BIM is a relatively new technique in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian (KSA) building sector [17]. 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]. 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].

Saka and Chan [20] 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], 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], 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]. 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] 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]. Researchers in [27] also identify the difficulty of integrating suitably qualified project participants into the data-sharing processes, which reduces the availability of qualified staff [28]. 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]. Similarly, authors in Refs. [29,30] 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]. 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]. Other hinderances include a lack of consistent rules and standards and lack of support from the government [31]. A study by a Saudi national identifies the adoption of common standards and uniform specifications as essential to ensuring collaboration among AEC firms [32]. 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] and Nigeria [35] identify government’s limited involvement as a factor hindering increased BIM use [36]. 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].

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] have classified them into human-related, industry-related, project-related, policy-related, and resource-related factors [37]. Furthermore, Amuda-Yusuf [38] 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] 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] identifies commonly shared universal CSFs relating to the most demanding aspect of BIM collaboration [40]. 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].

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]. The two broad issues emphasized by the authors in Ref. [25] relate to the standardization of BIM tools and institutional culture (management support) [28]. 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].

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].

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.