Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Improving BIM asset and facilities management processes: A Mechanical

and Electrical (M&E) contractor perspective
Ryan Jang a, William Collinge b, *
a
College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Australia
b
Programme Director Construction Project Management, Dept. of Mechanical Aerospace and Civil Engineering, Univ. of Manchester, Manchester M1 7JR, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite BIM asset information management processes having advanced to globally recognised standards, facil­
BIM standards ities and asset integration remains problematic for many companies engaged in the construction project lifecycle.
Building information modelling Challenges typically stem from deficiencies in the BIM regulations and standards, inaccurate information ex­
Facilities management
changes, software interoperability issues and unclear requirement definitions that ultimately result in higher
Asset management
Mechanical and electrical engineering
project costs and poorer operational efficiencies. An exploration of these challenges and their potential solutions
is therefore important if BIM-FM integration issues are to be improved. Few studies have systematically inves­
tigated this subject from the perspective of a BIM-accredited Mechanical and Electrical (M&E) company engaged
on projects. This paper combines a literature review with an empirical case study of a BIM-accredited Mechanical
and Electrical (M&E) contractor to explore the critical issues surrounding facilities and asset management
integration; this combination of evidence providing a distillation of the issues surrounding BIM/FM asset inte­
gration and its’ resolution. 15 key issues from the literature were classified under 4 broad themes (Informational,
Technological, Organisational and Industrial) as being of primary concern; the case study analysis verifying the
findings and also providing a series of bespoke recommendations for improving industry practice. The paper
clarifies the problem issues (both negotiable and systemic) afflicting the industry, indicating how individual
companies can develop their own processes for improving BIM-based asset integration. It may be concluded that
although BIM asset integration processes have reached globally recognised standards, systemic characteristics of
the industry result in persisting problems that impact the BIM-FM asset management journey.

1. Introduction United States [22]. Other scholars [e.g. 25; 17] have also identified
unclear information requirements and software interoperability as is­
The paper examines the challenges faced by Mechanical and elec­ sues affecting smooth asset management processes. Therefore, whilst
trical (M&E) companies aiming to deliver assets in BIM compliant pro­ BIM adoption can theoretically reduce operating costs by providing in­
jects. It reveals the current deficiencies in BIM regulations and standards formation accurate assets to clients and facility managers [40], 2017),
for Tier 2 contractors, such as M&E contractors, and uses a compre­ BIM-FM integration issues need to be robustly addressed and resolved
hensive literature review and case study analysis to scope out solutions early to improve delivery in the FM phase. Although extensive studies
and approaches to these issues. The work adds to the growing literature have addressed BIM adoption in design and construction, there has been
concerning BIM-FM integration by exploring current BIM work pro­ less focus on the FM phase [24]. Additionally, few studies have sys­
cesses, information requirement issues and the role of standards (i.e. BS tematically investigated the subject from the perspective of a BIM
EN ISO 19650–2). accredited Mechanical and electrical (M&E) company; scholars com­
Whilst it is recognised that BIM adoption can lead to a wide range of menting that there are not enough studies specifying the complex rela­
efficiency and productivity benefits [7], it is also noted that 85% of total tionship amongst clients, TIER 1 and TIER 2 contractors in the BIM asset
project costs are ultimately related to FM issues [37]. For instance, integration process [25,41,47]. Indeed, whilst [17] highlights how BIM
annual costs through waste caused by operating issues from inaccurate asset integration in the design-build phase can have significant effects on
information and interoperability was reported as 10.6 billion USD in the BIM-FM integration after handover, most previous studies have focused

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Jang), [email protected] (W. Collinge).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101540
Received 26 April 2020; Received in revised form 24 May 2020; Accepted 25 May 2020
Available online 28 May 2020
2352-7102/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Jang and W. Collinge Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540

on the FM phase, not considering specific processes from the TIER 2 data and documents, known collectively as the project information
contractor’s view. model (PIM), are accumulated from design and construction activities”
The paper begins with a review of BIM, facilities asset management [8]. Furthermore, BSI provides diverse training with these standards,
processes and a critique of the academic literature in this area. The leading to accreditation and awards to qualified organisations who
literature review identifies a number of important issues relevant to the achieve successful BIM asset delivery. These processes and accredita­
work of contractors aiming to work in BIM-enabled project environ­ tions have contributed to a gradual standardisation process of the BIM
ments. Details of the literature review together with the overall meth­ industry, with iterations of the standards aiming to improve and clarify
odological approach are given in a following research method section. processes for industry. However, there have been few studies examining
The work and experiences of a UK M&E contractor is then presented in a the utility of these standards from the perspective of a Tier 2 M&E
case study section. A discussion connects empirical insights with the contractor. Moreover, there has been little exploration of the issues and
issues and themes of the literature review, leading to a series of prop­ challenges commonly encountered by M&E companies aiming to deliver
ositions and recommendations to assist BIM-FM integration work. The work to BIM standards. A closer critique of the BIM information delivery
combination of empirical evidence and literature review gives practi­ cycle and academic literature highlights a number of issues of relevance.
tioners and academics a distillation of the important issues around BIM/
FM asset integration and directions for further research work. 2.1. BIM information delivery cycle

2. BIM and FM asset management: Overview Ideal BIM information management processes for the operational
phase of assets are clearly stated by BSI [9]. At a high level, client’s
Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an integrated, collaborative needs should be derived from the Organisational Information Re­
information-sharing process between project stakeholders that covers quirements (OIR). According to the OIR, Asset Information Re­
the design, construction and facility management (FM) phase of con­ quirements (AIR) are generated to determine any data and assets to be
struction projects [40]. Information includes 2-dimensional (2D), captured including technical aspects of data production [9]. The AIR is
3-dimensional (3D) models, schedules, cost and building lifecycle data used to define Employer Information Requirements (EIR), which
[45]. The advantages of BIM have resulted in its’ widespread adoption, determine the final information requirements to be delivered from
with surveys showing 75% of design professionals in developed coun­ provider (Contractor) to receiver (Client). These three steps are defined
tries believing BIM is a vital technology for the near future [32]. In the as the “Information requirement” phase [33] (see Fig. 1). As soon as the
UK, which is a BIM-driven country, level 2 BIM adoption has been information requirement step is complete, graphical and non-graphical
mandated on projects procured by the government since 2016 [32], with data, called Project Information Model (PIM), start to be created and
Level 3 BIM aiming to integrate digital design into the assets for facility integrated after setting up the BIM Execution Plan (BEP). At handover,
management (FM), being a stated objective of the “Digital Built Britain” final data is integrated to an Asset Information Model (AIM) [9]. These
agenda [38]. processes are shown in Fig. 1.
BIM is predominantly adopted in the design and construction phase However, because the design phase has a significant impact on the
rather than the FM phase as its functions and options typically originate whole project lifecycle [42], many scholars highlight the importance of
in construction support such as visualisation and construction man­ fundamental specification of information requirements at the initiation
agement [34]. Liu and Issa [13] highlight that most practitioners in the stage [18]. As already noted, appropriate planning and design can
design phase tend to focus on clash checking, neglecting operation significantly save FM costs, as design phase decisions and consequent
accessibility. In their survey, Eadie et al. [10] highlight that only 10% of actions determine almost 80% of the FM cost [23], so less interaction
companies/projects focus on FM phase benefits of adopting BIM, the among key stakeholders in early phase can negatively affect later stages
emphasis instead being on the cost benefits of BIM in the design phase. due to unidentified risks [1].
However, benefits of BIM can be significant in the FM phase as 85% of Two international standards, ISO 19650–1 and 2, were published in
project lifecycle costs after construction can be traced to FM issues [37]. 2019, themselves derived from PAS 1192–1/2. ISO 19650–2 focuses on
Additionally, more than 80% of FM working hours are spent on seeking “project delivery, where the majority of graphical data, non-graphical
accurate information, an issue often missed by practitioners during data and documents, known collectively as the project information
design phase work [4]. BIM implementation in FM can alleviate these model (PIM), are accumulated from design and construction activities”
issues by providing reliable BIM-based data and accurate as-built in­ [8]. However, although BSI and ISO provide industry recognised stan­
formation to facility managers [3,40]. Case studies, such as that dards, stakeholders in construction generally have limited knowledge of
observed by Dempsey (2009) and cited in Ref. [40] emphasise that 98% standards such as PAS 1192 to satisfy informational requirements for
of operation time is likely saved through BIM-FM integration. Also, BIM BIM [24]. Also, many tend to develop their own standard or processes
adoption in FM enables rational decision making regarding FM activities for their own needs [36].
[13]. ISO 19650–2 emphasises that a clear definition of client OIR and AIR
On the other hand, due to its relative novelty, BIM-FM integration is the most important factor in achieving successful BIM asset delivery
issues are largely under-recognised in the current market. Issues such as [8]. However, many clients tend to request just COBie or Industry
unclear scope, software interoperability and unclear information re­ Foundation Class (IFC) files without careful consideration about what
quirements continue to hinder BIM-FM integration [25]. So whilst they really need in the FM phase [45]. A critical issue here is the diffi­
McArthur [17] emphasise that early consideration of FM is vital to culty in identifying salient information for BIM-FM integration [41].
capture specific information requirements, there is usually very little Level of detail (LOD) is about how detailed BIM models and assets
collaboration between clients and facility managers in design phase convey the essential information for each stage; LOD being determined
works, with various constraints to BIM-FM integration [40] existing. between the client and contractor. Ideally, the LOD should only include
Official standards and guidance relating to BIM and asset management essential information that will be used for construction and facility
information has also evolved in tandem with industry familiarity with management rather than containing irrelevant information [45]. This is
BIM. because over-specification of LOD requires extra effort, whilst
In 2019, British Standards Institution (BSI) developed the standard over-simplification can miss important information [45]. Additionally,
‘BS EN ISO 19650–1/2’ to improve the quality of BIM delivery processes; it is recognised that reviewing and updating thousands of assets with
the original BIM standard ‘PAS 1192 series’ being replaced by ‘ISO diverse parameters can be labour-intensive and time-consuming [43].
19650 series’ with global recognition [6]. BS EN ISO 19650–2 focuses on The study conducted by Ref. [24] shows that although owners and FM
“project delivery, where the majority of graphical data, non-graphical teams recognize long-term benefits of BIM, the standards or

2
R. Jang and W. Collinge Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540

Fig. 1. Information Requirement steps.

governmental guidance do not provide detailed methodology to gain the crucial issue being that non-standardised information is gathered [43].
benefits. As a result, in reality, project teams face difficulties in defining Also [16], found that 74% of FM practitioners did not receive appro­
the LOD of BIM assets as they do not have detailed standard settings priate information from contractors for FM stage work. Often, clients or
including terms and classification of the BIM-based assets [41]. As noted FM teams tend to rely on designers with the belief that designers will
by Refs. [25], BIM asset integration needs precise standard or guidance provide details in compatible formats [11]. Thus, if FM teams were more
for information requirements. fully engaged in the design phase, they would not experience issues with
Furthermore, a lack of IT competency in client and FM teams is federating COBie data with AIM (COBie data initially being created in
another critical issue identified by scholars [25]. Key stakeholders of the the design phase).
project tend to have little experience and knowledge of BIM-FM inte­ Previous studies highlight the importance of effective communica­
gration [24]. In a study [47], found that most of the 2100 internal and tion for capturing as-built processes. Although FM teams obtain as-built
external practitioners surveyed in FM phase do not have IT experience, models at handover, there can be many differences between the models
which will limit their knowledge of information requirements issues and BIM models specifically relating to FM [14]. This can be because the
[25]. As a result, FM teams often take lower priority for clients, as re­ as-built data and models are not accurate. Causes include miscommu­
flected by one client interviewee from the study of [11] who said “I was nication between designers and site engineers [15]. Despite its’ collab­
supposed to meet with them … in a week’s time, but I’ve had to push it orative features, producing a BIM as-built model may be more
out about three weeks because of other priorities”. demanding for communication than producing a non-BIM as-built
Additionally, FM teams and designers often have different knowl­ model. For instance Ref. [15], argue that non-BIM as-built data can
edge and perspectives towards FM assets because their scope of work is proceed directly to site, whereas BIM as-built necessarily requires
different. FM teams can give designers operational perspectives such as collaboration between BIM engineer in office and site engineer on site
space management and operating conditions [35], but often, relevant during the integration work. Collecting and updating site data on BIM is
information is ignored because designers do not know how to specify the time-consuming [21]. Some solutions have been introduced to alleviate
detailed data requirements due to lack of designer operational experi­ these issues [20], including Image [2,39], Image-based clouds [21] and
ence [35,41]. The study of [28] shows that designers create models for 3D laser scanning [5]. Each one has its own limitations. For example,
the construction purposes rather than producing as-built drawings although 3D scanning technology is denser and more accurate, its pro­
because modelling and drawings are required only for construction. As a cess requires extensive skills, expensive equipment and various
result, information that FM teams need may be missing in the design personnel [2]. Also, this process can also be time-consuming and mal­
phase [30], highlighting the importance of collaboration between de­ function in bad weather [12]. Although various as-built BIM software
signers and FM teams to specify what should be updated and what FM packages have been launched, the purpose of such software is mostly
needs. about saving different versions of as-built data, which does not support
As soon as the information requirement process is finished, requested communication between stakeholders. Field BIM is currently being
assets begin to be created and integrated by designers and engineers. adopted to improve site communication. For example, Autodesk’s BIM
COBie is an important non-graphical asset format that includes digital field provides data management that accelerates field communication
information about operational assets such as equipment lists and pre­ between BIM engineers and site engineers. This development can
ventive maintenance schedules [19]. Although COBie data is usually improve the as-built miscommunication between stakeholders. The
successfully transferred to FM teams, they tend to find difficulty in the above review of BIM Information Delivery issues derives from a review
integration with AIM [43]. In the study conducted by Ref. [41], COBie of the literature, presented in Table 1, and detailed below.
was not fully operational, being replaced by a customised spreadsheet; a

3
 Table 1
Literature review findings.
NO Article Type Location Method Design-build phase

Informational Organisational

Unclear requirements for Inaccurate information and Unclear roles, responsibilities, contract Later involvement of important
R. Jang and W. Collinge

BIM adoption in FM data (e.g. Level of detail) and liability framework stakeholders including Facility Managers

1 Munir et al. (2020) [49] Journal UK Interview ✓ ✓

2 Ali et al. (2020) [50] Journal Pakistan Interview ✓ ✓
3 Piaia et al. (2020) [51] Journal Netherland Survey ✓
4 Ashworth et al. (2019) Journal UK Interview
[52]
5 Lavy et al. (2019) [53] Journal USA Interview
6 Miettinen et al. (2018) Journal Finland interview ✓
[30]
7 Pishdad-Bozorgi et al. Journal USA interview ✓ ✓
(2018) [43]
8 Shen et al. (2016) [47] Conference Singapore interview
9 Becerik-Gerber et al. Journal USA Survey ✓
(2012) [4]
10 Kassem et al. (2015) [25] Journal UK Case ✓ ✓
study
11 Parsanezhad and Conference New Zealand Case ✓ ✓ ✓
Dimyadi (2014) [41] study
12 Wang et al. (2013) [35] Journal China Case ✓
study
13 Jupp and Awad (2017) Conference Australia Case ✓ ✓
[24] study

4
14 Korpela et al. (2015) [28] Journal Finland Case ✓ ✓
study
15 Kiviniemi and Codinhoto Conference UK Case
(2014) study
16 Lin et al. (2014) Journal Taiwan Case
study
17 Kelly et al. (2013) [26] Conference UK Case ✓ ✓
study
18 Love et al. (2014) Journal Australia Case
study
19 Liu and Zettersten (2016) Conference USA Case ✓ ✓
study
20 Edirisinghe et al. (2016) Conference Australia and Case ✓ ✓ ✓
[11] Singapore study
21 Lin et al. (2016) Journal Taiwan Case ✓ ✓
study
22 Kang and Hong (2015) Journal South Korea Case ✓
study
23 Eadie et al. (2013) [10] Journal UK Survey
24 Ashworth et al. (2016) Conference Swiss Survey
[52]
25 Liu and Issa (2013) [16] Conference USA Survey ✓ ✓
26 Elmualim and Gilder Journal UK Survey
(2014)
Total Interview 3 2 1 1
Issues Survey 0 2 1 1
Case 6 6 4 4
study
Total 9 10 6 6
31
Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540
 FM phase

Informational Technological Organisational Industrial

No FM data Need for specific Interoperability Technical limitations Technical competency No resources Rigid industry cultural Lack of awareness Cost related to Time Lack of
repository guidance and between BIM and FM of the BIM tools (Too (Lack of training, for update approach to of tangible information consuming industry
R. Jang and W. Collinge

templates for technologies many softwares in skills and knowledge) activity in FM implement new system benefits of BIM in management process push
clients/FMs FM) and process FM

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓

5
✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 1 1
0 2 3 0 2 0 1 3 3 1 0
1 4 7 1 7 0 2 5 3 2 1
3 10 13 3 13 3 5 12 9 4 2
77
Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540
R. Jang and W. Collinge Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540

Fig. 2. Methodological approach.

3. Research method real-life context using multiple sources of evidence” [44]. Specifically,
the case study allows issues associated with the standard ‘BS EN ISO
The study set out to understand what issues must be addressed by a 19650–2’ to be a focus of critical attention and reflection, providing “an
BIM-accredited engineering company for successful BIM asset integra­ opportunity to observe and analyse a phenomenon that few have
tion. A combined literature review with empirical case study investi­ considered before” [46].
gation was deemed appropriate as previous studies have adopted such The overall methodological approach is illustrated in Fig. 2.
an approach to good effect [25,26,30,35]. A literature review identified 3606 studies; this number being
Although the paper offers a single empirical case study with a rela­ refined to 625 following further keyword searches and abstract review.
tively small number of interviewees, it contributes to existing un­ Other inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed conference or journal
derstandings of BIM-FM integration; the empirical case approach papers because they validate the reliability of the resources [46].
enabling study of a “particular contemporary phenomenon within its Sources published after 2009 in BIM-driven countries (UK, USA, Korea,

6
R. Jang and W. Collinge Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540

Table 2 4. Case study analysis

Interviewees position and experience.
No Interviewees Position Years of working Years of working The following case study highlights the significance of the issues
in the company with BIM process previously discussed and reveals how the M&E contractor is addressing
1 Interviewee Design Manager 23 4 them. As a TIER 2 company, the M&E contractor receives a specified
A BIM Execution Plan (BEP) from the TIER 1 contractor, typically gener­
2 Interviewee Managing 12 4 ated by the client and TIER 1 contractor together based on Asset Infor­
B surveyor mation Requirements (AIR) and Exchange Information Requirements
3 Interviewee Mechanical 6 0.5
C Design Engineer
(EIR) information. This is appraised using a bespoke BEP appraisal form,
4 Interviewee Electrical Design 16 4 being returned to the Tier 1 contractor. The TIER 1 contractor then re­
D Engineer views the appraisal form, revising the BEP accordingly. According to
5 Interviewee Revit Engineer 4 3 interviewees, the BEP is the primary source of BIM Information for the
E
TIER 2 contractor. However, because information in the BEP is derived
6 Interviewee Project Engineer 10 2
F from the AIR and EIR, the BIM coordinator may need to query the
7 Interviewee BIM Coordinator 2 11 documents, “As a TIER 2 contractor, we would not necessarily appraise
G the EIR … we typically appraise only the BEP. If there was an element
8 Interviewee Revit Engineer 5 3 missing from the BEP, then we look into the AIR or EIR because the
H
9 Interviewee I Site Manager Subcontractor (Undefined)
whole point is for us is to appraise the BEP to be clear and concise”
10 Interviewee Mechanical 15 4 (Interviewee G).
J Engineer As the company is only involved in the BEP process (not in AIR and
EIR, due to contractual relationships), the disconnection with the client
and their FM needs brings risks that can affect the quality of BIM in­
Australia, New Zealand, Netherland, Finland, Swiss, Singapore, Taiwan,
formation requirements. Thus, during BEP appraisal, the case company
Pakistan and China) were selected to collect recent issues in BIM-leading
aims to identify specific risks and missing contents related to asset re­
countries. The resultant collection of 26 sources are presented in
quirements or information beyond typical requirements. However, it
Table 1. 15 recurring issues were identified from the literature regarding
can be difficult to measure the time and cost of such risks, as a Revit
BIM-FM integration, the 15 issues occurring 108 times in total in the
engineer noted:
corpus. These issues were discussed in the previous literature review,
and can be classified into 4 broad categories: Informational, Techno­ “This morning, we had a meeting to develop a standard document, a
logical, Organisational and Industrial. When dividing these issues by pre-tender document that includes what level of COBie we deliver as
phases, it was notable that Technological and Industrial issues did not standard, the asset information register we deliver as a standard, and
occur before handover, with fewer issues identified in the design-build the information requiring additional costs. We are currently tasked
phase. The survey of the literature provides a foundation for future in­ with what that additional cost is, but I am not sure how to measure it.
terpretations [31] and a basis from which examination of the case study Within the BEP processes, tender stage, sometimes some parts of
could be approached. asset information registers are marked with “to be agreed” to
consider the time and cost later” (Interviewee H).
3.1. Case study During the BEP appraisal process, many comments can be made by
the M&E company, due to imprecise information in the AIR and EIR,
The case company is a UK Mechanical and Electrical (M&E) sometimes almost doubling the page number of BEP documents. A
contractor with more than 240 employees. It provides various engi­ design manager noted:
neering services mostly in design and build systems. In 2018, the com­
pany developed its own BIM processes (in accordance with the PAS “BIM Execution Plan Appraisal is key to meeting a clear information
1192-2 standard), obtaining BIM accreditation Part 2: “Delivery phase requirement for us, but we don’t really get involved in facility
of the asset of PAS 1192–2” from the British Standards Institution (BSI). management so we cannot comment on something related to FM on
Moreover, in 2019, as PAS 1192–2 was being replaced by BS EN ISO the BEP. Also, in reality, the client and FM are not really involved in
19650–2, the company was audited and accredited by BSI again with the AIR and BEP, so these requirements are not specified in the BEP”
newly revised BIM processes. Most of the company’s turnover is (Interviewee A).
comprised of M&E components, the company engaging in project work This emphasises the significance of understanding BIM information
ranging in cost from £50,000 to £20 million. In 2018, most projects were requirements between the client and TIER 2 contractor. The interviewee
from the educational and commercial sectors. related how on a recent project, the client had a professional BIM team
The company’s contractual position in projects is that of a Tier 2 that highlighted everything they needed in the Asset Information Reg­
appointed party: the company having direct relationship with TIER 1 ister which resulted in successful BIM adoption in the FM phase. In
and supply chain contractors, but being typically distant from the client contrast, in a recent commercial project, a TIER 1 Contractor was in
and facility management. In practical terms, this means communication major control of the AIR, EIR and BEP development, resulting in mul­
with the client is not typical. When the company has questions to ask, tiple information requirement changes due to less efficient communi­
they must speak with the TIER 1 contractor. In addition, 97% of con­ cation. A root cause of this is client disinterest in BIM assets as they tend
tracts are delivered within a design-build framework, the remaining 3% to believe the builder or designer to know better than they.
being traditional contracts related to minor maintenance contracts. The Supply chains are critically important for the M&E contractor; the
design-build framework is generally considered better for internal company having approximately 600 supply chains in total, including
collaboration. 250 (active) and 100 (design responsible). These contractors often have
Data collection was based on company documentation analysis, face- little or no BIM knowledge, tending not to provide BIM-related data. In
to-face interviews and site visits. Unstructured and semi-structured in­ order to address this problem, the M&E contractor has adopted a supply
terviews were conducted with practitioners involved in BIM asset inte­ chain assessment process. A BIM coordinator explained:
gration from the company. The position and experience of each
interviewee are detailed in Table 2; interviews being designed to obtain “We have two assessment forms for suppliers; one for those with
perspectives on BIM-based asset integration. design responsibility and another for those that do not have design

7
R. Jang and W. Collinge Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540

Fig. 3. Pre-tender and post contract award processes.

responsibility. Through assessment, we identify what knowledge our training and our supply chains pay for our time to train them”
supply chains have. Questions are scored and maintained in our (Interviewee G).
database. If our supply chains don’t have a very good score, it doesn’t
Such training and learning work with suppliers are considered
mean that they will not get any work from us. It identifies training
fundamental and part of the BIM process for the M&E company. How­
requirements. We don’t want to lose our supply chains and we want
ever, if a large number of supply chains require training, the company
to make them more knowledgeable about BIM. Our supply chains are
may not be able to train them due to a lack of manpower. As the M&E
trained every 2 months and assessed every 12 months. So, on our
contractor is effectively responsible for ensuring their supply chains
database, we should see the score go higher and higher. We offer
have a mutual understanding about BIM processes, a BIM supply chain
assessment form is produced to be completed by supply chain

Fig. 4. BIM asset integration process in the case company.

8
R. Jang and W. Collinge Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540

contractors. The TIER 1 contractor will duly receive a copy of all such In the M&E company, COBie data is created by a Revit engineer
supply chain BIM documents at the end of the tender process. These (called Information Originator in ISO) based on the received Asset In­
activities align with a number of the issues highlighted in the literature formation Register. COBie information is continuously added to models
review (Table 1) and indicate how the M&E contractor is addressing throughout the project lifecycle, because if COBie is not regularly
them: unclear requirements for BIM adoption and inaccurate level of populated to models, it may lead to project delay. However, missing
detail (c.f. bespoke BEP appraisal form; supply chain database; supply COBie information is always an issue throughout the project lifecycle, as
chain assessments); need for specific guidance/templates (c.f. training a Revit engineer related:
and learning; assessment forms); technical competency (c.f. training and
“COBie data is continuously added throughout the project lifecycle
learning). The insights also highlight the need for company flexibility
but there is always going to be missing information related to COBie
and how BIM preparation and training have time and cost implications
that we receive during the project. We try to fill out as much infor­
(marked under Organisational and Industrial themes on Table 1).
mation on the models with regards to COBie as earliest as we can. In
Following the post-contract award, all design information to be ac­
addition, we adopt a BIM-link that helps minimise the need to revisit
quired is fully examined by the M&E project team. Subsequently, models
certain elements as effective plug-in software. However, this is a lot
begin to be produced from consultant models containing architectural
of work and things can become late” (Interviewee E).
details and fundamental design. A Common Data Environment (CDE) is
then established to compile, manage and share documentation, BIM assets and models are integrated based on the BEP previously
including graphical and non-graphical assets for stakeholders in the reviewed with the TIER 1 contractor. However, because information
project. All deliverables of BIM-related assets are then determined with a tends to continuously change, appraisals and revisions are needed to
Task Information Delivery Plan (TIDP) template; any changes to the determine whether changes raise the project cost or not. If COBie re­
template being discussed with the BIM coordinator before it is docu­ quirements are frequently revised, it may result in reducing the quality
mented. These processes from tender to post contract award are illus­ of BIM asset integration. This is a chronic problem due to the difficulty of
trated in Fig. 3. specifying the BIM assets and understanding what the client wants. Such
Following agreement over the BEP with the TIER 1 contractor, a issues relating to interoperability between BIM and FM technologies
COBie database (based on Asset Information Register) is created and have been previously identified by scholars (Table 1).
populated into Project Information Models (PIMs). This is considered a In terms of software interoperability, the M&E contractor receives
fundamental asset for BIM-FM integration. In order to ensure all re­ fundamental models and designs from architect contractors. Although
quirements embedded in the BEP are being met, a task manager con­ BEP specifies an Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) file, the file received
ducts various tasks for accurate technical design and information may not be compatible due to interoperability issues, as an engineer
production, including model status, stage completion, Information explained:
production procedure, COBie completeness and technical content ex­
amination procedures. These activities need a significant amount of “On a recent project, we tried to bring in architect models to our
time, cost and workload resources, as well as IT software and knowledge Revit environment, but it did not recognise spaces or certain ele­
(issues highlighted as significant in Table 1). Design information is ments, so we sat down with the architect to solve the problem.
commonly modified during and after construction, with missing infor­ Luckily, they had a BIM specialist. I would not say architectural
mation often occurring. Recording as-built activities are vital to companies are necessarily competent in delivering models. In ideal
providing accurate BIM assets at handover, with communication being world, everybody is using Revit, but architects tend to use other
through CDE, mark-up drawings by site engineers and 3D scanning. platforms.” (Interviewee D).
Fig. 4 shows the overall BIM integration processes for the M&E In this case, the BIM specialist played a crucial role in solving the
contractor. interoperability problem. As the TIER 1 contractor is responsible for

Fig. 5. Integration issues and disconnections.

9
R. Jang and W. Collinge Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540

federating the models from different TIER 2 contractors, it could be form; supply chain database) assist the Tier 2 contractor in their work,
argued that solutions to software interoperability problems should be but there remain more fundamental challenges. The need for better
provided by the TIER 1 contractor, but in practice, this does not always communication between the client and contractor remains an issue.
happen. A wide range of changes and modifications are commonly seen Communication is inhibited by the contractual boundaries, so that
during construction, but the M&E contractor is contracted to work although British Standards Institution [8] highlights the importance of
within tolerances. The importance of how data on site is managed and clear understanding of OIR and AIR and an accurate EIR to deliver
how information gets relayed back to the M&E contractor was relayed successful BIM assets, the disconnection between client and TIER 2
through the interviews. Field BIM has been recently recognised in the contractor is significant.
company to provide accurate digital assets in BIM models, a project Although clear descriptions of OIR and AIR is emphasised for suc­
engineer emphasising its significance: cessful BIM information requirements [8], identifying essential infor­
mation for BIM-FM asset integration can be difficult [41]. A lack of IT
“We are looking at Field BIM to capture all information on site and to
competency and understanding of BIM from the client is a crucial issue
put it back into BIM models. We have been getting site information
in defining the essential information required for asset management [24,
from site engineer’s marking up drawings, but are finding out we
25]; unclear information requirements issues [45] being evident from
need to rely more on technology to capture information such as via
the M&E contractor evidence, highlighting the need for closer engage­
3D scanning. I have recently asked our director to purchase a 3D
ment between client and contractors.
scanner. That will enable us to capture as fitted services on-site and
Although the TIER 1 company may have extensive experience in this
put that into a model” (Interviewee F).
area, it is difficult to exactly develop what the client wants and what the
Capturing site information can be difficult due to miscommunication TIER 2 contractor understands because different stakeholders have
and countless changes made on site. The communication between site different responsibilities and interests towards the complete BIM assets
engineers and designers is considered most crucial, which is why the [27]. The disconnection between clients and TIER 2 contractors may
contractor is trying to improve communication between stakeholders by pose various risks such as changes to asset components and resulting
adopting new technologies such as 3D scanning. information changes. This argument is supported by the studies into the
A site mechanical engineer said: relationship between cost and potential changes on projects, which
argue that cost of changes is more significant in latter stages of a project
“We are supposed to fully use BIM and 3D models, but, in reality, 2D [29].
drawings are used more on site because of accuracy. For example, 3D Theoretically, if the BEP is completely accurate in the early stage of
drawings don’t show the sockets between pipes or, sometimes, the project, the risks of missing contents or extensive requirements can
panels don’t show up in models. Also, people on site tend to use 2D be avoided. However, the empirical findings show that clients are not
drawings for convenience. But 3D scanning will surely help us fully engaged when it comes to BEP review. Furthermore, the TIER 2
communicate with designers or engineers more quickly and effi­ contractor cannot be involved in AIR and EIR stages because they are not
ciently. But I am not sure how to overcome the issues of inaccuracy even assigned to a project at that stage. Therefore, in order to define
and also it will require additional training” (Interviewee C). information requirements clearly, clients should make an effort to
The above insights reveal how tensions remain around introducing clarify them with the TIER 2 contractor, which requires earlier
new technologies to sites that disrupt established ways of working; the engagement.
empirical evidence also aligning with literature review findings The findings generally reflect the complex communication relation­
(Table 1) relating to interoperability, cost and time implications. ships amongst client, TIER 1, TIER2 and supply chains; the case com­
pany playing a bridging role between TIER 1 and supply chains. To
5. Discussion improve the quality of BIM-FM asset integration, better communication
between key stakeholders is needed. For this to happen, contractual
The empirical insights from the case study supplement findings of the barriers to better communication must be overcome to improve the
situation. Complete alliancing may not be necessary to address this:
literature review, illuminating a number of issues and improvement
strategies for effective asset management from an M&E company mutually beneficial memorandums of understanding or letters of intent
may help in bringing M&E contractors into project discussions at an
perspective. The paper findings align with recent discussions of an in­
dustry roundtable on digitising the asset at the Centre for Digital Built earlier stage.
Software interoperability is another persistent problem afflicting the
Britain [48]. Key takeaways of the roundtable included:
industry, emerging as a significant issues in the empirical investigation
as effecting asset creation/integration. Interviewees commented that
� FM needs to be involved in specifying information requirements from
the start of a build. clients should understand the fundamental problems of interoperability
between software, ideally before the pre-tender stage, to minimise
� The whole supply chain, including manufacturers, should use a
standard taxonomy for describing assets. interoperability issues in advance. Although the TIER 2 contractor is the
BIM asset creator and integrator, as a passive contractor, interopera­
� A proactive asset management strategy, rather than reactive main­
tenance, will reap maximum benefits from BIM. bility issues cannot be solved without TIER 1 participation or client
willingness towards BIM asset integration.
Fig. 5 visualizes the primary integration issues, disconnections be­ It was found that the M&E contractor plays a crucial role in bridging
the TIER 1 and supply chain gap to make asset information accurate and
tween stakeholders and main points in the BIM asset integration journey
for a Tier 2 M&E contractor. It also highlights the bespoke work un­ precise; the M&E contractor taking the initiative to check supplier
ability and keeping a database of suppliers with BIM knowledge. How­
dertaken by the M&E contractor with its’ supply chains (i.e. annual
assessments of ability; training and learning activities; database of ever, such processes are often accompanied by investment costs for
training, software and infrastructure [4]. Although this increased work
suppliers).
A key insight of the paper is how the M&E contractor, which was volume and project costs, the case company utilised its’ supply chain
successfully audited and accredited by BSI in 2019, revises its’ BIM database with suitable training in order to understand what the supply
processes and supplements them with further necessary activities. These chain could supply, the company seeing such work as having long term
bespoke BIM processes address the deficiencies in the BIM asset man­ investment value.
agement work stream. Such bespoke BIM processes (e.g. BEP appraisal The empirical insights support the view that COBie data is often
inaccurately received at handover, suggesting that data is neither

10
R. Jang and W. Collinge Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540

standardised nor accurate [43]. Parsanezhad and Dimyadi [41] high­ References
light that COBie is often not fully operational, leading to it being
replaced by customised spreadsheets. The challenge around producing [1] L.F. Alarcon, D.A. Mardones, Improving the Design-Construction Interface, 6th
International Group of Lean Construction Conference, August 1998. Gunarya,
specific asset registers with related COBie requirements can result Brazil.
increased project costs and time, generating repetitive activities during [2] K. Asadi, K. Han, Real-time image-to-BIM registration using perspective alignment
the project lifecycle. For the M&E contractor, despite adopting a for automated construction monitoring, Construction Research Congress 2018,
ASCE (2018) 388–397. New Orleans, Louisiana, 2nd -4th April.
BIM-link as a plug-in to improve this situation, the whole asset infor­ [3] S. Azhar, M. Khalfan, T. Maqsood, Building information modeling (BIM): now and
mation integration process including models and COBie data were time beyond, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building 12 (4)
consuming. Interviewees maintained that early engagement from the (2012) 15–28.
[4] B. Becerik-Gerber, F. Jazizadeh, N. Li, G. Calis, Application areas and data
client is considered the most important factor to produce accurate COBie requirements for BIM-enabled facilities management, J. Construct. Eng. Manag.
information, as this can alleviate issues of continuous changes due to 138 (3) (2012) 431–442.
improved communication between key stakeholders during the BEP [5] F. Bosch� e, M. Ahmed, Y. Turkan, C.T. Haas, R. Haas, The value of integrating scan-
to-BIM and scan-vs-BIM techniques for construction monitoring using laser
process.
scanning and BIM: the case of cylindrical MEP components, Autom. ConStruct. 49
(2015) 201–213.
6. Conclusions [6] British Standards Institution, ISO 19650 building information modelling. Available
on-line at (Accessed August, https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/Building-
Information-Modelling-BIM/bim-design-and-construction/iso- 19650-BIM/, 2019.
The paper examined BIM asset management processes from the [7] P. Demian, D. Walters, The advantages of information management through
perspective of a fully accredited M&E contractor active in the UK con­ building information modelling, Construct. Manag. Econ. 32 (12) (2013)
struction market. A literature review identified several key issues of 1153–1165.
[8] British Standards Institution, PAS 1192-2:2013 - Specification for Information
concern for BIM-FM integration; the case study analysis verifying the Management of the Capital Delivery Phase of Construction Projects using Building
findings. As well as noting the significance of issues such as designer- Information Modelling, British Standards Institution, London, 2013, pp. 5–19.
client collaboration to set successful information requirements [41, [9] British Standards Institution, PAS 1192-3:2014 Specification for Information
Management for the Operational Phase of Assets using BIM, British Standards
43], creation and integration of COBie data and software interopera­ Institution, London, 2014, pp. 8–27.
bility [26,43] and as-built data management in the design-build phase [10] R. Eadie, M. Browne, H. Odeyinka, C. McKeown, S. McNiff, BIM implementation
[14,21], the case study also revealed specific bespoke practices and throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: an analysis, Autom. ConStruct.
36 (2013) 145–151.
processes to address deficiencies in the BIM asset management work [11] R. Edirisinghe, P. Kalutara, K. London, An Investigation of BIM Adoption of Owners
stream. The insights can assist practitioners to develop their own stan­ and Facility Managers in Australia: Institutional Case Study, Construction and
dards or processes for improved BIM-based asset integration. It should Building Research Conference (COBRA 2016), Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, Toronto, Canada, September 2016, 19th-22nd.
also be noted that these bespoke processes were developed by a fully
[12] M. Golparvar-fard, J. Bohn, J. Teizer, S. Savarese, F. Pe~ na-mora, Evaluation of
BIM-accredited M&E contractor. image-based modeling and laser scanning accuracy for emerging automated
It can be concluded that although BIM asset integration processes are performance monitoring techniques, Autom. ConStruct. 20 (8) (2011) 1143–1155.
now well developed to a globally recognised standard, certain charac­ [13] R. Liu, R.R.A. Issa, Design for maintenance accessibility using BIM tools, Facilities
32 (3/4) (2014) 153–159.
teristics of construction project management result in persisting prob­ [14] Y.C. Lin, Y.P. Chen, W.T. Huang, C.C. Hong, Development of BIM execution plan
lems that impact the BIM-FM asset management journey. These include for BIM model management during the pre-operation phase: a case study’,
organisational communication issues, software interoperability issues, Buildings 6 (8) (2016) 1–14.
[15] Y.C. Lin, H.Y. Lee, I.T. Yang, Developing as-built BIM model process management
contractual barriers to joined-up working and supply chain BIM system for general contractors: a case study’, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 22 (5) (2016)
awareness issues. The need for greater collaboration and more 608–621.
communication between key stakeholders at early project stages re­ [16] R. Liu, R.R.A. Issa, Issues in BIM for Facility Management from Industry
Practitioners’ Perspectives, 2013 ASCE International Workshop on Computing in
mains an issue for the Tier 2 contractors that provide a vital link to the Civil Engineering, ASCE, June 2013, pp. 411–418. Los Angeles, CA, USA, 23rd –
supply chain. 25th.
[17] J. McArthur, A Building Information Management (BIM) framework and
supporting case study for existing building operations, maintenance and
Declaration of competing interest sustainability, Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 1104–1111.
[18] A. Hamid, A. Bakar, M.R. Embi, Review on Application of Building Information
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Modelling in Interior Design Industry, 4th International Building Control
Conference 2016, Royal Institution of Surveyors Malaysia, Malaysia, 7th of March
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
2016.
the work reported in this paper. [19] S. Hamil, What is COBie?, available on-line at (Accessed June, https://www.thenb
s.com/knowledge/what-is-cobie, 2019.
CRediT authorship contribution statement [20] K. Han, J. Degol, M. Golparvar-Fard, Geometry- and appearance-based reasoning
of construction progress monitoring, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 144 (2) (2018)
1–12.
Ryan Jang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Project [21] K.K. Han, M. Golparvar-Fard, Potential of big visual data and building information
administration, Writing - original draft. William Collinge: Writing - modeling for construction performance analytics: an exploratory study, Autom.
ConStruct. 73 (2017) 184–198.
review & editing, Supervision. [22] Z. Hu, P. Tian, S. Li, J. Zhang, BIM-based integrated delivery technologies for
intelligent MEP management in the operation and maintenance phase, Adv. Eng.
Acknowledgements Software 115 (2018) 1–16.
[23] ISO, ISO 15686-5:2008: buildings and constructed assets-Service-life planning-Part
5: life- cycle costing, available on-line at (Accessed April, https://www.iso.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15686:-5:ed-1:v1:en, 2019.
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. [24] J. Jupp, R. Awad, BIM for FM and information requirements management, in:
Missing Links in the AEC and FM Interface, International Conference on Product
Lifecycle Management (PLM 2017, July 2017, pp. 9th–12th. Seville, Spain.
Appendix A. Supplementary data [25] M. Kassem, G. Kelly, N. Dawood, M. Serginson, S. Lockley, BIM in facilities
management applications: a case study of a large university complex, Built.
Environ. Proj. Asset. Manag. 5 (3) (2015) 261–277.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
[26] G. Kelly, M. Serginson, S. Lockley, N. Dawood, M. Kassem, BIM for Facility
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101540. Management: a Review and a Case Study Investigating the Value and Challenges,
13th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality,
October 2013, pp. 30th–31th. London, United Kingdom.
[27] H. Kerosuo, R. Miettinen, S. Paavola, T. M€ aki, J. Korpela, Challenges of the
expansive use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in construction projects,
Production 25 (2) (2015) 289–297.

11
R. Jang and W. Collinge Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101540

[28] J. Korpela, R. Miettinen, T. Salmikivi, J. Ihalainen, The challenges and potentials of [41] P. Parsanezhad, J. Dimyadi, Effective Facility Management and Operations via a
utilizing building information modelling in facility management: the case of the Bim- Based Integrated Information System, CIB Facilities Management (CFM) 2014
center for properties and facilities of the University of Helsinki, Construct. Manag. Conference, May 2014. Copenhagen, Denmark, 21th – 23th.
Econ. 33 (1) (2015) 3–17. [42] B.C. Paulson, Designing to reduce construction costs, J. Construct. Div. 102 (4)
[29] I. Kovacic, V. Zoller, Building life cycle optimization tools for early design phases, (1976) 587–592.
Energy 92 (2015) 409–419. [43] P. Pishdad-Bozorgi, X. Gao, C. Eastman, A.P. Self, Planning and developing facility
[30] R. Miettinen, H. Kerosuo, T. Mets€ al€
a, S. Paavola, Bridging the life cycle: a case management-enabled building information model (FM-enabled BIM), Autom.
study on facility management infrastructures and uses of BIM’, J. Facil. Manag. 16 ConStruct. 87 (2018) 22–38.
(1) (2018) 2–16. [44] C. Robson, Real World Research, second ed., Blackwell, Oxford, 2002.
[31] S.G. Naoum, Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students, third ed., [45] R. Sacks, P. Teicholz, G. Lee, C. Eastman, Bim Handbook: A Guide to Building
Routledge, London, 2013. Information Modeling for Owners, Designers, Engineers, Contractors, and Facility
[32] NBS, NBS international BIM report, available on-line at: https://www.thenbs.com/ Managers, third ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, N.J, 2018.
knowledge/nbs-international-bim-report-2016, 2016. Accessed April 2019. [46] M. Saunders, P. Lewis, A. Thornhill, Research Methods for Business Students, fifth
[33] UK BIM Alliance, Information management according to BS EN ISO 19650, ed., Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow, 2009.
available on-line at, Accessed August, https://www.ukbimalliance.org/wp-conte [47] L. Shen, R. Edirisinghe, M.G. Yang, An Investigation of BIM Readiness of Owners
nt/uploads/2019/03/Information-Management-according-to- BS-EN-ISO-19650-G and Facility Managers in Singapore: Institutional Case Study, CIB World Building
uidance-Part-1-Concepts-1.pdf, 2019. Congress 2016. Tampere, Finland, 2016, 30 May – 3 June.
[34] R. Volk, J. Stengel, F. Schultmann, Building Information Modeling (BIM) for [48] Centre for Digital Built Britain. Digitising the Asset. Digitising Construction 2020:
existing buildings-Literature review and future needs, Autom. ConStruct. 38 (2014) Next Steps towards a Digital Built Britain, 2020. February.
109–127. [49] M. Munir, A. Kiviniemi, S. Jonesand, S. Finnegan, BIM business value for asset
[35] Y. Wang, X. Wang, J. Wang, P. Yung, G. Jun, Engagement of facilities management owners: key issues and challenges, Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. (2020) [ahead of
in design stage through BIM: framework and a case study, Adv. Civ. Eng. (2013) print].
1–8, 2013. [50] B. Ali, H. Zahoor, A.R. Nasir, A. Maqsoom, R.W.A. Khan, K.M. Mazher, BIM-based
[36] A.N. Wei, M.A. Othuman Mydin, Potential and benefits of Building Information claims management system: a centralized information repository for extension of
Modeling (BIM) during pre-construction, construction and post construction stage, time claims, Autom. ConStruct. 110 (2020), 102937.
Analele Universit�aţii "Eftimie Murgu" 24 (1) (2017) 429–438. [51] E. Piaia, F. Maietti, R. Di Giulio, O. Schippers-Trifan, A. Van Delft, S. Bruinenberg,
[37] A. Lewis, D. Riley, A. Elmualim, Defining high performance buildings for R. Olivadese, BIM-based cultural heritage asset management tool: innovative
operations and maintenance, International Journal of Facility Management 1 (2) solution to orient the preservation and valorization of historic buildings, Int. J.
(2010) 1–16. Architect. Herit. (2020) 1–24.
[38] Infrastructure and Projects Authority, Creating a digital built Britain: what you [52] S. Ashworth, M.P. Tucker, C.K. Druhmann, Critical success factors for facility
need to know, available on-line at (Accessed February, https://www.gov.uk/guid management employer’s information requirements (EIR) for BIM, Facilities 37 (1/
ance/creating-a-digital-built-britain-what-you-need-to-know, 2019. 2) (2019) 103–118.
[39] K. Asadi, H. Ramshankar, M. Noghabaei, K. Han, Real-time image localization and [53] S. Lavy, N. Saxena, M. Dixit, Effects of BIM and COBie database facility
registration with BIM using perspective alignment for indoor monitoring of management on work order processing times: case study, J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
construction, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 33 (5) (2019) 1–15. 33 (6) (2019).
[40] E. P€arn, D. Edwards, M. Sing, The building information modelling trajectory in
facilities management: a review, Autom. ConStruct. 75 (2017) 45–55.

12