schedule [19]. Thomas et al. showed as early as 2002 that a significant reduction in project duration
of about 30% is achievable through sustainable project management improvements [20]. Hanna et al.
(2010) and Hwang et al. (2011) found advantages in thorough pre-planning, leading to improvements
in the quality of work execution, increased productivity values, and a reduction in project duration
[21,22].

Nevertheless, the main causes for project delays remain under investigation. Doloi (2012),
Braimah (2014), and Larsen (2016), in addition to many others, investigated the significant
impediments that directly impacted the project’s schedule [13,23,24]. The results of these studies
indicated weak design elements; poor project planning, site management, and project control;
insufficient contractor experience; contract payment problems; equipment availability;
weather/environmental conditions; and material supply issues as the primary causes for project delays
[13,23,24]. A study by Gebrehiwet et al. (2017) revealed 52 of the most likely reasons for project
delays; ineffective project scheduling ranked number two, behind deficient project planning [25].

This investigation shows the international situation of the construction industry and provides
information about the general and fundamental problems in construction project planning and
execution [7]. Weaknesses in project design and inadequate schedule and cost management appear to
be of particular importance regarding the root causes of errors. The inevitable consequences of these
differences between planned and actual values lead to unforeseeable and unexpected additional cost
and time requirements and thus to an increasing risk of the projects success. In order to further
investigate and narrow down the described causes, current project management methods and the most
recent solution approaches will be examined in the following.

3. Methodology

The application of LC principles and BrIM technology in planning work activities was based on
the methodological framework proposed by Mao & Zhang in their work “Construction process
reengineering by integrating Lean Principles and computer simulation techniques” [24], where they
proposed a reengineering of the constructive process using the LC philosophy (Fig. 1). We selected a
research methodology based on a case study that consists of a reinforced concrete bridge of continuous
beam typology, located in the city of Bucaramanga, to study the feasibility of applying BrIM 5D
models and LC philosophy. The method- ology was developed in two stages: first, we planned the case
study using BrIM 3D models, and generated the budget and the schedule of the work activities from the
BrIM 3D model information; and then, we planned the work activities using LC and BrIM 5D.

3.1. Planning work activities with BrIM 3D technology

The objective was to obtain the budget and the work schedule of the case study applying the
BrIM 3D technology, without the Lean Construction waste reduction philosophy. We obtained the
necessary results to compare with the methodology, and then, the Lean principles and the BrIM 5D
model were linked.
 Fig. 1. : [Reengineering of the constructive process using the LC philosophy, based on] [24].

3.2. Reengineering the construction process based on BrIM and Lean Construction

The objective was to obtain a schedule free of activities that add no value to the construction
process, from the schedule obtained in stage one. This schedule allowed to study the feasibility of
applying the BrIM 5D model and the LC philosophy for planning work activities in the construction of
reinforced concrete bridges.

In the first part, we developed a work breakdown structure (WBS), which consisted in dividing
the project into work packages in a logical and systematic way, in order to achieve an effective project
management; the packages were divided into chapters, the chapters into sub-chapters, and so on, until
specific activities could be programmed, budgeted, and controlled.

In the second part, we developed the flow of each construction process, in which the sequences
and the links between the activities that compose the workflows were identified. The process map was
a useful tool to study and understand the materials flow and to visualize the link between the activities.

In the third part, we built the BrIM 5D model of the construction process in Autodesk
Navisworks software, from the case study design documents. In the elaboration of the model, we took
into account the flows and links between the work activities identified in the process map.
 In the fourth part, we applied the LC principles, which reduced supportive and interactive
activities, thereby determining and modifying the critical work- flow to reduce the duration of
activities.

In the fifth part, after eliminating the activities that added no value, a new schedule of activities
of the construction process was generated and subsequently evaluated by the BrIM 5D simulation. In a
decision loop, the reengineering of the construction process activities was evaluated, taking into
account the improvement expectations of the project’s cost and time. Fig. 2 shows the reengineering
process that was performed for the schedule obtained in the first stage of the research.

Fig. 2. : [Reduction of activities without value].

4. planning work activities using BrIM 3D

The first result is the budget obtained from the bud- get estimation methodology using BIM 3D
technology (Porras, Sánchez, Galvis) [25]. The second result consists in the work activities scheduled
without using the LPS (Last Planner System) planning tool of the LC philosophy.

4.1. Construction budget with BrIM 3D

The process to elaborate the budget consisted in using the work quantities of each building
element of the bridge, calculated automatically in the BrIM 3D model (Fig. 3), and multiplied by their
unit price to obtain the cost of each construction activity for the case study. As a result of elaborating
the construction budget (Table 1), the direct cost for the different construction activities was estimated,
based on the required materials, equipment and labor.

4.2. Work schedule with BrIM 3D

The schedule of work activities was obtained from the BrIM 3D model, which allowed to
establish and differentiate each one of the constructive elements of the bridge. The work schedule was
elaborated in Microsoft Project software.
 Table 1. : [Construction budget of the case study, in Colombian prices].

Concept Subtotal
Preliminaries $94,760,299
Excavations, fillers and drains $15,912,818
Concrete $1,435,816,131
Steel $1,305,603,712
Wrenches and anchor bolts $32,906,618
Anchor bolts $2,210,293
Town planning $61,899,820
Drainage $636,192
Signaling $3,484,228
Asphaltic folder $13,232,861
Direct cost $2,966,462,972

Fig. 3. ; [BrIM 3D model of the case study. Developed in Autodesk Revit software].

5. Planning with BrIM 5D and Lean Construction

5.1. Development of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

The development of the WBS took into account three main packages: preliminary,
construction, and operation. The present study mainly focused on the work package called
‘construction’; this package has the foundation, structure, urbanism, and facilities chapters, which were
considered to study the feasibility of applying the reengineering process based on the BrIM technology
and the principles of the LC philosophy. Figure 4 shows the result of this stage.

5.2. Map of activities that add value

The map of value is one of the five principles of LC [26-27]; it represents all the activities that
must be carried out for materializing the deliverables of the construction project, both activities that add
value and those that add no value [28-30].
 Fig. 4. : [Work breakdown structure (WBS)].

Continuous value mapping in construction projects is infrequent, due to the constant change in
the production and to the little repetitive work that is carried out in a construction; however, it is
important to examine the construction activities value flow and to deter- mine the classification of the
different wastes at the production stage [31-35]. In this research, the value flow mapping was
developed to visualize the constructive process in a complete and understandable way, and thus, to
determine the connections between the information and the material flow for a given package or
workflow. Figure 5 shows the value flow map for the construction of the bridge piles.

Fig. 5. : [Value flow map for pile construction].

5.3. BrIM 5D model of the construction process

Figure 6 shows five moments of the construction process simulation of the vehicular bridge under
study (BrIM 5D model), made in the software Autodesk Navisworks Manage. The simulation allowed
to observe and study the virtual construction of the project, according to its schedule and its work
budget.
 Fig. 6. : [BrIM Model 5D. Autodesk Navisworks Manage].

5.4. Applying Lean Construction principles to planning

Reducing activities that add no value: Activities that add no value are those that consume more
resources (time, space, money, labor) than the estimates and the necessary for their execution, for
example, emptying the concrete for the plates is an activity that generates value to the construction
process, but the mixer delay time is an activity that takes away value.

From the value flow map (Fig. 5), we proceeded to reduce the time of those activities that add no
value to the construction process. From the ‘pile construction’ work package, two types of activities
that add no value were identified: support and interactive. The first are those that support and facilitate
the execution of the main activities of the project, but do not contribute physically to the final product;
interactive activities are those that interact with two or more activities and can be supportive or main.
The delay of an interactive activity generates wastes in the construction process, because the previous
activity must be completed in order to carry out the next activity in the schedule. For the case study,
transport and production controls were identified as supporting activities, and steel assembly and
concrete melting as interactive activities.

Once we identified the activities that add no value to the project, we recalculated the duration of
the activities, and obtained a new work program, with which a new simulation was carried out in the
BrIM 5D model; this with the goal of re-planning the construction process to obtain a better
performance in the construction of the project.

6. Improvement of the planning processes using BrIM and Lean Construction

Using BrIM technology and applying the LPS plan- ning system improved the development of
the planning processes for bridge construction projects, taking into account that work quantities are
obtained automatically using the model BrIM; therefore, the error induced by manual estimation is
eliminated and the estimation of the total cost of the project (budget) is more efficient, due to the
decrease of the uncertainty in the estimation of work quantities with BrIM. Alarcón and Pellicer [19]
showed a significant difference between estimating the project direct costs using BIM models and
estimating them using the model based on 2D drawings (.dwg format), obtaining a variation of 8.5 % of
the direct cost.

The use of BrIM allows the budget to be flexible to changes in the design, which are traditionally
en- countered in the planning stage; therefore, BrIM is a useful tool to improve the financial planning
of bridge construction projects [36-37]. Table 2 shows the comparison between traditional planning
with BrIM 3D models and the planning proposed in this research (BrIM 5D and LC).

Table 2. : [Comparison of planning methods].

Cost with BrIM 5D y

Activities Cost with BrIM 3D Variation
Lean
Preliminaries $ 94,760,299 $ 91,074,681 -3.89 %
Excavations, fillers and drains $ 15,912,818 $ 15,412,048 -3.15 %
Concrete $ 1,435,816,131 $ 1,375,950,840 -4.17 %
Steel $ 1,305,603,712 $ 1,234,211,452 -5.47 %
Wrenches and anchor bolts $ 32,906,618 $ 32,145,022 -2.31 %
Anchor bolts $ 2,210,293 $ 2,089,263 -5.48 %
Town planning $ 61,899,820 $ 56,328,836 -9.00 %
Drainage $ 636,192 $ 636,192 0.00 %
Signaling $ 3,484,228 $ 3,305,489 -5.13 %
Asphaltic folder $ 13,232,861 $ 12,841,903 -2.95 %
Direct cost $ 2,966,462,972 $ 2,823,995,726 -4.80 %

7. Innovation in construction planning

The planning stage of construction projects traditionally focuses on generating design documents
(drawings, specifications, and construction details, among others) and evaluating the cost of each
design alternative. We propose to add the simulation of the constructive processes with BrIM
technologies in conjunction with the LC waste reduction principles, to strengthen the decision-making
process in the planning phase by evaluating the construction processes in a virtual environment, and by
analyzing in detail the workflow of the work activities. In this way, it is possible to make modifications
in the planning phase instead of in the construction phase, when the bad decisions generate wastes.

The proposed planning methodology favors the reduction of the cycle times, which allows to
simulate different alternatives that facilitate the relationships among resources, time, cost, and
personnel. It is possible to reduce activities that add no value to the project, and thereby avoid work
activities that consume more than the necessary resources [38].
8. Benefits of applying BrIM technologies and Lean Construction

Traditional planning obtains a program of extensive work based on assumptions, which only
covers the activities that must be completed, and forgets to analyze whether they can really be achieved
at the construction site. The application of BrIM and LC considers four levels of hierarchical planning,
where as one descends in the hierarchy, the level of detail increases.

The planning system based on the LC principles and supported by BrIM manages to reduce
losses by increasing the number of activities executed per week; therefore, it is possible to better
control the uncertainty by overcoming obstacles such as turn planning into a system, performance
measurement of the planning system implementation, and analysis and identification of errors in
planning.

The integration of BrIM and LC showed the following benefits in the planning of construction projects:

 Increased reliability of the execution of construction activities.

 Maintenance of a constant workflow.
 Increase in the performance of work-on-site units.
 Reduction of unforeseen events associated with lack of resources.
 Minimal execution times of the projects.
 Improvement in the work quality control.

Table 3 shows a comparison between planning using individual BrIM 3D models and planning
using both BrIM 5D and LC.

Table 3. : [Comparison of planning methods].

Planning with Lean

Planning with BrIM 3D
Construction + BrIM 5D
Focus Critical path Managing variability
Planning, control and
Scope Planning
measurement
Mode of application Unsystematic Systematic
Methodology Dates control Workflow management
Commitment Little High
Self-appraisal No Yes
Continuous improvement, technology
Improvement Cost of activities
and reduction of workflows
Control Cost of activities Cost, time and quality
Levels of detail General Discreet
 The disadvantages encountered in the application of the system were the following:

 Learning the planning system makes implementation difficult.

 There must be an efficient level of responsibility for the system to function.
 Due to the high number of meetings, the system may fail due to lack of commitment.

9. Using BrIM 5D model and Lean Construction to simulate the construction processes

According to the LC theory, activities are classified into two categories: activities that add value
and activities that add no value. Activities that add value are those that consume materials and
contribute physically to the final project, whereas activities that add no value are those that generate
“wastes”. In the context of LC theory, the following loss-generating areas are identified: low quality in
the final products, rework during construction, wastes due to excess of material, waste of time due to
material transportation, waste of materials due to inventories and work under non-optimal conditions
[30].

Through the value flow map of the construction processes, it is possible to identify the types of
activities that make up a project, and thus, it is possible to reduce or eliminate activities that do not
generate value; subsequently, it is possible to simulate with BrIM 5D the new construction process
without the activities that generate no value, thus the impact of eliminating these activities will be
reflected before starting in the field the execution of the different construction processes.

The simulation of the construction process is a useful resource for coordinating the interaction of
the activities carried out by the working groups involved in the development of the construction phase
[35]. Computer simulations can be used to validate and quantify the efficiency of a building process
that is regenerated through Lean principles prior to the application. Mao & Zhang [24] used the unified
computer simulation with Lean principles in a road construction project, and concluded that the
simulation was able to quantify the impact of reducing some activities that added no value to the
activities in the construction of roads.

10. Case study

An real practice construction project was used as a comparative case-study for an initial
installation and performance test of the 5D-PROMPT approach. One construction project was
completed using traditional planning and execution methods to pre-classify the new approach's
workability and predicted advantages (and to make it comparable to past methods) (hereafter
referred to as Project A). During the same time span, an equivalent building project using the 5D-
PROMPT approach was completed (hereafter referred to as Project B).
Both approaches' performance values were calculated using particular Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) measured during and after the execution stages of both projects and then evaluated
using a multi-criteria analysis. The required KPIs were chosen based on the results of the literature
review and an examination of current project management practices.
 Table 4. : [Definition of KPIs (criteria); reference units, weighting variables, and assessment of
whether to aim for a better or lower performance value].

During the years 2018/19, Heinrich Schmidt GmbH and Co. KG, a general contractor,
completed Project A and Project B. (Location: South Germany). Over the course of 11 months, the
project stakeholders designed and completed twenty-one trades for each project. A reference value
was developed as a baseline for data gathering because a comparison of the two construction projects
 would have resulted in inaccuracies due to a lack of absolute comparability. The process sequence
and implementation of Project A are presumed to be well-known in this analysis. As a result, the
following section will solely cover the Project B execution procedure. However, the basic process
phases of both projects are contrasted in order to provide a better understanding.

Table 5. : [Project A's overall process steps versus Project B's].

Project B's design was based on a 3D BIM, as previously stated. Contelos GmbH, a virtual-
modeling firm, provided this model. The software program iTWO Baseline was provided by the
construction software company RIB Software SE, and it was used to generate the requisite
interconnections between the different model items, the relevant BoQ positions, and the scheduling
activities. This program also performed/developed model split operations, construction process
simulation/optimization, tendering and contracting of subcontractor services, and 3D model-based
execution status representations. In addition to the 3D BIM, traditional 2D CAD project plans were
generated and maintained available for implementation to reduce the risk of technique failure.

Since the project stakeholders were introduced to the 5D-PROMPT technique, ongoing team
coaching and individual training were required to prepare the participants to execute the project. All
project-related contracts required to meet the agile project's execution requirements to establish a firm
foundation. The modeling business was needed to create a 3D BIM to confirm the modeling guidelines
of the used 3D modeling software (Revit) and to apply a project-wide BIM attribution system. The
awarding and contracting of all execution trades, which had to be completed before job execution could
begin, was a significant measure. The execution organization team, which included foremen, crew
leaders, site managers, and the project leader, was then constituted. The PROMPT Administration
Board was put up by this team using time-regulated "project start and end dates as well as milestone
 dates" data determined by the waterfall-based construction execution simulation. Additionally, time
periods for Organizational Units (OUs) and Task Units (TUs) were added to the board on a
monthly/weekly basis to build a static structure for job execution.

During monthly/weekly meetings, the team determined, confirmed, and evaluated both
forthcoming and completed work execution tasks after work execution began. Daily job performance
monitoring ensured that target/actual provisions were met, as well as providing information on the
required execution times. Highlighted elements in the 3D BIM indicated actual building statuses.
Deviations between the expected and needed time and cost values were analyzed and stored in a
database to aid in more exact project planning in the future. Table 6 depicts and describes the basic
process of the case study.

Table 6. :[ Implementation of a practical 5D-PROMPT workflow and an integrated software application].

Table 6. Cont.
Table 6. Cont.
11. Results and Multi Criteria Analysis

To make the two studies comparable, the data collecting reference value was chosen at 1000 m2
GFA (Gross Floor Area). This factor was responsible for all of the data collected. Both projects were
expected to take 11 months to complete, including planning, tendering, contracting, and execution.
Both projects were separated into construction portions of roughly identical size to increase the
comparability of the two projects. These parts were required to distribute the scope of work in the most
efficient manner and to act as reference points for determining the project's process status indicator.

Project B was completed on time, according to the construction schedule. Each building segment
was likewise finished on time, ensuring that all agreed milestones were met. The agile construction
process organization adjusted for deviations caused by expected values obtained during the project
planning phase. Furthermore, the use of the upgraded 5D-BIM technique has resulted in a significant
reduction in the differences between the as-planned and as-built values. With a four-week delay,
Project A missed its target completion date. On average, the project milestones were met 3-5 days later
than expected. As a result, the entire timeline was shifted, and the final deadline was substantially
missed. At first look, Project B appeared to be in line with the budget; However, due to the new
methodology's deployment, additional and unforeseen extra costs for necessary tablet/computer
hardware and servers, as well as maintenance, helpline, and update services, were required. For Project
B, these expenses amounted to EUR 22,825 net per 1000 m2 per year. As a result, the Project's real cost
overrun was 6.04 percent. Project A had a total cost overrun of 16.2 percent for a reference value of
1000 m2. Supplements owing to poor planning, rework, and defect management, as well as the longer
construction schedule, were to blame (extra costs for provision of site equipment and staff).

A Multi Criteria Analysis was undertaken to get a preliminary assessment of the new method's
impact on project performance, accuracy in project planning, and schedule and cost reliability. An
evaluation matrix was created based on the two alternatives, Project A (iA) and Project B (iB), as well as
the specified analysis criteria (jn) previously described by the KPIs (see Table 4). The cell variables
represent each criterion's project-based performance value (Xij). The differing units of the
measurements of the criteria to be compared were unified, and linguistic phrases of classification were
assigned to a number-based performance value scale to prevent assessment difficulties and obtain
similar analytical results. Furthermore, the analysis matrix has to be normalized in order to obtain only
numerical data without any units.

The normalized performance value ( ) of each cell had to be calculated after the allocation of
each criterion into "beneficial-higher performance value is desired" (e.g., commitment of involved
stakeholders) and "non-beneficial-lower performance value is desired" (e.g., exceeding of final project
deadline). The following formulas were used for this purpose, based on the criteria classification:
"beneficial" or "non-beneficial." The lowest and highest performance values of each criterion were
used to calculate the minimum and maximum performance
 Because the analysis matrix was normalized, a weighting factor ( ) was assigned to the
normalized performance values ( ) of each criterion (∑ ) to characterize its impact on
schedule and cost dependability, accuracy in project planning, and project performance (see Table 6).
The weighted normalized analysis matrix was created by multiplying each normalized performance
value by the corresponding weighted factor.

Each weighted normalized performance value ( ) of each Project was added together to
calculate the absolute performance scores of Project A and Project B. The following formula can be
used to calculate the performance score for each alternative ((iA) and (iB) (Project A; Project B):

Project B received a total performance score of 0.38 after collecting all measurement data
relevant to the respective Key Performance Indicators and evaluating all values. The score for Project
A was 0.12. The ranking system presented in Table 7 was used to assess the relevance of these data.
This scoring approach is commonly used to compare and contrast options based on a variety of
quantitative and qualitative criteria, objectives, or situations. It is used to examine a set of complicated
alternatives and to rank the items of the set using a multidimensional target system. The performance
value of each alternative represents the order. The evaluation numbers are arranged on a five-point
scale (in this case, 0.05 to 0.55), The higher the evaluation number, the better the evaluation (Table 8)
[41–43]. As a result, Project B's project planning and execution using the 5D-PROMPT method may be
classified as "excellent." According to the traditional project planning and execution process, Project A
could only be classified as "poor." This demonstrates that the 5D-PROMPT technique improves
construction planning and execution significantly, implying a significant improvement in overall
project performance. The next section lists and explains further results and differences between the two
project organization strategies.

Table 7. : [Evaluation Matrix-Determination of the performance value ( ). This method applies →

= performance value of the ith alternative over the jth criteria].

j1 j2 j3

iA XiA j1 XiA j2 XiA jn

iB XiB j1 XiB j2 XiB jn
 Table 8. :[Ranking scale] [39].

Scale Values Icon Definition

0.45–0.55 ++ very good
0.35–0.449 + good
0.25–0.349 0 sufficient
0.15–0.249 - less sufficient
0.05–0.149 – bad

The comparison also demonstrates that during the construction period of Project B, the number of
construction flaws was 82.6 percent fewer than Project A. Supplements and adjustments in planning
owing to consumer feedback were also around 71.5 percent less expensive than in the same project.
The participants' commitment to Project B's newly introduced approach was very high (Grade 5-
strongly agree, according to the Likert scale analysis [40]), while the project execution team's devotion
to the traditional method was also rated "high" (Grade 4-agree, from the Likert scale analysis [40]).
Project A received three disability notifications and three notices of default, however Project B was
untouched by these measures.

In neither project, construction activities came to a complete halt. Furthermore, neither project
had an officially declared construction halt, and no workers were injured or murdered throughout the
development process. The following services were included in the costs of adopting Project B's new
methodology: (1) project organization method introduction and training, (2) software teaching and
training, (3) process consulting, (4) generation of project-relevant master data, and (5) operational
project support. These services were computed proportionately based on 1000 m2 per year reference
values and were EUR 38,500 net in total. As previously stated, these expenditures include the
significant additional costs for additional essential hardware equipment and software-related services.

12. Conclusions

Reengineering a construction process applying the LC philosophy principles add value of great
benefit to detect failures, which can be corrected and adjusted before starting the construction of the
project instead of during the construction stage. In this way, it is possible to reduce losses due to poor
planning, and increase the certainty and quality of the construction planning.

The use of BrIM models and LC philosophy in planning reinforced concrete bridge construction
provides great benefits by improving accuracy and reducing uncertainty in the calculation of work
quantities, taking into account that these quantities are automatically calculated according to the
digitized construction elements in the BrIM model. This new approach to technology management
allows to improve the planning processes, such as the estimation of both work quantities and budget,
and the elaboration of work schedules.
 The unified use of BrIM technology and LC philosophy improves the production process of
construction projects. This new improvement is clearly a techno- logical innovation in the planning of
construction processes that achieves and allows the productivity and cost-benefit of the projects to be
more effective and beneficial to the builders. In the bridge planning stage, the use of BrIM models
facilitates the detection of LC problems or constraints, based on the visualization benefits provided by
BIM, which improves the results of the LC application.

The application of the planning methodology proposed in this research allows to obtain benefits,
such as in- creased reliability in the execution of work activities, maintenance of a constant workflow,
increased work crew performance, decreased contingencies associated with the lack of resources,
reduced execution times, and improved project control, among others. We can conclude that, from an
application point of view, it is feasible to plan the construction process using Bridge Information
Modeling (BrIM) technology and the re- engineering process based on LC principles to obtain a highly
feasible and executable construction process.

The results of the case study indicated a considerable improvement of the objectives pursued.
However, since only one project was counted as a sample, this study was relatively limited. Therefore,
no statistical evaluation of the results was achievable. However, due to the large number of different
criteria examined, it was possible to carry out a multi-criteria analysis, which provided a preliminary
impression of the effectiveness of this method. The weighting of the multi-criteria analysis was
particularly focused on the criteria that affect exceeding construction time and costs, as well as
disruption-free construction processes. One experienced value concerns the oversized storage capacity
of the server used for Project B. In future projects, this value this could be reduced considerably,
thereby decreasing the direct project costs per 1000 m2.

Generally, the technical implementation and feasibility of the proposed method was proven to be
beneficial, and possible technical improvements have already been derived. To obtain a reliable
evaluation of the effects of the entire 5D-PROMPT method, a series of projects must be carried out and
examined in accordance with this method in future investigations.
13. References

[1] J. Gaitán, “Uso de la metodología BrIM (bridge information modeling) como herramienta para
la planificación de la construcción de un puente de concreto en Colombia,” Pontificia Universidad
Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia, 2013.

[2] W. C. Wang, S. W. Weng, S. H. Wang, et al., “Integrating building information models

construction process simulations for project scheduling support,” Automation in Construction, vol. 37,
pp. 68-80, Jan. 2014. DOI: http://doi. org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.10.009.

[3] C. Chen, “Applying BIM and simulation to schedule construction projects,” M.S. Thesis,
National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, 2011.

[4] B. Koo, and M. Fisher, “Feasibility study of 4D CAD in comercial construction,” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 126 (4), pp. 251-260, Jul. 2000. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:4(251).

[5] A. Mahalingam, R. Kashyap, and C. Mahajan, “An evaluation of the applicability of 4D CAD
on construction projects”, Automation in Construction, vol. 19 (2), pp. 148-159, Mar. 2010. DOI:
http://doi. org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.11.015.

[6] M. Marzouk, and M. Hisham, “Implementing earned value management using bridge
information modeling,” Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 18 (5), pp. 1302-1313, May. 2014. DOI:
http://doi. org/10.1007/s12205-014-0455-9.

[7] E. Mikulakova, et al., “Knowledge-based schedule generation and evaluation,” Advanced

Engineering Informatics, vol. 24 (4), pp. 389-403, Nov. 2010. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.010.

[8] M. Marzouk, and M. Hisham, “Applications of building information modeling in cost

estimation of infrastructure bridges,” International Journal of 3-D Information Modeling, vol. 1 (2), pp.
17-29, Jun. 2012. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4018/ij3dim.2012040102.

[9] B. K. Al-Dosary, “Integrating 3D CAD and cost estimating at the conceptual design stage of
bridge projects,” M.S Thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada, 2015.

[10] Z. Mallasi, “Dynamic quantification and analysis of the construction workspace congestion
utilising 4D visualization,” Automation in Construction, vol. 15 (5), pp. 640-655, Sep. 2006. DOI:
http://doi. org/10.1016/j.autcon.2005.08.005.

[11] H. J. Wang, J.P Zhang, K.W. Chau, et al., “4D dynamic management for construction planning
and resource utilization,” Automation in Construction, vol. 13 (5), pp. 575-589, Sep. 2004. DOI:
http://doi. org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.04.003.

[12] R. Al-Aomar, “Analysis of lean construction practices at Abu Dhabi construction industry,”
Lean Construction Journal, pp. 105-121, 2012.
[13] M. Tauriainen, P. Marttinen, B. Dave, and L. Koskela, “The effects of BIM and lean
construction on design management practices,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 164, pp. 567-574, 2016.
DOI: http://doi. org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.659.

[14] Y. Arayici, P. Coates, L. Koskela, M. Kagioglou, C. Usher, and K. O’Reilly, “Technology

adoption in the BIM implementation for lean architectural practice,” Automation in Construction, vol.
20 (2), pp. 189- 195, Mar. 2011. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j. autcon.2010.09.016.

[15] L. Koskela, “Application of the new production philosophy to construction,” CIFE Center for
Integrated Facility Engineering - Stanford University, vol. 72, pp. 1-87, 1992.

[16] H. Porras, O. Sánchez, and J. Galvis, “Filosofía lean construction para la gestión de proyectos
de construcción: una revisión actual,” Revista Avances Investigación en Ingeniería, vol. 11 (1), pp. 10-
32, Jun. 2014.

[17] T. Nath, M. Attarzadeh, L.K. Tiong, et al., “Productivity improvement of precast shop drawings
generation through BIM-based process re- engineering,” Automation in Construction, vol. 54, pp. 54-
68, Jun. 2015. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j. autcon.2015.03.014.

[18] H. M. Shin, H. M. Lee, S. J. Oh, et al., “Analysis and design of reinforced concrete bridge
column based on BIM,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 2160-2163, 2011. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.1016/j. proeng.2011.07.271.

[19] L. Alarcón, and E. Pellicer, “Un nuevo enfoque en la gestión: La construcción sin pérdidas,”
Revista de Obras Públicas, vol. 3, pp. 45-52, Feb. 2009.

[20] Y. Kim, and G. Ballard, “Management thinking in the earned value method system and the last
planner system,” Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 26 (4), pp. 223-228, Oct. 2010. DOI:
http://doi. org/10.1061/_ASCE_ME.1943-5479.0000026.

[21] G. Ballard, and G. Howell, “Lean project management,” Building Research & Information, vol.
31 (2), pp. 119-113, Jan. 2003. DOI: http://doi. org/10.1080 ⁄0961321031000083922.

[22] O. Seppanen, G. Ballard, and S. Personen, “The combination of last planner system and
location based management system,” Lean Construction Journal, pp. 43-54, 2010.

[23] B. McGuire, R. Atadero, C. Clevenger, et al., “Bridge information modeling for inspection and
evaluation,” Journal Bridge Engineering, vol. 21 (4), Apr. 2016.
DOI:http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943- 5592.0000850.

[24] X. Mao, and X. Zhang, “Construction process reengineering by integrating lean principles and
computer simulation techniques,” Journal of construction Engineering and Management, vol. 134 (5),
pp. 371-381, May. 2008. DOI: http://doi. org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:5(371).

[25] H. Porras-Díaz, O. Sánchez, J. Galvis, et al., “Tecnologías “building information modeling” en

la elaboración de presupuestos de construcción de estructuras en concreto reforzado,” Entramado, vol.
11 (1), pp. 230-249, Jun. 2015. DOI: http://doi. org/10.18041/entramado.2015v11n1.21116.
[26] S. Senaratne, and A. Ekanayake, “Evaluation of application of lean principles to precast
concrete bridge beam production process,” Journal of Architectural Engineering, vol. 18 (2), pp. 94-
106, Jun. 2012. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) AE.1943-5568.0000063.

[27] R. Sacks, L. Koskela, B. Dave, et al., “Interaction of lean and building information modeling in
construction,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 136 (9), pp. 968-980, Sep.
2010. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943- 7862.0000203.

[28] J. Won, J. Cheng, and G. Lee, “Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based
design validation. Case studies in South Korea,” Waste Management, vol. 49, pp. 170-180, Mar. 2016.
DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026.

[29] D. Bhargav, K. Sylvain, F. Kary, et al., “Opportunities for enhanced lean construction
management using Internet of Things standards,” Automation in construction, vol. 61, pp. 86-97, Jan.
2016. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.10.009.

[30] P. Simonsson, “Industrial bridge construction with cast in place concrete-new production
methods and lean construction philosophies,” M.S Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea,
Suecia, 2008.

[31] B. K. Al-Dosary, “Integrating 3D CAD and cost estimating at the conceptual design stage of
bridge projects”, M.S Thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada, 2015.

[32] M. Marzouk, M. Hisham, and K. Al-Gahtani, “Applications of bridge information modeling in

bridges life cycle,” Smart Structures and Systems, vol. 13 (3), pp. 407-418, Mar. 2014. DOI: http://doi.
org/10.12989/sss.2014.13.3.407.

[33] T. Kivimäki, and R. Heikkilä, “Integrating 5D product modelling to On-site 3D surveying of

bridges,” in 26th international symposium on automation and robotics in construction (ISARC), pp.
445-450. 2009.

[34] T. Kivimäki, and R. Heikkilä, “Bridge information modeling (BrIM) and model utilization at
worksites in Finland,” in 27th international symposium on automation and robotics in construction
(ISARC), pp. 505-513, 2010.

[35] M. Abaud, F. Shanti, and A. Pratama, “Simulation of construction operation: search for a
practical and effective simulation system for construction practitioners,” in Proceeding of the First
Makassar International Conference on Civil Engineering, pp. 1311-1319, 2010.

[36] C. S. Shim, N. R. Yun, and H. H. Song, “Application of 3D bridge information modeling to

design and construction of bridges,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 95-99, 2011. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.1016/j. proeng.2011.07.010.
[37] A. Nikakhtar, A. Hosseini, K. Wong, et al., “Application of lean construction principles
to reduce construction process waste using computer simulation: a case study,” Int. J. services and
operations management, vol. 20 (4), pp. 461-480, 2015. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1504/
IJOM.2015.068528.

[38] S. A. Abbasian, A. Nikakhtar, and P. Ghoddousi, “Flow production of construction processes

through implementing lean construction principles and simulation,” International Journal of
Engineering and Technology, vol. 4 (4), pp. 475-479, Aug. 2012. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.7763/IJET.2012.V4.414.

[39] JOCU. Guide to the Principles of Comparative Testing; International Organization of

Consumers Unions: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1985.

[40] Westermann, G.; Finger, S. Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse. Einführung und Fallstudien; E. Schmidt:

Berlin, Germany, 2012.

[41] Zangemeister, C. Nutzwertanalyse in der Systemtechnik—Eine Methodik zur

Multidimensionalen Bewertung und Auswahl von Projektalternativen; Wittemann: Munich, Germany,
1970.

[42] Likert, R. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 1932, 22, 1–55.

[43] Bautsch, M. Gebrauchstauglichkeit und Gebrauchswert; Carl Hanser Fachbuchverlag: Munich,

Germany; Vienna, Austria, 2014.