Building Information Modelling in the Saudi Construction Industry: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 1 by Naif Alaboud.

The Saudi Vision 2030 is a program of change management on a national level driven mostly by the use of digital technology. The implementation of building information modelling (BIM) is part of this change, and there is general agreement that its use improves the productivity and quality of the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industries. 

  • BIM factors
  • Saudi Arabia
  • interpretive structural model

1. Introduction

Building information modelling (BIM) is an interconnected workflow process based on 3D models, which are used for project planning, design, construction, and management. It utilizes shared data to generate coordinated digital design information and documentation, and anticipates performance aspects and prices. It is equally useful in completing a project in a faster, more cost-effective manner, and with much fewer ecological consequences. The technique is said to make project data easily accessible, accurate, and relevant to all stakeholders. Although some studies have claimed that BIM “remains at the development stage” [1], it is more appropriate to claim that it is being used at different dimensions on a variety of levels, and in a variety of geographic locations and industrial sectors. Certainly, the application of BIM technology is dependent on different critical factors that affect its implementation in various countries [2].
Countries and organizations are looking for new ways in which to establish physical and cultural infrastructure that can repay BIM investment. Multiple studies have examined the difficulty of establishing a standard evaluation model for measuring the success of BIM across a range of countries. A 2017 study identified some 27 countries with an early foothold in BIM development. From 2007 onwards, these countries have implemented government-mandated BIM regulations [3]. The study further shows a clear correlation between mandated government-backed BIM regulations (by or before 2016) and countries in which timely investment and specialization in BIM set the conditions for its success [3,4][3][4]. Additionally, the study confirms that early entry into the market, standardized work procedures, and government support are factors critical to the adoption and successful deployment of BIM [5].
For example, the Hong Kong government has enforced the use of BIM for all government projects costing more than HK$30 million, since 2018. Spain’s BIM commission has mandated it in buildings and infrastructural projects since 2018 and 2019, respectively [6]. Likewise, the UK government has mandated its use in all public high-rise projects since 2016 [7]. In 2016, the Saudi government’s 2030 Vision outlined its national forward plan for sustainable growth and diversified socio-economic development. The 2030 Vision aims to enact digital change from the bottom up, so that IT provides an attitudinal impetus for other sectors, and acts as a launch pad for entrepreneurial start-ups [8]. With the increased demand for sustainable “green” energy sources, the Saudi government has prioritized policies that will help to diversify its economy from natural resources, working towards a digitally enabled economy based on trade, tourism, and construction projects. This is expected to unlock the human potential of her predominantly young population. As a result of that, Saudi Arabia ranks top of the G20 countries in terms of digital competitiveness [9,10][9][10]. It is anticipated that this recalibration of the economic and digital model will help the construction industry prepare for the use of BIM.

2. Building Information Modelling in the Saudi Construction Industry

BIM is a relatively new technique in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian (KSA) building sector [17][11]. The literature is ambiguous on the adoption and application of BIM in the Gulf Cooperation Country (GCC) countries. The methodologies used to implement it in the developed countries may not fit the characteristics of KSA’s Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry [18][12]. The threat to the Saudi construction industry is that it will fall behind other countries that are benefitting from this technology and the associated updated work practices, which therefore places it at risk of being unable to compete in terms of efficiency. The adoption of BIM has seen a slow upward trend. The tactics proposed for its implementation in KSA include the establishment of enabling laws, a supportive legal framework, government financial assistance, and investment in education for the relevant stakeholders [19][13]. Saka and Chan [20][14] identify the high cost of implementation as a critical factor working against the adoption of BIM in developing countries. Although cost savings are cited as one of the chief reasons for BIM’s use [21][15], measuring its return on investment (ROI) is a work in progress, because it relies on assessing and apportioning multiple variables. The absence of instantaneous advantages from completed projects, according to [22][16], is one of the reasons for reluctance to deploy BIM. Besides, the complexity of identifying clear-cut corporate benefits adds significantly to other organizational hindrances affecting the deployment of BIM. Understandably, AEC managers wanting to benefit from the use of BIM should express a desire for a step-by-step learning process. However, implementing BIM is complex, because it must account for how professions and cultures interact, and how institutions make use of technology [23][17]. Complexity breeds regulations and protocols. The literature contains many vague and general statements, without reflecting the complexity and detail of BIM’s effect on organizational maturity. Most studies investigating the conditions required for the successful adoption of BIM have isolated and graded some key success factors. Eadie et al. and Hetemi et al. [24,25][18][19] emphasize two major issues: standardization (i.e., the “functionality” and “design validation” of BIM tools), and another relating to top management’s institutional culture support and their involvement in the early determination of project goals. This is similar to the general classification into technological and institutional factors, as opined in [26][20]. Researchers in [27][21] also identify the difficulty of integrating suitably qualified project participants into the data-sharing processes, which reduces the availability of qualified staff [28][22]. Previous research studies have highlighted a shortage of experienced employees, as well as a lack of BIM expertise and training, as important barriers militating against BIM’s adoption in the AEC business [20][14]. Similarly, authors in Refs. [29,30][23][24] highlight three significant barriers: a lack of BIM research and expertise, absence or inadequacy of government policies, and high cost of implementation. Industry reports and academic research have repeatedly cited certain universal conditions. One such condition is staff resistance to changing a well-established work technique [20][14]. Furthermore, the absence/inadequacy of IT infrastructure in AEC firms, insufficient computing competence levels among managers and workers, preference for familiar paper-based work, and scarcity of human resources and IT skills are factors specific to the Saudi context [31][25]. Other hinderances include a lack of consistent rules and standards and lack of support from the government [31][25]. A study by a Saudi national identifies the adoption of common standards and uniform specifications as essential to ensuring collaboration among AEC firms [32][26]. Protocols set out explicit contractual requirements to help establish common standards. Protocols enable BIM’s operation at defined stages or dimensions of a project by regulating working methods. The findings of a study on barriers to BIM implementation in Malaysia [33,34][27][28] and Nigeria [35][29] identify government’s limited involvement as a factor hindering increased BIM use [36][30]. Other obstacles to its adoption in Saudi Arabia, per the literature, include interoperability and functionality concerns caused by poor execution, the high cost of software, and a lack of national standardized specifications [36][30]. Just as the critical success factors of BIM’s implementation vary from country to country, studies also use a variety of classification methods. Ozorhon and Karahan [27][21] have classified them into human-related, industry-related, project-related, policy-related, and resource-related factors [37][31]. Furthermore, Amuda-Yusuf [38][32] uses factor analysis to categorize 28 critical success factors (CSFs) into five factors: dedication to and awareness of BIM among key stakeholders, capacity building for technology adoption, management’s commitment, cooperative harmony between experts in the field, and cultural perspectives. Additionally, Saka and Chan [20][14] review BIM success factors and the associated barriers within a socio-technical context, and classify them into three sub-groups: technology context, external environment, and internal or organizational factors. Another study in Ref. [39][33] identifies commonly shared universal CSFs relating to the most demanding aspect of BIM collaboration [40][34]. Implementation of the BIM process cannot be effective unless the design, engineering, and construction stakeholders collaborate. Nevertheless, the process of BIM implementation can be achieved if organizations limit their participation to non-integrated attributes, including producing accurate cost estimates from components, since this factor serves as an encumbrance to collaboration [41][35]. Most of the research literature agrees there is no simple introduction to the concept of BIM, although accounts describing the characteristics of this difficulty are hard to find. However, a few research findings refer to possible combinations for BIM applications in terms of levels and dimensions, which also help break its components into phases of collaboration [42][36]. The two broad issues emphasized by the authors in Ref. [25][19] relate to the standardization of BIM tools and institutional culture (management support) [28][22]. From the institutional perspective, companies in competition in the construction market must cooperate in industry-wide partnerships to win government backing to standardize protocols. Additionally, as study [4] makes clear, governments play a significant role in promoting BIM by mandating it in public projects, promoting training, and establishing financial and other incentives [3]. Organizations will determine how to utilize the potential of knowledge derived through data analysis and management. The vision of its users will determine how successful the technology is in altering companies and services, and how it interacts with them. BIM technology will have an immediate impact on institutional working relationships by reshaping them to encourage interpersonal cooperation [43][37]. Political, economic, social, and technological/technical (PEST) is a strategic tool for studying the prospective consequences of internal and external variables on enterprises and government policy. The PEST analytical framework is favored above other methodologies such as SWOT, in part because it can be used to unravel the interdependence of the different variables influencing BIM’s adoption, and how they function at various levels and sizes. PEST may take into consideration all these factors and explain how they may affect BIM’s implementation, perhaps increasing the popularity of BIM. Another justification for using PEST is that most BIM implementation studies have concentrated on architectural modelling, politics, and technology. These are significant, but they underestimate the social and economic factors that influence the need for long-term planning. This component classification reflects the goal of providing worldwide core classes for the data-sharing format [44][38]. The majority of studies investigating the factors influencing BIM adoption have relied on literature studies and surveys as the foundation for further analysis. However, the generalized assessments made in the literature are often not relevant to the Saudi context. So, the questionnaire method is used herein to explore the condition of BIM in Saudi Arabia. After that, unlike other methods of statistical analysis, which do not take full account of the changing relationships between variables, the researchers used interpretive structural modelling, as it is well suited to representing the dynamic process of changing factors. Therefore, using the classification of PEST, this study exposes the dynamic relationships that make the factors critical rather than dormant or ineffectual.

References

  1. Mesároš, P.; Mandičák, T. Exploitation and Benefits of BIM in Construction Project Management. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 245.
  2. Tkáč, M.; Mesároš, P.; Mandičák, T. Terrestrial Laser Scanning—Effective Technology for Creating Building Information Models. Pollack Period. 2018, 13, 61–72.
  3. Zhu, X. Introduction: From the Industrial Economy to the Digital Economy: A Giant Leap—Research on the “1 + 10” Framework of the Digital Economy; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
  4. McAuley, B.; Hore, A.; West, R. BICP Global BIM Study-Lessons for Ireland’s BIM Programme; Dublin Institute of Technology: Dublin, Ireland, 2017.
  5. ASTM Standard G102-89; Standard Practice for Calculation of Corrosion Rates and Related Information from Electrochemical Measurement. ASTM Standard: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
  6. Jiang, R.; Wu, C.; Lei, X.; Shemery, A.; Hampson, K.D.; Wu, P. Government Efforts and Roadmaps for Building Information Modeling Implementation: Lessons from Singapore, the UK and the US. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2022, 29, 782–818.
  7. Mah, C.M.; Fujiwara, T.; Ho, C.S. Construction and Demolition Waste Generation Rates for High-Rise Buildings in Malaysia. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 1224–1230.
  8. Mishrif, A. Introduction to Economic Diversification in the GCC Region. In Economic Diversification in the Gulf Region; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume I, pp. 1–26.
  9. Pavón, R.M.; Arcos Alvarez, A.A.; Alberti, M.G. BIM-Based Educational and Facility Management of Large University Venues. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7976.
  10. Sharma, S.; Soederberg, S. Redesigning the Business of Development: The Case of the World Economic Forum and Global Risk Management. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 2020, 27, 828–854.
  11. Abazid, M.; Gökçekuş, H.; Çelik, T. Implementation of TQM and the Integration of BIM in the Construction Management Sector in Saudi Arabia. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 2021, 1–9.
  12. Elhendawi, A.; Smith, A.; Elbeltagi, E. Methodology for BIM Implementation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Int. J. BIM Eng. Sci. 2018, 2, 1–20.
  13. Alhumayn, S.; Chinyio, E.; Ndekugri, I. The Barriers and Strategies of Implementing BIM in Saudi Arabia. In WIT Transactions on the Built Environment; WIT Press: New Forest, UK, 2017; Volume 169, pp. 55–67.
  14. Saka, A.B.; Chan, D.W.M. Adoption and Implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): A Review and Conceptualization. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 28, 1829–1862.
  15. Ngo, T.V.N. Implementation of Building Information Model (BIM) in Terms of Quantity Takeoff (QTO) and Estimation at Construction Consultant Company in Vietnam; Metropolia Ammattikorkeakoulu: Helsinki, Finland, 2018.
  16. Eadie, R.; Browne, M.; Odeyinka, H.; McKeown, C.; McNiff, S. BIM Implementation throughout the UK Construction Project Lifecycle: An Analysis. Autom. Constr. 2013, 36, 145–151.
  17. Hetemi, E.; Ordieres-Meré, J.; Nuur, C. An Institutional Approach to Digitalization in Sustainability-Oriented Infrastructure Projects: The Limits of the Building Information Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3893.
  18. Phang, T.C.H.; Chen, C.; Tiong, R.L.K. New Model for Identifying Critical Success Factors Influencing BIM Adoption from Precast Concrete Manufacturers’ View. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 4020014.
  19. Tsai, M.H.; Mom, M.; Hsieh, S.H. Developing Critical Success Factors for the Assessment of BIM Technology Adoption: Part I. Methodology and Survey. J. Chinese Inst. Eng. 2014, 37, 845–858.
  20. Ma, L.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Ye, Y.; Yin, G.; Johnson, B.A. Deep Learning in Remote Sensing Applications: A Meta-Analysis and Review. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2019, 152, 166–177.
  21. Ozorhon, B.; Karahan, U. Critical Success Factors of Building Information Modeling Implementation. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 4016054.
  22. De Brito, D.M.; de Ferreira, E.A.M.; Costa, D.B. Framework for Building Information Modeling Adoption Based on Critical Success Factors from Brazilian Public Organizations. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 5021004.
  23. Ebekozien, A.; Abdul-Aziz, A.R.; Jaafar, M. Mitigating High Development Cost of Low-Cost Housing: Findings from an Empirical Investigation. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021, 2021, 1–20.
  24. Olanrewaju, A.S.T.; Hossain, M.A.; Whiteside, N.; Mercieca, P. Social Media and Entrepreneurship Research: A Literature Review. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 2020, 50, 90–110.
  25. Alaboud, N.S.M. Development of a Framework to Enhance Communication Practice for Site-Based Construction Workers in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Naif. In Proceedings of the Global Conference on Engineering and Technology Management “Gaining Competitive Edge through Engineering and Technology Management” (GCETM), Istanbul, Turkey, 23–26 June 2014; pp. 160–166.
  26. Al-Hammadi, M.A.; Tian, W. Challenges and Barriers of Building Information Modeling Adoption in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 2020, 14, 98–110.
  27. Kong, S.W.R.; Lau, L.T.; Wong, S.Y.; Phan, D.T. A Study on Effectiveness of Building Information Modelling (BIM) on the Malaysian Construction Industry. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 713.
  28. Zahrizan, Z.; Ali, N.; Haron, A.; Marshall-Ponting, A.; Hamid, Z. Exploring the Adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Malaysian Construction Industry: A Qualitative Approach. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2013, 2, 384–395.
  29. Abubakar, M.; Ibrahim, Y.M.; Kado, D.; Bala, K. Contractors Perception of the Factors Affecting Building Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption in the Nigerian Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the Computing in Civil and Building Engineering—Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Orlando, FL, USA, 23–25 June 2014; pp. 167–178.
  30. Olanrewaju, O.I.; Chileshe, N.; Babarinde, S.A.; Sandanayake, M. Investigating the Barriers to Building Information Modeling (BIM) Implementation within the Nigerian Construction Industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 2931–2958.
  31. Olbina, S.; Elliott, J.W. Contributing Project Characteristics and Realized Benefits of Successful BIM Implementation: A Comparison of Complex and Simple Buildings. Buildings 2019, 9, 175.
  32. Amuda-Yusuf, G. Critical Success Factors for Building Information Modelling. Constr. Econ. Build. 2018, 18, 55–73.
  33. Shaikh, A.A.; Raju, R.; Malim, N.L.; Jayaraj, G.K. Awareness and Adoption of BIM in Construction Industry. Int. J. Recent Innov. Trends Comput. Commun. 2016, 4, 204–208.
  34. Zahidy, A.A.; Sorooshian, S.; Hamid, Z.A. Critical Success Factors for Corporate Social Responsibility Adoption in the Construction Industry in Malaysia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6411.
  35. Monteiro, A.; Mêda, P.; Poças Martins, J. Framework for the Coordinated Application of Two Different Integrated Project Delivery Platforms. Autom. Constr. 2014, 38, 87–99.
  36. Wang, W.; Gao, S.; Mi, L.; Xing, J.; Shang, K.; Qiao, Y.; Fu, Y.; Ni, G.; Xu, N. Exploring the Adoption of BIM amidst the COVID-19 Crisis in China. Build. Res. Inf. 2021, 49, 930–947.
  37. Lu, W.; Zhang, D.; Rowlinson, S. How Important Is Inter-Organizational Collaboration to the Success of Construction Project BIM Implementation. In Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 5–9 May 2013; p. 12.
  38. Kiviniemi, A.; Tarandi, V.; Karlshøj, J.; Bell, H.; Karud, O.J. Review of the Development and Implementation of IFC Compatible BIM Executive Summary; ERA Build: Bracknell, UK, 2008; pp. 1–2.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback