State of Practice of Building Information Modeling in

Mechanical and Electrical Construction Industries

Awad Hanna, P.E., F.ASCE 1; Fawaz Boodai 2; and Mounir El Asmar, Ph.D., M.ASCE 3

Abstract: The North American construction industry has seen a decline in productivity for decades due to various reasons, including a lack
of collaboration and the increase in the complexity of systems. These problems are most visible in labor-intensive trades, such as mechanical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Alberta on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and electrical construction. Within the last decade, building information modeling (BIM) has emerged as a potential solution to these prob-
lems. This paper attempts to highlight the state of practice of BIM in the mechanical and electrical industries. By analyzing responses from an
extensive survey and interview process, this paper reaches three key conclusions, namely, (1) 59% of mechanical and electrical contractors
that use BIM have 3 years or less of BIM experience; (2) contractors should use one to three BIM staff members and add 1–2% of total
project-cost estimates to account for BIM implementation; and (3) more than 70% of mechanical and electrical contractors that have used
BIM agree that BIM reduces field conflicts and improves coordination. These findings can help mechanical and electrical construction firms
understand the evolving use of BIM and allocate resources appropriately. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000747. © 2013 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Building information models; Construction management; Construction methods; Electrical systems;
Mechanical systems.
Author keywords: Building information models; Construction management; Mechanical construction; Electrical construction;
Construction methods; Project planning and design.

Introduction Industry Institute (2005) reports that the direct costs as a result
of rework are approximately 5% of the total construction costs.
There are several estimates of the construction industry’s portion of Other studies have also shown that the cost of rework on building
U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), varying from 4% to 12% based projects ranges from 2% to 6% of the contract value (Josephson and
not only on the year, but also on the calculation method. For ex- Hammarlund 1999).
ample, Prieto (2011) indicated the construction industry’s portion Rework is typically caused by poor coordination and conflicts
of the GDP to be 9%. Higher construction output creates economic of systems, which is why these problems are most visible in labor-
growth. According to the McGraw-Hill SmartMarket report, the intensive trades such as mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
decrease in construction productivity within the last 40 years has (MEP) construction (Hanna 2010). Because of their direct effect
mainly been caused by the lack of communication and collabora- on the efficiency of work flow of a construction project, MEP con-
tion (Jones et al. 2008). A recent publication by the National In- tractors are expected to continue having a strong influence on
stitute of Standards and Technology stated that at least $15.8 billion project success, especially with the increase in complexity of build-
per year is lost in inadequate interoperability in the U.S. capital ing systems and the growth of green-building construction.
facilities industry (Gallaher et al. 2004). Moreover, the Construc- The MEP construction industry plays a vital role in the overall
tion Management Association of America released a survey study success of the project. Furthermore, the MEP industry is considered
that found between 40% and 50% of all construction projects to be one of the riskiest construction industries for several reasons.
were running behind schedule (Thomsen et al. 2010). One major First, a typical MEP portion of project cost represents 40–60% of
cause of these overruns is rework (Love 2002). The Construction a total project cost (Hanna 2010). Second, MEP construction is a
1
follow-up trade, which means that their involvement in a project’s
Professor and Construction Engineering and Management Chair, Dept. construction sequence depends on other critical trades, such as the
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison,
structural or masonry trades. They are also connected among
2320 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Dr., Madison, WI 53706. E-mail:
[email protected] themselves as three different trades. Third, MEP contractors are
2
Graduate Student in Construction Engineering and Management, Dept. responsible for building complex systems that are critical to the
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, functioning of constructed facilities.
2231 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Dr., Madison, WI 53706 In the last decade, building information modeling (BIM) was
(corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected] introduced as an information technology–based construction pro-
3
Assistant Professor, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built cess to improve efficiency and coordination. The BIM can be de-
Environment, Arizona State Univ., P.O. Box 870204, Tempe, AZ 85287. fined as a more integrated design and construction process that
E-mail: [email protected] results in better quality buildings at lower cost and reduced project
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 20, 2012; approved
on May 31, 2013; published online on June 13, 2013. Discussion period
duration. It can also be defined as a model that contains precise
open until December 26, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for geometry and data needed to support the construction, fabrication,
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction En- and procurement activities through which the building is realized
gineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/04013009(8)/ (Eastman et al. 2007). In this paper, BIM is used to denote the pro-
$25.00. cess modeling as opposed to the software used in the process.

© ASCE 04013009-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.

 Creating g
A study by the University of Florida (UFL) evaluated the impact BIM toolls
of BIM on construction. The UFL study gathered information & using g
existingg Not using
from across the construction and engineering industry to evaluate B
BIM
tools in--
the perceptions of BIM on commonly accepted construction key house 4 0%
performance indicators. The research found that BIM improves 30%
the following key performance indicators: (1) quality, (2) cost,
(3) schedule, (4) productivity, and (5) safety (Suermann and Issa
2009). The McGraw-Hill SmartMarket Report surveyed construc- Usingg
tion industry professionals to gauge their BIM involvement, and existin
ng
concluded that MEP contractors were among the highest adopters BIM too ols Creating
but noot BIM tools
of BIM (Jones et al. 2008). However, much of the research involv- creatin
ng in-house
ing BIM targets general contractors. There is a lack of emphasis on own toools 13%
how specialty trades implement BIM. 17%

Fig. 1. Contractors’ level of involvement

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Alberta on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Objectives and Methodology

Quantifying the impact of BIM on MEP trades is crucial to the 60% of respondents using BIM can be categorized as follows: 13%
understanding of the state of the industry and the creation of are creating BIM tools in-house; 17% are using existing tools but
adequate construction standards. To address the aforementioned not necessarily creating their own in-house BIM tools; and 30% are
gap in the literature, this paper investigates the current state of BIM both using existing tools and creating their own in-house BIM
practice in the mechanical and electrical construction industries in tools. In-house BIM tools include, but are not limited to, cost data-
North America through two main objectives: (1) gaining insight on bases, internal BIM procedures, or modeling objects to use within
current and future implementations of BIM, and (2) identifying the BIM programs.
effect of BIM use on project performance. One interesting finding with respect to overall BIM use is the
To achieve these objectives, a survey was developed and difference between mechanical and electrical construction firms.
distributed to a total of 1,896 mechanical and electrical construction Approximately 70% of electrical contractors are using BIM, com-
firms in North America. The development of the survey was based pared with a value of 51% for mechanical contractors. This result
on a previous survey created by McGraw-Hill (McGraw-Hill highlights the fact that BIM use is more widespread in electrical
Construction 2009). Then, with the help of a professional panel construction than it is in mechanical construction.
consisting of professors, contractors, and survey specialists from The second section is evaluating the relationship between com-
the University of Wisconsin Survey Center, the survey for this pany size and BIM use. Company size is measured in billings
study was finalized. The survey consisted of 24 questions divided (i.e., the amount a contractor bills clients) in millions of dollars
into three sections: (1) company background, (2) current BIM use, within the last 12 months. Eighty-eight percent of contractors using
and (3) future BIM use. A total of 145 completed survey responses BIM have annual billings of over $10 million. However, non-BIM
were received (response rate of 8%). The responses were evenly users are almost evenly divided between two ranges of annual
distributed between mechanical contractors (75 surveys) and elec- billings, namely, $1 million to $10 million, and $10 million to
trical contractors (70 surveys). The majority of respondents were $50 million. Fig. 2 shows the relationship between company size
from U.S. Midwestern states (41%), followed by Western states and whether or not the respondents are implementing BIM. In the
(28%) and Eastern states (12%). The remaining were Canadian figure, the darker portions all add up to 100% of current BIM users,
contractors (19%). The types of projects executed by respondents while all the light-colored portions add up to 100% of non-BIM
are commercial, industrial, and institutional. The company sizes of users. It appears as though a correlation exists between company
respondents, measured in annual billings, ranged from $1 million size and BIM usage. Larger companies tend to have the investment
to more than $50 million, with the majority of respondents (73%) capital to purchase BIM tools and train staff to implement BIM,
having annual billings of more than $10 million. whereas smaller companies might have difficulties in creating
the proper infrastructure to use BIM as standard company process.
The third section evaluates company experience and expertise
Survey Results with the use of BIM. For the remaining parts of the overall BIM

The survey results will be discussed under the following four focus
Percent of Respondents From Each

100%
headings: (1) overall BIM use at the company level, (2) current
Category (Users & Non-Users)

90%
state of practice of BIM, (3) future implementation of BIM, and 80%
(4) value generated from BIM implementation. 70% 42%
(24)
60%
50%
Overall BIM Use at the Company Level 40%
9%(5)

In this focus area of the study, five different sections investigated 30%
23% 47% 41%
20% 26% (40)
the overall BIM use at the company level. The five sections are the (15) (13) (35)
10%
contractors’ level of involvement, the relationship between com- 5%(4) 7%(6)
0%
pany size and BIM use, the level of experience and level of exper- 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50 More than 50
tise with BIM, a comparison of the levels of experience and BIM Annual Billing (million $) last year
expertise, and the value that BIM has provided in the past. BIM Users Non-BIM Users
The first section under overall BIM use is the contractors’ level
Fig. 2. Relationship between company size and implementation
of involvement with BIM. Of the 145 respondents, 40% are cur-
of BIM
rently not implementing BIM, as shown in Fig. 1. The remaining

© ASCE 04013009-2 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.

 use at the company-level focus area, only the responses of current companies’ experiences. As illustrated in Fig. 4, only 6% of re-
BIM users are considered. Respondents were asked about the num- spondents using BIM indicated no meaningful value of BIM,
ber of years that their respective companies have been involved in whereas 94% indicated that BIM provides business value. More-
implementing BIM. Thirty-one percent of the companies surveyed over, this response emphasizes the steep learning curve, because
had 5 years or more of BIM experience, 10% had 4 years of 65% of respondents indicated that there is still much to learn from
experience, 29% had 3 years of experience, 14% had 2 years, and the use of BIM.
16% had 1 year of experience. These results suggest that mechani- The five sections in the first focus area discussed results for
cal and electrical contractors are relatively new in their experience the overall use of BIM among mechanical and electrical construc-
with implementing BIM, provided that approximately 60% of cur- tion firms. The following focus area will investigate the state
rent BIM users have only been using BIM for 3 years or less. When of practice of BIM implementation in mechanical and electrical
combining non-BIM users to evaluate the results more holistically, construction firms.
only 25% of the total respondents have more than 3 years of
experience in using BIM.
In relation to companies’ experience with BIM, companies were Current State of BIM Practice
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Alberta on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

asked to rate their expertise, or competency, with BIM, in the The five main factors that influence the current state of BIM
following four categories: just started, started but not efficient, practice will be discussed in this focus area. These five factors
advanced, and expert. The respondents indicated that 13% have are leadership of BIM coordination, amount of staff members
just started, 28% have started but are still not efficient in imple- needed to implement BIM and how that relates to project size, pre-
menting BIM, 48% considered their companies advanced, and 11% dominant BIM tools, cost of using BIM on a project, and associated
expert. The data are further combined into two groups: (1) begin- risks when implementing BIM.
ners or those that just started or started but are not efficient; and The first factor is identifying appropriate project-team members
(2) experienced or those that consider themselves advanced and to lead BIM coordination processes during construction. At a 45%
experts. The result is that 41% of respondents can be considered response rate, mechanical and electrical contractors indicated that
beginners in their level of BIM expertise, and 59% can be consid- MEP specialty trades should lead the modeling coordination pro-
ered experienced. cess. The second most popular response was general contractors
After individually studying the years of BIM experience and (31%) followed by the mechanical/electrical design consultants
level of expertise, the fourth section in this focus area evaluates (15%), project architects (6%), and finally, outside consultants
the relationship between these two variables. Fig. 3 illustrates a or others (3%). The MEP contractors play a vital role in model co-
key conclusion with respect to defining the level of BIM expertise ordination with the assistance of the general contractor. After con-
and helps quantify BIM expertise through the number of years of ducting several interviews, this study found that under contractual
BIM experience: beginner users of BIM typically have 1–3 years BIM protocol obligations, general contractors often guide the MEP
of experience in implementing BIM, whereas experienced users of coordination processes, letting MEP contractors lead the direct
BIM typically have 3 years or more of experience in implementing modeling efforts. General contractors are involved because they
BIM. Three years seems to be the cutoff for mechanical and elec- control the overall execution of the project. It was clear from
trical construction firms to consider themselves advanced at BIM. the interviews that a relationship exists between those who benefit
One can see that the middle bar for Year 3 is split in half between from using BIM and the team members leading the effort. When
users who consider themselves beginners at BIM, and users who MEP contractors lead coordination, they are more likely to assure
consider themselves advanced at using BIM. On the left side of that there is adequate space for their systems.
Year 3, one can predominantly see the dark shade of gray, repre- The second factor is the appropriate number of staff needed for
senting beginner users, while on right side of Year 3, one can see BIM implementation on a project. Approximately 44% indicated
the lighter shade of gray that represents advanced users. This num- one individual is adequate and 42% indicated two to three individ-
ber can help mechanical and electrical contractors put in place man- uals, whereas the remaining 14% indicated four to five staff mem-
agement plans to advance their expertise in implementing BIM. bers. From these data, it is safe to assume that dedicating three or
The fifth section of this focus area is the mechanical and elec- less staff members for BIM implementation is adequate for most
trical construction firms’ characterization of the business value of projects. In the data-collection process, mechanical and electrical
BIM. The characterization of the value of BIM in this paper is de- contractors have raised questions related to the allocation of resour-
fined as the overarching business perception of BIM based on the ces to properly implement BIM. This result directly addresses these
industry concerns.
Percent of BIM Users Respondents

35%

30% No
Maximizzed meaningful
25%
BIM value of
20% 15% potentiial BIM
0% within the
t 6%
29%
15% compan ny
6% Just sta rting
10% 8%
16% 14% 7% to
Getting
5% unders tand
6% value from
3% 2% how much
0% BIM but
value BIM
1 2 3 4 5+ believe
can pro vide
Years of Experience there is
23%
more to
Beginner Advanced
learn
65%
Fig. 3. Relationship between the years of experience in using BIM and
the level of expertise in implementation of BIM Fig. 4. Realized business value of BIM

© ASCE 04013009-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.

 Otherss
As part of the same factor, the relationship between project size 22% Auto desk
Revitt MEP
measured in total staff-hours and the number of staff that are dedi- 28 %
cated for BIM implementation was investigated. For projects that
are smaller than 10,000 staff-hours, 53% of respondents indicated
that they employ one staff member for BIM, whereas 47% employ
two to three staff members. For projects ranging from 10,000 to
50,000 staff-hours, 47% of respondents employ one staff member
for BIM and 42% employ two to three staff members, whereas the Auto desk
AutoC AD
remaining 11% employ more than three staff members. For projects Autodesk ME P
ranging between 50,000 and 100,000 staff-hours, 44% of respond- Navisworkss 26 %
24%
ents employ two to three staff members for BIM, whereas the re-
maining respondents were divided evenly between 28% employing Fig. 6. BIM software used by MEP construction companies
one staff member and 28% of respondents employing more than
three staff members for BIM. Fig. 5 illustrates this result and high-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Alberta on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

lights the relationship between project size and number of BIM were asked to state one related BIM tool they use during the con-
staff. As shown in the figure, projects with sizes less than 50,000 struction process. Fifty-one percent of respondents indicated that
staff-hours typically need a maximum of three staff members. One Total Station technology is the most widely used BIM tool. Total
can see that the first bar in Fig. 5 is solely made up of the two Station is a technology used in modern electronic surveying devi-
shades representing one BIM staff member and two to three BIM ces, integrated with an electronic distance-measuring device to read
staff members. The second bar is almost entirely made of these two slopes and distances from the device to a particular point (Gopi
shades, with an exception to five responders (approximately 10%). et al. 2007). It has become an application that takes the virtual
A very clear interpretation of these findings is that projects smaller model of BIM into the actual physical space at the jobsite (Strutz
than 50,000 staff-hours typically need a maximum of three BIM 2011). Often times, industry workers identify Total Station technol-
staff members. This relationship is important as it can assist ogy by its manufacturing brand names such as Trimble, Hilti,
mechanical and electrical contractors in determining efficient re- Leica, and others as it appears in the survey responses where some
source and budget allocation before starting a project. of the responses stated specifically the brand name (i.e., Trimble)
Under the current state of BIM practice focus area, the third fac- instead of answering Total Station for that question.
tor is identifying predominant software and tools used by mechani- The fourth factor in this focus area is the average cost of imple-
cal and electrical construction firms. The respondents were given menting BIM. The BIM costs are measured in percent of total
several choices and they were allowed to provide their own answer project cost. Sixty-one percent of respondents indicated that imple-
if none of the choices were suitable. The respondents were also menting BIM cost them 2% or less of their total project cost. Fig. 7
allowed to choose more than one answer. Fig. 6 shows the top three shows the response rates for all ranges of BIM cost. These results
software types: Autodesk Revit MEP, Autodesk AutoCAD MEP, and can assist in the bidding process when determining the allocation of
Autodesk Navisworks. It is interesting that a single software com- costs related to BIM implementation.
pany, Autodesk, controls approximately three-fourths of the market The last factor in the state of BIM practice is the risk associated
for mechanical and electrical construction software. Other tools with the use of BIM. Sixty-one percent of survey respondents
available but used insignificantly in the industry are Bentley Micro- stated the highest risk item is the lack of BIM protocols during
station, TSI, and QuickPen. A follow-up part of this study was in- the construction phase. A BIM protocol can be defined as a con-
terviewing several Autodesk software specialists to understand their tractual guide to the BIM process, which includes stakeholders’
reaction to the results, and most stated MEP contractors across roles and responsibilities for items such as file sharing, model
North America have recently been requesting greater improve- ownership, model file formats, specific leading trade models,
ments to three-dimensional MEP software technologies to include scheduled model submissions for review, and responsibility of
enhancements in component libraries for more efficient modeling model changes on a specific project basis (American Institute of
and interoperability. Architects 2008). The second highest response (15%) was cost
The use of other BIM tools to enhance modeling construction overrun with the use of BIM. The previous findings will help better
process also was investigated under the same factor. Respondents allocate financial resources and staff to reduce this risk. Interest-
ingly, the third highest response (12%) was the lack of competency
50
Number of BIM Users Respondents

45 1 40% 37%
40 4
35%
35
Percent of Respondents

30 30%
18 2 More than 5 24%
25 25%
20 5 4 to 5
20%
0
15 10 2 to 3 14%
8 15%
10 20 9%
1 10% 8% 8%
5 9 9
0 5%
Less than 10,000 to 50,000 to
10,000 50,000 100,000 0%
Project Size (Man-Hours) Less than 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 More than
1 5
Percent Cost (%)
Fig. 5. Relationship between project size and number of BIM staff
members Fig. 7. BIM-implementation cost (in percent of total project cost)

© ASCE 04013009-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.

 93%
100% BIM users show an even distribution between those who will be
90% implementing BIM on less than 15% of their projects (24 respond-

Percent of Respondents
80%
70%
ents), on 15–30% of projects (24 respondents), 30–60% of projects
60% (22 respondents), and more than 60% of their projects (16 respond-
50% ents) in the next 2 years. This may appear as a relatively modest
40% 28% 28% 26% BIM use. However, it is often owners, not contractors, who tend to
30%
20%
19% drive much of BIM implementation on projects. For example, it
10%
7%
0% 0%
was only 2 years ago that the State of Wisconsin mandated BIM
0% implementation for all state-construction projects (DeVries 2009).
Less than 15 15 to 30 30 to 60 More than 60
Percent of Projects (%)
As for those who are not currently using BIM, 93% (54 respond-
Firms Currently Using BIM Firms Currently not Using BIM
ents) of the respondents indicated that they would implement BIM
in fewer than 15% of projects, and 7% (four respondents) of the
Fig. 8. Percent of projects to implement BIM in the next 2 years respondents indicated that they would implement BIM on 15–30%
of projects. These current non-BIM users may not have sufficient
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Alberta on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

resources to implement BIM on a larger number of projects. As

of team members in using BIM. This response was not provided as identified earlier, most non-BIM users are relatively small firms.
one of the choices but was written by respondents. These important The second part in this focus area highlighting the future use of
findings point to potential solutions to reduce project risks related BIM is the comparison of the current and future BIM investments by
to BIM, including the development of comprehensive standards current BIM users and non-BIM users. Table 1 shows the mean value
and training modules for mechanical and electrical contractors and rank of each type of current investment for both specialties
to adequately implement BIM on their projects. surveyed as part of this study. Separate and then combined scores
The five factors discussed here provide clear insights regarding of mechanical and electrical contractors are shown. The mean score
the state of practice for BIM implementation among mechanical for each investment is calculated using a five-point Likert scale, with
and electrical construction firms. After evaluating these factors, 5 for a great deal, 4 for quite a bit, 3 for some, 2 for a little, and 1 for
the next section will investigate the future implementation of BIM. none. The Likert scale is a psychometric scale commonly involved in
research that uses questionnaires (Chatterjee and Hadi 2006).
Contractors of both specialties currently using BIM agree on
Future Use of BIM their top three current investments in BIM, which are (1) marketing
Two main points are discussed to evaluate the future use of BIM by BIM to customers, (2) purchasing software, and (3) training staff.
mechanical and electrical construction firms. They are (1) the per- Table 1 also shows statistical significance through P values. A P
centage of projects that will be implementing BIM in the next value less than 0.05 implies a significant difference between the
2 years, and (2) the comparison of future BIM investments by both means of the two groups (mechanical and electrical). One statisti-
current BIM users and non-BIM users. cally significant difference was found between the mean scores
Regarding the percentage of projects that will implement BIM of both specialties for marketing BIM to customers with electrical
in the next 2 years, Fig. 8 shows the variation in responses between being higher; however, the ranking of the investment was close
those who currently implement BIM and those who do not. Current (first and second) in both specialties. Contradictory to other

Table 1. Current and Future Investments in BIM

Mechanical Electrical
contractors contractors t-Test Combined score
Investment type Mean Rank Mean Rank P value Significance Mean Rank
BIM users: current investment
Purchasing software 3.11 1 3.04 3 0.823 — 3.07 2
Creating BIM procedures in company 2.55 5 3.02 4 0.092 — 2.82 5
Creating BIM libraries 2.71 4 2.96 5 0.382 — 2.85 4
Creating BIM procedures with other companies 2.21 6 2.39 6 0.484 — 2.31 6
Training staff 2.92 2 3.18 2 0.334 — 3.07 2
Marketing BIM to customers 2.92 2 3.55 1 0.041 SS 3.28 1
BIM users: future investment for the next 2 years
Purchasing software 3.00 5 2.98 5 0.929 — 2.99 5
Creating BIM procedures in company 3.32 2 3.27 3 0.807 — 3.29 3
Creating BIM libraries 3.13 4 3.24 4 0.658 — 3.20 4
Creating BIM procedures with other companies 2.66 6 2.78 6 0.640 — 2.72 6
Training staff 3.29 3 3.43 2 0.591 — 3.37 2
Marketing BIM to customers 3.47 1 4.00 1 0.044 SS 3.77 1
Non-BIM users: future investment for the next 2 years
Purchasing software 2.00 1 2.29 1 0.213 — 2.11 1
Creating BIM procedures in company 1.39 3 2.00 3 0.004 SS 1.61 3
Creating BIM libraries 1.36 4 1.76 4 0.059 CS 1.51 4
Creating BIM procedures with other companies 1.28 5 1.57 6 0.167 — 1.39 6
Training staff 1.47 2 2.05 2 0.013 SS 1.68 2
Marketing BIM to customers 1.28 5 1.67 5 0.052 CS 1.42 5
Note: CS = close to being significant; SS = statistically significant.

© ASCE 04013009-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.

 research results (Jones et al. 2008; Young et al. 2009), the data purchasing software, with an agreement on all the remaining ranks
show that relatively little investment is currently being made in cre- of the investments. However, there is a difference in the scale
ating BIM procedures in-house and creating BIM procedures with of investment between these two groups as shown by statistically
other companies. significant differences between the mean scores of all invest-
After evaluating the current investments of BIM users, the future ment types.
investments of these current BIM users were evaluated. By looking This second part of the focus area highlighted key BIM invest-
at bold portion of Table 1, one can find that two of the top three ment types that mechanical and electrical construction firms are
current investments in BIM, marketing BIM to customers, and considering for future BIM implementation. Because current
training staff, are still in the top three BIM investments anticipated BIM users are increasing their investment in BIM, it would be in-
for the next 2 years for both specialties surveyed. Investment in teresting to understand how BIM is providing value for these com-
creating internal BIM procedures took over the third position from panies. The added value of BIM will be investigated in the final
purchasing software. This is a logical next step for a company focus area of this paper.
that is already using BIM; once they had made the proper software
purchases and adequately trained their employees, experienced
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Alberta on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

firms can create their own BIM procedures. Again, one statistically Added Value of BIM
significant difference was found between the mean scores of both Current BIM users were asked about the value generated by BIM
specialties for marketing BIM to customers; however, the ranking for three different aspects of a construction project, namely, project
of the investment was the same (first) in both specialties. phases, project activities, and project-performance indicators. Find-
An evaluation of mechanical and electrical construction firms ings from this focus area will highlight the perceived influence of
that are currently non-BIM users shows an interesting contrast BIM on construction operations as applied to the following three
to these results, as illustrated in the last part of Table 1. Lower mean aspects.
values indicate very little future investment with BIM for a given The first aspect is evaluating the added value of BIM to major
type of investment. There is an agreement in both specialties on the project phases. Table 3 shows the mean score and rank for each
ranking of all types of investment, albeit some statistically signifi- project phase, both separately and combined, for both specialties.
cant differences in their mean scores. One major disagreement The mean values for each phase are calculated using the same
between the current BIM users (bold) and the non-BIM users is five-point Likert scale discussed in the previous section: 5 for a
investing in marketing BIM to customers, which is ranked second great deal, 4 for quite a bit, 3 for some, 2 for a little, and 1 for
to last for the non-BIM users. none. A t-test also was performed to find statistically significant
To further emphasize the variation between BIM users and non- differences between the two specialties’ scores.
BIM users, Table 2 shows the mean score of each type of future There are five phases with high mean values: (1) final design,
investment to be made by both BIM and non-BIM users. A t-test (2) construction documentation, (3) fabrication, (4) construction,
was performed to show statistically significant differences among and (5) shop drawings. Both specialties have these phases in the
the mean scores. There is a reversing of the position for the first top five, with slight differences in the ranking. No statistically sig-
and fifth ranked investments, marketing BIM to customers, and nificant differences were found between the mean scores of the two

Table 2. Future Investments for the Next 2 Years—Current BIM Users versus Non-BIM Users
Current BIM users Current non-BIM users t-Test results
Investment type Mean Rank Mean Rank P value Significance
Purchasing software 2.99 5 2.11 1 <0.001 SS
Creating BIM procedures in Company 3.29 3 1.61 3 <0.001 SS
Creating BIM libraries 3.20 4 1.51 4 <0.001 SS
Creating BIM procedures with other companies 2.72 6 1.39 6 <0.001 SS
Training staff 3.37 2 1.68 2 <0.001 SS
Marketing BIM to customers 3.77 1 1.42 5 <0.001 SS
Note: SS = statistically significant.

Table 3. Level of Value BIM Generates for Each Project Phase

Mechanical Electrical
contractors contractors t-Test Combined score
Project phase Mean Rank Mean Rank P value Significance Mean Rank
Feasibility studies 2.35 9 2.68 9 0.377 — 2.50 9
Preliminary design 2.70 6 3.08 7 0.164 — 2.91 6
Final design 3.43 3 3.79 2 0.241 — 3.60 3
Construction documents 3.24 5 3.58 3 0.213 — 3.44 4
Bidding 1.84 11 2.13 11 0.565 — 1.92 11
Fabrication 3.89 2 3.55 4 0.155 — 3.67 2
Construction 3.95 1 4.05 1 0.440 — 4.03 1
Shop drawings 3.27 4 3.50 5 0.580 — 3.36 5
Submittals 2.19 10 2.66 10 0.175 — 2.40 10
Closeout 2.49 7 3.11 6 0.031 SS 2.85 7
Operations and maintenance 2.38 8 2.82 8 0.325 — 2.55 8
Note: CS = close to being significant; SS = statistically significant.

© ASCE 04013009-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.

 specialties except for the closeout phase. However, when looking than other activities, which could be related to the coordination of
at the ranking, closeout was similarly ranked by both specialties complex mechanical and electrical systems. This result is in line
(sixth and seventh). All the top five phases are part of the construc- with previous research that indicated better visualization and clash
tion process. Because mechanical and electrical contractors are typ- detection are top benefits when using BIM. This study confirms the
ically only involved during construction, it is understandable that same findings apply more specifically to MEP construction firms.
they only see the benefits BIM brings to these construction phases. In addition, the SmartMarket report states one of the top three
The other phases that had lower values are typically phases in benefits of BIM for MEP contractors is the shop-drawing process
which the mechanical and electrical contractors are not involved (Jones et al. 2008), which is reinforced by the findings of this study.
in the project, and therefore, do not see directly the added value The nine remaining project activities have considerably lower
of BIM first hand. However, this may change when contractors means, indicating less value added with the use of BIM. Some of
are involved early in innovative delivery systems, especially when these results were unexpected, because literature shows that BIM
used for high-complexity facilities. does bring value to project activities such as scheduling, quantity
The second aspect of this focus area is evaluating the added value takeoff, and cost estimation (Jones et al. 2008; Young et al. 2009;
of BIM on key project activities. The choice of these activities Korman et al. 2008). More specifically, the SmartMarket report
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Alberta on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

was based on previous literature, the authors’ experiences, and input states that MEP contractors are likely to find value in quantity take-
from mechanical and electrical construction firms. Table 4 shows a off with BIM (Jones et al. 2008), whereas this activity was only
similar format to Table 3 as applied to project activities. A t-test also ranked tenth in this study.
was performed to find statistically significant differences between Finally, the third aspect in this focus area is the added value
the scores of the mechanical and electrical specialties. of BIM as measured by project-performance indicators. Key
Several findings can be concluded from Table 4. There is an performance metrics were first identified based on literature
agreement among the survey respondents from both the mechanical describing indicators widely used by MEP construction firms
and electrical specialties on the top four activities for which BIM (Suermann and Issa 2009; Jones et al. 2008). The list of metrics
generates value, namely, (1) clash detection, (2) visualization of was finalized through the authors’ interactions with the MEP con-
facility design, (3) shop-drawing process, and (4) more efficient struction industry experts. As shown in Table 5, the top six project
use of time. In addition, both specialties have project turnover performance measures, (1) better system coordination, (2) reduction
and closeout and stakeholder engagement alternating for the fifth in field conflicts, (3) reduction in cost of rework, (4) reduction in
and sixth ranks. The first two activities, clash detection and visu- deficiency issues, (5) reduction in cost of as-built drawings, and
alization of facility design, have significantly higher mean values (6) reduction in request for informations (RFIs), are significantly

Table 4. Level of Value BIM Generates for Project Activities

Mechanical Electrical
contractors contractors t-Test Overall score
Project activities Mean Rank Mean Rank P value Significance Mean Rank
Clash detection 4.11 1 4.31 1 0.300 — 4.22 1
Cost estimation for project 2.11 9 2.20 10 0.664 — 2.16 11
Energy/lighting analysis 1.57 12 2.04 12 0.027 SS 1.84 12
Facility-space planning 1.95 11 2.55 7 0.018 SS 2.29 8
More efficient use of time 2.38 4 3.04 4 0.007 SS 2.76 4
Project turnover and closeout 2.32 5 2.78 6 0.099 — 2.58 5
Quantity takeoff 2.25 7 2.20 10 0.862 — 2.22 10
Scheduling 2.05 10 2.49 8 0.059 CS 2.30 7
Shop-drawing process 2.81 3 3.06 3 0.394 — 2.95 3
Stakeholder engagement 2.26 6 2.80 5 0.066 — 2.57 6
Submittal process 2.16 8 2.39 9 0.332 — 2.29 8
Visualization of facility design 3.49 2 3.86 2 0.140 — 3.70 2
Note: CS = close to being significant; SS = statistically significant.

Table 5. Level of Value BIM Generates on Ten Performance Indicators

Mechanical Electrical
contractors contractors t-Test Overall score
Performance indicator Mean Rank Mean Rank P value Significance Mean Rank
Reduction in RFIs 2.97 6 3.10 5 0.596 — 3.05 6
Reduction in Resubmittals 2.62 9 2.59 9 0.897 — 2.60 9
Reduction in field conflicts 3.95 2 4.08 2 0.476 — 4.02 2
Reduction in deficiency issues 3.11 5 3.27 4 0.545 — 3.20 4
Reduction in punch-list items 2.84 8 2.94 7 0.689 — 2.90 7
Reduction in cost of rework 3.27 3 3.51 3 0.345 — 3.41 3
Reduction in cost of as-built drawings 3.24 4 3.08 6 0.551 — 3.15 5
Reduction in change orders 2.86 7 2.90 8 0.887 — 2.88 8
Shorter processing time for change orders 2.38 10 2.24 10 0.618 — 2.30 10
Better coordination 4.05 1 4.14 1 0.659 — 4.10 1
Note: CS = close to being significant; SS = statistically significant.

© ASCE 04013009-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.

 improved (mean score > 3) when mechanical and electrical con- conclusions and to map any change in the trend of BIM adoption in
struction firms implemented BIM. Both specialties agreed in the the future such as the correlation between company size and its
ranking of the top three performance indicators, and alternated BIM usage. The results discussed show that BIM is still an evolving
rankings of the next three (the fourth, fifth, and sixth indicators) process that confronts many challenges. Many mechanical and
with no statistically significant differences among mean scores electrical construction firms have yet to scratch the surface in their
between mechanical and electrical contractors. The two greatest implementation of BIM.
improvements as shown by mean values from both specialties
are better systems coordination and reductions in field conflicts.
This finding confirms that mechanical and electrical contractors be- References
have similarly to other parties, as shown in previous literature,
which underlines the significant improvements that BIM brings American Institute of Architects (AIA). (2008). “Contract documents:
in resolving field conflicts and improving systems coordination. BIM.” AIA website, 〈http://www.aia.org〉 (Nov. 4, 2012).
Moreover, when conducting interviews, many MEP contractors, Chatterjee, S., and Hadi, A. S. (2006). Regression analysis by example,
who keep measures of performance, stated that BIM positively im- John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Alberta on 11/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Construction Industry Institute. (2005). Making zero rework a reality,

pacts their labor productivity and material efficiency. The findings
Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX.
of this study highlight major performance improvements related to
DeVries, M. J. (2009). “First Wisconsin, now Texas: States adopt BIM
BIM, and help build momentum for mechanical and electrical con- for design and construction on public projects.” Best practices construc-
tractors to adopt BIM. tion law, 〈http://www.bestpracticesconstructionlaw.com/tags/wisconsin
-bim/〉 (Sep. 20, 2012).
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., and Liston, K. (2007). BIM handbook:
Conclusion A guide to building information modeling for owners, designers, engi-
neers, and contractors, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
The “Survey Results” section highlighted some key findings. Gallaher, M. P., O’Connor, A. C., Dettbarn, J. L., Jr., and Gilday, L. T.
The first finding is the existence of three correlations, namely, (2004). Cost analysis of inadequate interoperability in the U.S. capital
(1) company size and BIM usage, (2) project size and number facilities industry, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
of staff to implement BIM, and (3) BIM experience measured in Gaithersburg, MD.
years versus level of expertise or competency. The second finding Gopi, S., Sathikumar, R., and Madhu, N. (2007). “Basics of total station.”
is that the majority of mechanical and electrical firms apply 1–2% Advanced surveying: Total station, GIS and remote sensing, Pearson
of total project cost toward BIM implementation. The third finding Education, New Delhi, India, 146.
is that there are three investment types that the majority of respond- Hanna, A. S. (2010). Construction labor productivity management and
ents will be investing in during the next 2 years for BIM usage, methods improvement, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,
WI.
including creating in-house BIM procedures, training staff mem-
Jones, S. A., Young, N. W., Jr., and Bernstein, H. M. (2008). “Building
bers, and marketing of BIM to customers. These second and third information modeling (BIM): Transforming design and construction
findings will help mechanical and electrical construction firms to achieve greater industry productivity.” SmartMarket Rep.,
better allocate resources for BIM implementation. The fourth find- McGraw-Hill Construction, Bedford, MA.
ing revolves around the numerous BIM benefits for mechanical Josephson, P. E., and Hammarlund, Y. (1999). “The causes and costs of
and electrical project execution, including reduction in field con- defects in construction: A study of seven building projects.” Autom.
flicts, improved coordination, easier clash detection, and enhanced Constr., 8(6), 681–687.
facility-design visualization. All of the key findings discussed illus- Korman, T., Simonian, P. L., and Speidel, E. (2008). “Using building
trate important practices and characteristics of BIM use in the information modeling to improve the mechanical, electrical, and plumb-
mechanical and electrical construction industries. The results of ing coordination process for buildings.” Architectural Engineering
Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–10.
this study showcase additional aspects of the state of BIM practice
Love, P. (2002). “Influence of project type and procurement methods
among mechanical and electrical construction firms in North on rework costs in building construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
America, including popular BIM tools as well as main risks asso- Manage., 128(1), 18–29.
ciated with BIM. Moreover, findings have been reached to enhance McGraw-Hill Construction. (2009). “The use of bim in mechanical
the implementation of BIM, most notably the number of staff that construction.” Survey, Opinion Research Corporation, Princeton, NJ.
should be dedicated to BIM on a mechanical or electrical construc- Prieto, R. (2011). “Viewpoint: E & C needs a new business model.”
tion project. Engineering news-record, McGraw-Hill Construction, New York, 76.
Some of these findings, such as the value generated by the use of Strutz, J. (2011). “Taking BIM from design to reality.” Construction
BIM, might vary based on several project factors, such as complex- business owner, 〈http://www.constructionbusinessowner.com〉 (Nov. 4,
ity of the project, owner initiatives to standardize BIM use, project 2012).
size, and use of BIM protocols. Therefore, more research is needed Suermann, P. C., and Issa, R. R. A. (2009). “Evaluating industry percep-
tions of building information modeling (BIM) impact on construction.”
to understand such variations. This study may lead to three main
J. Inf. Technol. Constr., 14, 574–594.
future research areas. The first is developing a cost–benefit analysis
Thomsen, C., Darrington, J., Dunne, D., and Lichtig, W. (2010). Managing
for implementing BIM on mechanical and electrical construction. integrated project delivery, Construction Management Association of
The second area is to assist in the creation of BIM standards for the America, McLean, VA.
mechanical and electrical construction industries to help minimize Young, N. W., Jr., Jones, S. A., Bernstein, H. M., and Gudgel, J. E. (2009).
the risks associated with the use of BIM. The third is increasing The business value of BIM: Getting building information modeling to
the sample surveyed for this study to arrive at more generalizable the bottom line, McGraw-Hill Construction, Bedford, MA.

© ASCE 04013009-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.