Measuring building information modeling maturity: A Hong Kong case study

Weisheng Lu 1, Ke Chen 2, Anna Zetkulic 3, Cong Liang 4

Abstract
Building Information Modeling (BIM) has been lauded as a “game changer” for the
construction industry. Growing studies show a strong interest among researchers and
practitioners to assess the maturity of BIM implementation, which helps understand its quality
and degrees of excellence. However, no single study to date has comprehensively measured
BIM maturity at the project, organisation, and industry levels and thus achieved a holistic view
of BIM implementation. Therefore, this study aims to measure BIM maturity at these three
scales using Hong Kong’s construction context as a specific case. To this end, this study
collected publicly available information of BIM implementation projects and adopted the
multifunctional BIM maturity model (MBMM) as the measurement tool. The results found that
construction projects in Hong Kong vary in terms of BIM maturity, with more than half ranging
from Stage 0 to 1. The study also discovered that the BIM maturities of construction-related
organisations in Hong Kong differ from each other, primarily owing to the different
developments of their BIM processes and protocols. The industry-level assessment indicated
unbalanced development in BIM technologies, processes, and protocols. The value of this study
is three-fold. Firstly, it provides an in-depth understanding of BIM maturity in Hong Kong.
Secondly, it contributes to BIM maturity measurement by highlighting the dynamics of BIM
technologies, processes, and protocols at the project, organisation, and industry levels. Thirdly,
it offers operational procedures for BIM maturity measurement.

Keywords: Building Information Modeling (BIM), maturity, measurement, Hong Kong

1 Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, [email protected];
2 Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, [email protected];
3 Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, [email protected];
4 Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, [email protected];

1
1. Introduction

Building Information Modeling (BIM) has been widely adopted by the global construction
industry over the past two decades (Lu et al. 2017a; Zheng et al. 2017; Ahuja et al. 2018; Liao
and Teo 2018). A survey conducted by McGraw-Hill Construction (2012) reported that the
industry-wide BIM adoption in North America skyrocketed from 28% to 71% between 2007
and 2012. NBS (2018) reported that BIM adoption in the U.K. increased from 13% in 2011 to
74% in 2018. Similar trends in BIM adoption have occurred in Mainland China, Hong Kong,
Singapore, Australia, and so on. This upsurge raises some essential concerns about the quality
and degrees of excellence in BIM implementation, i.e., the BIM maturity (Succar 2009a).

Measuring BIM maturity has attracted the attention and efforts of both industry and academia.
Available publications reporting on BIM maturity overwhelmingly relied on survey ratings
from commercially-driven service providers, such as the aforementioned McGraw-Hill
Construction and NBS. However, industry surveys often used single indicator, e.g., the number
of years stakeholders have been using BIM, for representing the status of BIM maturity.
Besides these industry surveys, other researchers investigated BIM maturity at the market-scale
in the U.S. (Chen et al. 2014), Australia (Gu and London 2010), The Netherlands (Sebastian
and van Berlo 2010), etc. Although these studies absolutely provide valuable insight into BIM
maturity, the following two important aspects of BIM maturity measurement were overlooked.

Firstly, the mature implementation of BIM necessitates changes in all business aspects
including technology, process, and protocol. Technology and process root in that BIM, by
definition, constitutes a host of information technologies and a set of associative processes, e.g.,
BIM workflows and model coordination mechanisms (Eastman et al. 2011). Protocol, under
this circumstance, refers to the interfaces, BIM roles and responsibilities, etc. (Singh et al. 2011;
Rezgui et al. 2013). Therefore, the measurement of BIM maturity should cover these three
domains comprehensively. Secondly, it is important to measure BIM maturity at different levels,
e.g., project, organisation, and industry levels. A clear understanding of BIM maturity at the
project and organisation scales helps organisations identify a particular project’ achievements
using BIM and inform further strategies concerning BIM implementation within the
organisation (Arup 2015). A knowledge of BIM maturity at the industry level can reveal the
status quo of BIM adoption in the marketplace of a given region or country, as well as
standardize BIM tools and workflows for that market (Succar and Kassem 2015).

2
This study aims to advance the measurement of BIM maturity at the project, organisation, and
industry levels using the case of Hong Kong. Hong Kong is selected as the research context
given the region is in the early stage of BIM adoption (Hong Kong Construction Industry
Council [HKCIC] 2014 p. 8). To maintain momentum, a clear direction for the improvement
of BIM maturity must be established. As expressed by the HKCIC (2014 p. 9), stakeholders
“wish to see a more organised and systematic approach that drives the industry-wide adoption
of BIM in Hong Kong through the concerted efforts of the construction industry”. In this study,
the multifunctional BIM maturity model (MBMM) introduced by Liang et al. (2016) is adopted
as the measurement tool due to two reasons. Firstly, MBMM covers the three domains integral
to BIM implementation, i.e., technology, process, and protocol. Secondly, MBMM allows the
measurement of BIM maturity at the project, organisation, and industry levels. The derived
results thus can interpret BIM-enabled achievements attained over the years of BIM practice
in Hong Kong.

This study yields three major contributions. Its findings offer an overall picture, as well as an
in-depth understanding of BIM maturity in Hong Kong, which allows stakeholders to make
their own BIM implementation strategies. Moreover, this study contributes to the knowledge
body of BIM maturity measurement by highlighting the dynamics of BIM technologies,
processes, and protocols at the project, organisation, and industry levels. Lastly, it provides
researchers and industrial practitioners with the procedures necessary to measure BIM maturity
in other economies beyond Hong Kong for various purposes, e.g., stocktaking or crafting BIM
implementation strategies.

The remainder of this paper reads as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of current BIM
implementation and introduces existing BIM maturity models, which includes MBMM,
subsequently used in this study. Section 3 briefly describes the research methods. Section 4
presents the results of the case study, while Section 5 offers an in-depth discussion of the results.
Section 6 summarizes and concludes this study.

2. Literature review
2.1 Overview of BIM implementation
McGraw-Hill Construction, recently renamed Dodge Data and Analytics, has published a series
of reports on BIM implementation in different regions and countries. Some of which, such as
3
the U.S., Denmark, and Singapore, have formally endorsed the implementation of BIM in the
construction industry either by establishing BIM standards and protocols or mandating BIM
use in government projects (Cheng and Lu 2015). The General Services Administration (GSA)
in the U.S. has required BIM submission for major federal government building projects since
2008. The European Commission awarded the European Union BIM Task Group funding to
deliver a common European network for aligning the implementation of BIM in public works.
In addition, the Building and Construction Authority of Singapore has demanded the
submission of BIM models in native format since 2017. Even if not federally endorsed, BIM
implementation has been progressing in many other regions and countries. For instance, the
Hong Kong Housing Authority has published its in-house BIM user guides for stakeholders
participating in public housing projects and over forty government pilot projects have adopted
BIM since 2015 (Development Bureau 2017).

The proliferation of BIM in the construction industry has led many studies to gauge the benefits
of BIM at the project, organisation, and industry levels (e.g., Ghaffarianhoseini et al. 2017;
Zheng et al. 2017). Giel and Issa (2013) suggested the majority of BIM users see value in using
BIM but fail to use BIM to its full potential. Yang and Chou (2018) identified the varying types
and degrees of practical BIM implementation between districts, stakeholders, and projects.
Such inconsistency in BIM implementation calls for the institution of BIM maturity measures.
Since measurement verifies improvement and helps manage performance, BIM cannot be
successful without measuring practices (Chen et al. 2014). BIM is not a one-dimensional
concept or an end-product, and its implementation often requires changes in processes,
protocols, and technologies (Succar 2009a). Hence, the measurement of BIM maturity should
consider these domains and how to interact with them at the project, organisation, and industry
levels for the sake of facilitating the improvement of BIM implementation (Chen et al. 2014;
Liang et al. 2016).

2.2 BIM maturity models

Some previous studies such as Succar (2009b), Sebastian and van Berlo (2010), Chen et al.
(2014), and Kam et al. (2016) conducted empirical investigations of BIM maturity at different
levels. Along with the investigation of BIM maturity, a number of BIM maturity models have
been proposed. These models have their own strengths, weaknesses, and applicability as shown
in Table 1.

4
 <Please insert Table 1 here>

Capability Maturity Model (CMM)

CMM, outlined in the national BIM standard (NBIMS), represents one of the most commonly
adopted BIM assessment tools in the U.S. (McCuen et al. 2011). It allows BIM users the means
to evaluate their current BIM implementation practices and processes. CMM can also help BIM
users set goals for achieving higher levels of BIM maturity in future. However, CMM is an
internal tool for assessing the maturity level of individual BIM models against a set of pre-
defined weighted criteria. Therefore, CMM cannot be used to compare different BIM models
or implementations and measure the BIM maturity of an organisation or the industry as a whole.

BIM Maturity Index (BMI)

BMI, developed by Succar (2009b), is the first model capable of narrowing down issues related
to BIM maturity. It does so via three fields, i.e., policy, process, and technology, and five
distinct maturity levels, i.e., initial/ad-hoc, defined, managed, integrated, and optimized.
However, BMI only delivers a set of blueprints of what future capability maturity of BIM
should be. In addition, the components clustered in each of these three fields are poorly defined,
which limits measurement results to merely rough estimates.

BIM Proficiency Matrix (BPM)

Indiana University’s BPM can help measure the proficiency of a respondent’s BIM
implementation (IU 2009). The overall score of BPM is measured by adding the evaluation
results from eight perspectives, i.e., physical accuracy of model, Integrated Project Delivery
(IPD) methodology, calculation mentality, location awareness, content creation, construction
data, as-built modeling, and facility management data richness. Each perspective further
subdivides into four more detailed areas, which helps dissect the BIM working environment.
However, BPM has received criticism. Seven out of its eight perspectives are designed for
assessing the technical aspects of BIM implementation, while the process and protocol aspects
of BIM implementation are not comprehensively covered.

BIM QuickScan
BIM QuickScan, proposed by Sebastian and van Berlo (2010), is intended to assess the BIM
performance of organisations and establish performance benchmarks. It contains fifty multiple-
choice online questions grouped into four chapters including organisation and management,
5
mentality and culture, information structure and information flow, and tools and applications.
These four chapters incorporate organisation and technology issues related to BIM
performance. The obvious limitation of BIM QuickScan is its failure to provide methods and
procedures for identifying these four chapters. Therefore, convincing BIM users that the
assessment result reflects their actual BIM maturity is extremely difficult.

Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) Scorecard

The Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) at Stanford University developed VDC
Scorecard to be the first tool to measure BIM maturity based on a large set of project
information. The VDC Scorecard exercises a three-tiered measurement framework. The first
includes planning, adoption, technology, and performance. The second has ten divisions, i.e.,
objectives, standards, preparation, process, organisation, maturity, coverage, integration, quality,
and quantity. The third incorporates fifty-six measurements (Kam et al. 2016). VDC Scorecard
is project-oriented. The final score of each project is the weighted sum of the four areas’ scores,
where the percentage of weight is determined by confidence level from the respondents in order
to reduce the uncertainty from the project. Although VDC Scorecard has the benefit of
continuously aligning with industry practice, it cannot be used to verify the BIM maturity of an
organisation.

BIM Measurement Model (BMM)

BMM, developed by Chen et al. (2014), clearly takes as a point of departure previous studies
on using empirical investigation to identify key factors for measuring the maturity level of BIM
implementation. Factors were selected based on a review of existing studies and an online
questionnaire with a seven Likert scoring system. Afterwards, a two-step approach, i.e.,
exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, were adopted to further
investigate hidden patterns in the maturity factors of BIM implementation (Chen et al. 2014).
However, BMM largely borrows factors from existing maturity models, which lack significant
information on BIM standards. In this regard, BMM may need frequent updating in order to
keep track of the most recent practical issues facing BIM.

Multifunctional BIM Maturity Model (MBMM)

Responding to the absence of development procedure documentation amongst the prevailing
BIM maturity models, Liang et al. (2016) adopted a three step, reiterative approach to
developing MBMM. In MBMM (see Fig. 1), the three domains, i.e., technology, process, and
6
protocol, are organised in a hierarchical pyramid. Each domain has subdomains. For example,
the technology subdomains include information accuracy (T1), model data (T2), quality
assurance and quality control (T3), data security and saving (T4), technology infrastructure
needs (T5), BIM elements (T6), and finally spatial and coordination (T7). Detailed, operable
rubrics enable the assessment of each subdomain, while the assessment result points to a
specific stage (0–3). Most rubrics contain evaluative criteria, quality definitions for the criteria
at particular levels of achievement, and a scoring strategy that allows presentation in table
format and assessment.

<Please insert Fig. 1 here>

Apart from comprehensively including the three domains inherent to BIM implementation and
integrating them into a single, intuitive presentation, another central characteristic of MBMM
is its ability to measure BIM maturity at different scales from individual projects to an
organisation’s full projects portfolio. MBMM helps condense these projects’ BIM maturity
stages and portray the organisation’s overall BIM maturity. More impressively, MBMM allows
for analysis at the national economy level. By collecting the case histories of numerous
organisations providing the same or similar functions (Dubois and Gadde 2002) and mainly
adopting a project-based organisation form to deliver construction works (Pryke and Pearson
2006), MBMM captures the traits of the construction industry. These unique features make
MBMM a more suitable measurement tool for this study than the other above-mentioned BIM
maturity models.

3. Research methods
This study follows a three-step research design. The first step – data collection – involves
sifting through documented information about real-life BIM implementation projects
conducted locally in Hong Kong. The second step is to measure BIM maturity of the combed
projects using MBMM. In this step, BIM maturities at the organisation level and industry level
stem from the BIM maturities of projects. The third step, based on the measurement results,
entails the analysis of BIM maturity in the Hong Kong context.

3.1 Data collection

Publicly available data makes up the primary data source for this study. Several precedents
exist to defend the use of online data for BIM maturity measurement. For example, Kassem et
7
al. (2013) use “noteworthy BIM publications (NBPs)” and “BIM knowledge content (BKC)”
for the comparison of various countries’ BIM maturities. For this study, the authors utilized
Google’s search engine to collect BIM implementation projects that fulfil two criteria, i.e., the
project was located in Hong Kong and disclosed any and all project information related to BIM
implementation for maturity measurement by MBMM. Subsequently, the authors scrutinized
each of their accumulated projects to determine whether it merited further analysis. Through
this process, a total of twenty-one documented BIM implementation projects in Hong Kong
was obtained. Nineteen of which came from the Autodesk’s online BIM project database and
occurred between 2010 and 2014 (Autodesk 2016). The remaining two, i.e., the One Island
East and the Cathay Pacific Cargo Terminal, derived from Baldwin and Bordoli (2014) and
Staub-French et al. (2011) respectively. These projects include residential buildings (e.g.,
Public Rental Housing at Shatin Area 52 Phase 1), commercial buildings (e.g., One Island East),
institutional buildings (e.g., Innovation Tower at Hong Kong PolyU), airport facilities (e.g.,
Cathay Pacific Cargo Terminal), and railway facilities (e.g., Hung Hom Station and Approach
Tunnels). They offer practical representations of BIM implementation in Hong Kong.

3.2 Data interpretation

When applying MBMM, a real-life BIM implementation project is first examined against the
rubrics. Its final scores for each of the three BIM maturity domains are plotted, indicating the
project’s overall BIM maturity (see Fig. 2). If an organisation has a portfolio of BIM
implementation projects on hand, repeating the procedure for each project and summating the
weighted results in MBMM reveals the institution’s overall, i.e., organisation-level, BIM
maturity. In a similar vein, the weighted summation of all surveyed organisations’ BIM
maturities helps expose the industry-level BIM maturity. Finally, an overall measurement of
BIM maturity, i.e., Stages 0, 1, 2, and 3, can be derived (see Table 2).
<Please insert Fig. 2 here>

<Please insert Table 2 here>

Each project’s collected documents are scanned for keywords or descriptions that match or
relate to the rubrics’ criteria and then summarized into an algebraically derived score (i.e.,
using weighted summation). This process helps identify the maturity stage of each subdomain.
As the information in these documents is mainly descriptive, a human-led coding process is
employed for repackaging the qualitative data against the rubrics. For any projects, if there is
8
no such information about specific subdomains, e.g., interoperability/IFC support or standard
operating process, the subdomains’ measurement results receive a N/A mark and termed zero.
To counteract the rubrics’ subjective element, i.e., human-led coding, the statistical technique
Cronbach’s alpha is applied, whereby individual researchers read and code reports
independently following the form shown in Fig. 2. The closer Cronbach’s alpha to 1.0, the
more in agreement were the specialists’ measurements (Olawumi and Chan 2018).

4. Results and analyses

In this study, three local experts interpreted the twenty-one BIM implementation projects’
information using Delphi method. In Round 1 Delphi, the experts were asked to mark the score
of each subdomain of MBMM against the rubrics as introduced in Section 3. In Round 2 Delphi,
the experts were asked to reassess their interpretation in light of the consolidated results from
Round 1. The Cronbach’s alpha reached over 0.9, indicating significant agreement among the
experts. Then, by taking the average, the measurement results materialized as summarized in
Table 3. Based on the measurement results, analyses on the BIM maturity at different levels
are presented as follows.

<Please insert Table 3 here>

4.1 Project-level analysis

The studied projects’ BIM maturities mostly fall between Stage 0 and 1. No project
demonstrated Stage 2 BIM maturity (see Table 3). The One Island East (hereinafter referred to
as Project A) and the Cathay Pacific Cargo Terminal (hereinafter referred to as Project B) are
chosen as the examples to demonstrate BIM maturity analysis at the project level. Project A
concerns a high-rise commercial office building with sixty-eight floors above ground and two
below. The total floor area is around 141,000m2 and the overall project cost is approximately
US$300 million. Project A’s participants, e.g., the architects, quantity surveyors, structural
engineers and BIM technology specialists, worked together to create a unique 3D BIM project
database. BIM facilitated clash analysis of the design prior to breaking ground, thus enabling
improved team coordination, cost savings, and keeping on schedule as well. During
construction, BIM served as a central management instrument, providing project members and
stakeholders real-time lifecycle process information for the entire building via an Internet-
based project database.

9
Project B is an eight-story building with a total area of roughly 22,854m2. One of the largest
air cargo terminal buildings in the world, Project B’s construction lasted from 2010 to 2013
and cost approximately US$700 million. The BIM database for Project B was well developed,
encompassing the virtual design, e.g., 2D to 3D model conversion, architectural rendering and
animation, clash detection, and 5D modeling, i.e., cost and time dimensions. BIM also
expedited communication between stakeholders (Staub-French et al. 2011).

Fig. 3 presents these two projects’ BIM maturities. The overall BIM maturity score for Project
B is 1.190, slightly higher than Project A’s 1.048 (see Table 3). This is mostly due to Project
B earning higher process and protocol domains than Project A. In contrast, results in the
technology domain went against expectations with Project B scoring lower than Project A
despite the former beginning in 2010 and the latter in 2006. This result could suggest that
obstacles to BIM maturity relate more to processes and protocols than the advancement of
technology.

<Please insert Fig. 3 here>

4.2 Organisation-level analysis

To reiterate, the BIM maturities of organisations in Hong Kong differ from one another
primarily because of the different developments in BIM process and protocol. Two
organisations demonstrate BIM maturity analysis at the organisation level. Organisation C, a
government authority acting as the main provider of public housing in Hong Kong,
accommodates about fifty percent of the city’s population (Hong Kong Information Services
Department [HKISD] 2016). Organisation C began exercising BIM in its public housing
projects in 2006 and now mandates BIM on all projects from design visualization through
construction. In 2009, Organisation C sourced BIM to develop a standard modular flat and
design library. Organisation C has also published multiple BIM user guides, a BIM library
component design guide, and a BIM library component reference for BIM implementation
(Hong Kong Housing Authority [HKHA] 2016).

Organisation D, a limited company and major property developer in Hong Kong, also manages
and operates Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway. Organisation D has been exploring the use
of BIM to support the development of new lines and other rail projects (Mass Transit Railway
Corporation [MTRC] 2015). Organisation D’s BIM models typically contain the architecture
10
and structure specifications of the railway projects, either provided in-house or by professional
BIM service providers. Organisation D has used BIM to deploy new procurement models for
upcoming railway projects to expand resources upfront, improve communications and
coordination, reduce construction costs, and save time (Autodesk 2016).

Fig. 4 illustrates the BIM maturities of Organisations C and D. In all three domains (i.e.,
technology, process, protocol), Organisation C scores higher than Organisation D. For example,
the BIM maturity scores of Organisation C’s projects, “Construction of Public Rental Housing
at Sha Tin Area 52 Phase 1” and “Transformation of Revit Model to Enable Civil 3D/GIS/Revit
Integration and Lighting Simulation and Rendering”, are 1.667 and 1.905 respectively. In
contrast, the BIM maturity scores of Organisation D’s projects mainly cluster around 1.0 (see
Table 3). Several reasons potentially explain these differences. Firstly, Organisation C faces
perhaps fewer obstacles and challenges to BIM implementation in its public housing projects
than Organisation D. Secondly, Organisation C may have a stronger capacity to maintain the
excellence of BIM performance across different project stages. While the unique features of
Organisation D projects prevent BIM practitioners from repeating implementation patterns.
Thirdly, Organisation C has developed in-house BIM user guides, which can be particularly
important for those project teams unfamiliar with the use of BIM, while Organisation D lacks
such provisions.

<Please insert Fig. 4 here>

4.3 Industry-level analysis

Summarizing the measurement results of Table 3, Fig. 5 shows the scatterplot depiction of the
overall BIM maturity assessment at the industry level. The points do not cluster or form any
pattern, indicating that the BIM practice in some projects and some organisations in Hong Kong
remain in the exploratory or start-up stages. One possible explanation for this could be
construction stakeholders in Hong Kong take an exploratory approach to BIM implementation,
piloting BIM technologies, processes and protocols in some trades or sections of projects in
order to gain experience before developing an organisation-level BIM implementation strategy.
Despite the lack of pattern, in general, the scatterplot reveals an exponentially upwards
trajectory for BIM maturity in Hong Kong and the BIM maturities of some recent projects
approach Stage 2. This suggests BIM systems are advancing, models are becoming moderately
more accurate, and BIM responsibilities, more specified, perhaps to a particular BIM
11
department within an organisation. It also implies modeling processes, compensation, and
facility data are standardizing.

<Please insert Fig. 5 here>

5. Discussion
The measurement of BIM maturity in Hong Kong reveals several important findings of BIM
implementation through years of efforts in Hong Kong. The most important likely concerns the
unbalanced development of the three domains which define BIM maturity, i.e., the
development of BIM protocols offsets the development of BIM technologies and processes.
The fact that most construction organisations in Hong Kong lack in-house BIM standards
(Chen et al. 2017) possibly explains this imbalance, i.e. their maturities of BIM protocols are
still in the start-up stage. Although the HKCIC published a BIM roadmap and series of
corresponding standards in 2015 (HKCIC 2015), individual organisations have yet to fully
adopted them. As one size does not fit all, a general industry-level BIM standard must be
translated by individual organisations into personally operable guidelines, which takes time
(Lu et al. 2017b). Organisation C’s relatively high BIM maturity score in the protocol domain
indicates that by following the industrial standard and gaining familiarity with BIM practice,
organisations can develop legitimate and reasonable procedures to approach BIM maturity
gradually.

As argued by Liang et al. (2016), Chen et al. (2014), Gu and London (2010), and others, the
development of BIM technologies, processes, and protocols must align in order to cultivate the
full benefits of BIM. Based on the measurement results presented in this study, different parties
can and should set their own priorities to implement BIM at higher maturity levels. Government
organisations should further provide implementation guidelines to industrial stakeholders,
especially those who have less experience implementing BIM. Government organisations can
also support universities and institutions by providing training courses and programs that
introduce and demonstrate BIM technologies. Moreover, stakeholders, who may not need to
be at the highest stages of all three BIM maturity domains, can select their own suitable target
stage for a BIM project. However, if stakeholders seek to achieve higher stages of BIM
implementation process, i.e., beyond Stages 0 and 1, they can inject more resources into
formalizing their processes related to BIM. While stakeholders already in possession of
sufficient experience implementing BIM may shift their attention to the development of BIM
12
protocols and technologies.

During the application of MBMM, the authors also noted the importance of standardizing
project reporting. Compiling and reporting information using generally accepted international
metrics and standard conversion factors (Global Reporting Initiative [GRI] 2016) promotes the
facilitation of communication with the public and increases the accuracy of what is reported.
Unfortunately, organisations in Hong Kong seem not to be documenting their BIM
implementation well or investing in standardized project reporting. This study focused on the
twenty-one projects capable of fully interpreting through by MBMM despite there could be
more examples of BIM implementation projects in Hong Kong. Therefore, the authors
advocate the standardization of reporting in BIM implementation projects for which MBMM
offers a framework. With more BIM implementations being well documented in a standardized
manner, the results of BIM maturity measurement can prove more comprehensive and other
relevant research can be conducted. For example, MBMM can be linked to BIM-related topics
like IPD (Teng et al. 2017) and other procurement innovations (Lu et al. 2013) to examine their
impacts on the process and protocol domains of BIM maturity.

6. Conclusion
BIM is an emerging field and as such, its maturation has yet to be fully understood. The
development and application of BIM maturity models provide useful references for
demystifying the maturation of BIM in a certain context. A comprehensive understanding of
BIM maturity and its measurement results are important for many strategies toward improved
use of BIM, such as the development of a standard means of practice, training arrangements,
and technology deployment.

This paper measures BIM maturity at the project, organisation, and industry levels within Hong
Kong’s construction context. The measurement results uncover the overall unbalanced BIM
development in Hong Kong in terms of technologies, processes, and protocols. Regarding the
BIM maturity at the project level, although more than half of the examined projects use BIM
with maturity ranging from Stage 0 to 1, some recent projects appear to approach Stage 2 BIM
maturity. At the organisation level, it was found that BIM has uniquely matured in different
construction organisations. An organisation that faces fewer obstacles in BIM implementation
and has developed its own BIM standards will likely achieve a higher BIM maturity stage.
Although this study focuses on Hong Kong, researchers and industrial practitioners can apply
13
MBMM, following the procedures presented in this study, to measure BIM maturity in other
economies.

This study exhibits some limitations that should be addressed by future research. Firstly, the
assessment process employs rubrics that contain an inherent degree of subjectivity. Secondly,
most of the BIM implementation projects used in this study are collected from the Autodesk
BIM project database as the documented BIM implementation projects are relatively limited
so far. The increased availability of ‘effectively’ reported projects is expected to rectify this
dilemma. The authors, therefore, advocate the standardized reporting of BIM implementation
projects with a view to enabling more comprehensive BIM maturity measurement.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Innovation and Technology Commission, Hong Kong
Government under Innovation and Technology Fund (ITT/003/18LP).

References
Ahuja, R., Sawhney, A., Jain, M., Arif, M., and Rakshit, S. (2018), “Factors influencing BIM
adoption in emerging markets–the case of India”, International Journal of Construction
Management, pp. 1-12.
Arup. (2015), “Arup BIM Maturity Measure”, available at:
http://www.arup.com/services/building_modelling (accessed 27 November 2016).
Autodesk. (2016), “Successful Stories: AEC - Building Information Modelling”, available at:
http://www.autodesk.com.hk/adsk/servlet/index?id=21765680&siteID=1170102
(accessed 20 November 2016).
Baldwin, A. and Bordoli, D. (2014), Handbook for construction planning and scheduling, John
Wiley & Sons.
Chen, K., Lu, W., Peng, Y., Zheng, L., Niu, Y. and Rowlinson, S. (2017), “An investigation of
the latent barriers to BIM adoption and development”, in Proceedings of the 20th
International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate,
Springer, Singapore, pp. 1007-1017.
Chen, Y., Dib, H. and Cox, R.F. (2014), “A measurement model of building information
modelling maturity”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 186-209.
Cheng, J. C., and Lu, Q. (2015). A review of the efforts and roles of the public sector for BIM
adoption worldwide. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 20 No. 27,
14
 pp. 442-478.
Development Bureau (2017), “Government works projects win BIM awards”, available at:
https://www.devb.gov.hk/en/home/my_blog/index_id_259.html (accessed 20 August
2018).
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.E. (2002), “The construction industry as a loosely coupled system:
implications for productivity and innovation”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 621-631.
Eastman, C.M., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K. (2011), BIM handbook: A guide to
building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and
contractors, John Wiley & Sons.
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). (2016), “GRI 101: Foundation”, available at:
https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1036/gri-101-foundation-
2016.pdf#page=20 (accessed 27 November 2016).
Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Tookey, J., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Azhar, S., Efimova, O.,
and Raahemifar, K. (2017), “Building Information Modelling (BIM) uptake: Clear
benefits, understanding its implementation, risks and challenges”, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 75, pp. 1046-1053.
Giel, B., and Issa, R. R. (2013), “Quality and maturity of BIM implementation in the AECO
industry”, Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 438/439, pp. 1621-1627.
Gu, N., and London, K. (2010), “Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC
industry”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 988-999.
HKCIC (Hong Kong Construction Industry Council). (2014), “Roadmap for Building
Information Modelling Strategic Implementation in Hong Kong’s Construction
Industry”, available at:
http://www.cic.hk/cic_data/pdf/about_cic/publications/eng/reference_materials/201409
10%20Final%20Draft%20Report%20of%20the%20Roadmap%20for%20BIM%20-
%20Version%201%20-%20English.pdf (accessed 29 January 2016)
HKCIC (Hong Kong Construction Industry Council). (2015), CIC Building Information
Modelling Standards (Phase One), Hong Kong Construction Industry Council.
HKISD (Hong Kong Information Services Department). (2016), “Hong Kong: The Facts
(Housing)”, available at: http://www.housingauthority.gov.hk/en/common/pdf/about-
us/publications-and-statistics/hong-kong-the-facts-housing/Hong-Kong-Factsheet.pdf
(accessed 27 November 2016).
HKHA (Hong Kong Housing Authority). (2016), “Building Information Modelling”, available
15
 at: http://www.housingauthority.gov.hk/en/business-partnerships/resources/building-
information-modelling/ (accessed 27 November 2016).
IU (Indiana University). (2009), “IU BIM Proficiency Matrix”, available at:
http://www.iu.edu/~vpcpf/consultant-contractor/standards/bim-standards.shtml
(accessed 27 November 2016).
Kam, C., Senaratna, D., McKinney, B. Xiao, Y. and Song, M. (2016), “The VDC Scorecard:
Formulation and validation”, working paper. Center for Integrated Facility Engineering,
Stanford University, July.
Kassem, M., Succar, B. and Dawood N. (2013), “A proposed approach to comparing the BIM
maturity of countries”, In Proceedings of the CIB W78 2013: 30th International
Conference, Beijing, China.
Liang, C., Lu, W., Rowlinson, S. and Zhang, X. (2016), “Development of a Multifunctional
BIM Maturity Model”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142
No. 11, 06016003.
Liao, L., and Teo, E. A. L. (2018), “Managing critical drivers for building information
modelling implementation in the Singapore construction industry: an organizational
change perspective”, International Journal of Construction Management, pp. 1-17.
Lu, W., Liu, A.M., Rowlinson, S. and Poon, S.W. (2013), “Sharpening competitive edge
through procurement innovation: Perspectives from Chinese international construction
companies”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139 No. 3, pp.
347-351.
Lu, W., Webster, C., Chen, K., Zhang, X., and Chen, X. (2017a), “Computational Building
Information Modelling for construction waste management: moving from rhetoric to
reality”, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 68, pp. 587-595.
Lu, W., Chen, K., Wang, J., and Xue, F. (2017b), “Developing an open access BIM objects
library: A Hong Kong Study”, In Lean and Computing in Construction Congress-Volume
1: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Computing in Construction (pp. 407-414).
McCuen, T.L., Suermann, P.C. and Krogulecki, M.J. (2011), “Evaluating award-winning BIM
projects using the national building information model standard capability maturity
model”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 28 No.2, pp. 224-230.
McGraw Hill Construction (2012). “The Business Value of BIM in North America”, available
at: https://bimforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/MHC-Business-Value-of-BIM-
in-North-America-2007-2012-SMR.pdf (accessed 14 August 2018).
MTRC (Mass Transit Railway Corporation). (2015), “2016 and Beyond”, available at:
16
 http://www.mtr.com.hk/en/corporate/sustainability/2015rpt/pdf/mtr2015_s10.pdf
(accessed 27 January 2017).
NBS (2018). “The National BIM Report 2018”, available at:
https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/the-national-bim-report-2018 (accessed 14 August
2018).
Olawumi, T. O., and Chan, D. W. (2018), “Identifying and prioritizing the benefits of
integrating BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects: A Delphi survey of
international experts”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 40, pp. 16-27.
Porwal, A., and Hewage, K. N. (2013), “Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering
framework for public construction projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 31, pp.
204-214.
Pryke, S. and Pearson, S. (2006), “Project governance: case studies on financial
incentives”, Building Research & Information, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 534-545.
Rezgui, Y., Beach, T. and Rana, O. (2013), “A governance approach for BIM management
across lifecycle and supply chains using mixed-modes of information delivery”, Journal
of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 239-258.
Sebastian, R. and van Berlo, L. (2010), “Tool for benchmarking BIM performance of design,
engineering and construction firms in the Netherlands”, Architectural Engineering and
Design Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 254-263.
Singh, V., Gu, N. and Wang, X. (2011), “A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-
disciplinary collaboration platform”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 134-
144.
Staub-French, S., Forgues, D., Iordanova, I., Kassaian, A., Abdulaal, B., Samilski, M., ... and
Nepal, M. (2011), Building Information Modeling (BIM) 'Best Practices' Project
Report, University of British Colombia.
Succar, B. (2009a), “Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery
foundation for industry stakeholders”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp.
357-375.
Succar, B. (2009b), “Building information modelling maturity matrix”, in Underwood, J. and
Isikdag, U. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Building Information Modeling and
Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies, IGI Global, pp. 65-103.
Succar, B. and Kassem, M. (2015), “Macro-BIM adoption: Conceptual structures”, Automation
in Construction, Vol. 57, pp. 64-79.
Teng, Y., Li, X., Wu, P. and Wang, X. (2017), “Using cooperative game theory to determine
17
 profit distribution in IPD projects”, International Journal of Construction Management,
pp.1-14.
Yang, J. B., and Chou, H. Y. (2018), “Mixed approach to government BIM implementation
policy: An empirical study of Taiwan”, Journal of Building Engineering. In Press.
Zheng, L., Lu, W., Chen, K., Chau, K.W. and Niu, Y. (2017), “Benefit sharing for BIM
implementation: Tackling the moral hazard dilemma in inter-firm
cooperation”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 393-405.

18
Table 1 Summary of BIM maturity models
Model Strengths Weaknesses Applicability
Capability Maturity Model Simple structure; Low flexibility; Project
(CMM) Easy implementation. Limited scope;
Measurement results are highly
subjective;
BIM Maturity Index Easy implementation; Measurement results are highly Organisation
(BMI) Covering policy, process, subjective;
and technology aspects. Too vague and slack;
BIM Proficiency Matrix Simple structure; Measurement results are highly Project
(BPM) Easy implementation. subjective;
High flexibility. Limited scope to technical aspects
of BIM implementation;
BIM QuickScan Incorporating organisation Difficult to use; Organisation
and technology issues; Less reliable without consultant
Extensive scope. services.
Virtual Design and Results are more objective; Difficult to use; Project
Construction (VDC) High flexibility; Time and resources exhaustive.
Scorecard Extensive scope;
Providing benchmarking
system.
BIM Measurement Model Results are relatively Limited scope. Project
(BMM) reliable.
Multifunctional BIM Single, intuitive Measurement results are relatively Project;
Maturity Model (MBMM) presentation; subjective. Organisation;
Covering technology, Industry
process, and protocol
aspects.

19
Table 2 Summary of BIM maturity Stages 0, 1, 2, 3 as defined in MBMM
Technology Process Protocol
Stage The rough model contains There is no data exchange or There is no interoperability, and no
0 inaccurate but indicative data. conduct of analytic work, and standards, responsibilities,
There is no data security or no IT no clear objectives or compensation, or requirements
infrastructure supporting the use management support for BIM related to BIM implementation.
of BIM. implementation.
Stage The model is slightly accurate BIM implementation only has The Industry Foundation Classes
1 with its data and elements a few objectives with limited (IFC) is used for interoperability.
meeting the basic requirements management support. Data and Operating and modeling process,
for BIM implementation. Both model exchanges are limited. compensation, and facility data are
hardware and software support not standardized. BIM
basic BIM systems, and data responsibility is specified for the
security is established within the BIM technical leader of the
BIM team of the organisation. organisation.
Stage The model is moderately Data and model can be IFC and Information Delivery
2 accurate with its data and exchanged within individual Manual (IDM) are used for
elements meeting the organisations through available interoperability of most of
organisation’s standards. Both web services, following their information. Operating and
hardware and software support own standards. BIM modeling process, compensation,
advanced BIM systems, and data implementation can have and facility data are standardized
security is established within the specific objectives with within the organisation. BIM
organisation. moderate management support. responsibility is specified for the
BIM team of the organisation.
Stage The model is completely accurate Data and model can be IFC and IDM are used for
3 with all its data and elements exchanged and accessed freely interoperability of all information.
meeting industry standards. Both through secured web service, Operating and modeling process,
hardware and software are following industry standards. compensation, and facility data are
available for continuous BIM implementation can have standardized within the industry.
updating, and data security is continuously-updated BIM responsibility is specified for
established within the industry. objectives with full the whole organisation.
management support.

20
Table 3 Maturity assessment results of BIM implementation projects
Project Name AAY ECY Technology Process Protocol Overall
1 Express Rail Link-West Kowloon 2010 2015 1.286 1.000 0.857 1.048
Terminus Building (Aedas)
2 Redevelopment of 2010 2012 0.714 1.143 0.286 0.714
Hennessy Centre (Gammon
Construction Limited)
3 Shatin to Central Link (Mass Transit 2010 2019 0.571 1.286 0.571 0.810
Railway Corporation)
4 Kai Tak Nullah Improvement Works at 2010 2012 0.571 0.571 0.143 0.428
Prince Edward Road East (Scott Wilson
Limited)
5 Innovation Tower, School of 2011 2012 0.857 1.500 0.571 0.976
DesignDevelopment, PolyU (Shui On
Construction Company Limited)
6 Commercial Development at 135-137 2011 2013 0.714 0.714 0.286 0.571
Hoi Bun Road (AECOM)
7 Development of a luxurious boutique 2011 2011 1.000 0.714 0.286 0.667
hotel (Henderson Land Development
Co. Ltd.)
8 Construction of Public Rental Housing 2012 2014 1.857 1.714 1.429 1.667
at Shatin Area 52 Phase 1 (Hong Kong
Housing Authority)
9 Express Rail Link – WestKowloon 2012 2015 0.571 1.429 0.857 0.952
Terminus Building (Mass Transit
Railway Corporation)
10 Blue Pool Road Residential 2012 2013 1.000 1.143 0.857 1.000
Development (Hang Lung Properties
Limited)
11 Commercial Development Project at 28 2012 2012 1.286 1.286 0.714 1.095
Hennessy Road (Hsin Chong
Construction Group Limited)
12 Hung Hom Station and Approach 2013 2018 1.143 1.000 0.429 0.857
Tunnels (Mass Transit Railway
Corporation)
13 The University Heights Redevelopment 2013 2017 0.857 0.857 0.714 0.810
(Chinachem Group)
14 EMAX Phase II (Hopewell Property 2013 2014 0.857 0.714 0.571 0.714
and Facility Management Limited)
15 Midfield Development Design 2013 2015 1.143 1.000 0.429 0.857
Consultancy Services (Mott
MacDonald and Arup)
16 Transformation of Revit Model to 2014 2014 2.000 2.143 1.571 1.905
Enable Civil 3D/GIS/Revit Integration
and Lighting Simulation and Rendering
(Hong Kong Housing Authority)
17 Re-provisioning of Harbor Road Sports 2014 2017 1.429 1.143 0.857 1.143
Centre and Wan Chai Swimming Pool
(Mass Transit Railway Corporation)
18 West Kowloon Reclamation Substation 2014 2016 1.517 1.428 1.000 1.333
(CLP Power Hong Kong Limited)
19 Proposed Office Development at 14-30 2014 2016 1.714 1.143 0.857 1.238
King Wah Road (Henderson Land
Development Co. Ltd.)
20 One Island East Tower (Gammon 2006* 2008 1.143 1.286 0.714 1.048
Construction Limited)
21 Cathay Pacific Cargo Terminal 2010* 2013 0.857 1.571 1.143 1.190
(Intelibuild)

21
Note: 1. AAY = award announcement year; ECY = expected completion year
2. In rows 20 and 21, “*” indicates the project commencement year instead of award announcement year

Fig. 1 Illustration of MBMM (Adapted from Liang et al. [2016])

22
Fig. 2 Illustration of BIM maturity measurement by using MBMM

23
Fig. 3 BIM maturities of Projects A and B

24
Fig. 4 BIM maturities of Organisations C and D

25
Fig. 5 Scatter plot of industry-level BIM maturity in Hong Kong

26