Scuola di Ingegneria Industriale e dell’Informazione ... · POLITECNICO DI MILANO Scuola di Ingegneria Industriale e dell’Informazione Master of Science in Management Engineering

POLITECNICO DI MILANO

Scuola di Ingegneria Industriale e dell’Informazione

Master of Science in Management Engineering – Milano Bovisa

BIM for Supply Chain Management in Construction

Setting up Contractor’s BIM-based Supply Chain

Supervisor | prof. Mauro MANCINI, Politecnico di Milano

Co-Supervisor | Alessio Domenico LETO, Politecnico di Milano

Co-Supervisor | prof. Carlo RAFELE, Politecnico di Torino

Student | Marijana Zora Kuzmanović

ID Number | 892241

Academic Year 2018/19


Marijana Zora Kuzmanović 2



Acknowledgements

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to professor Mauro Mancini for providing me with the

opportunity to work on this interesting topic. Throughout this research work, I have realized the

beauty of BIM which triggered my sincere desire to continue exploring its potential.

During this journey, I was able to get in contact with BIM industry experts, hear their practical

experience and feel their enthusiasm towards opportunities which BIM may unlock in construction,

for which I am very grateful.

I also wish to thank to Alessio, who was always there to guide me and closely follow my work.

Finally, I would not have made it up to here without the support of my mother and sister, closest

friends and coinquilini who were a bit tired of listening to the newest BIM-related insights I was

gathering throughout the work.

Zora





Abstract

Construction enterprises mostly seek to implement BIM in the pre-construction phase, for

3D design visualization and clash detection (Bosch et al., 2017). However, BIM generated

information is not fully exploited within the activities of construction management,

fabrication, and erection (Aram et al., 2013), not to mention for reaching full collaboration

along the complex construction supply chains. That complexity can be attributed to the high

fragmentation present among the construction project actors, due to the presence of various

multi-disciplinary companies with unintegrated operational processes for collaboration

(Nam and Tatum, 1992; Robson et al., 2014; Dainty et al., 2001). Due to the project-based

nature of their collaboration, not so much effort has been put in managing the supply chain,

rather in risk shifting towards the upstream part of the chain and last tier suppliers (O’Brien

et al., 2009). These practices result in poor communication among supply chain actors, based

on 2D document management and a lot of rework. Direct consequences are lack of material

delivery transparency and high variability of data long the supply chain, which continue

prolonging the project deadlines and increasing the costs.

One of the methodologies which has a strong potential for enhancing the performance of

construction supply chains is Building Information Modelling (BIM), as a technological

enabler for up to date information exchange and collaboration between the actors (Eastman

et al., 2008; Bankvall et al., 2010; Bryde et al., 2013).

In that sense, this research tries to define the potential BIM-enabled tools which could

provide supply chain members with timely information exchange and allow them to take

control of their highly interdependent activities. Taking control is very relevant since final

value delivered to the Client is a direct function of the effective multi actor chain

management, as around 75% of the value of the construction works is contributed by

suppliers and subcontractors (Dubois and Gadde, 2000). Focus of the research has been set

on the construction phase of project lifecycle, by listing proven BIM applications within the

building components procurement, their production off-site, transportation and logistics as

well as on-site assembly.

However, due to the socio-technological nature of BIM, exploration of sound environment

for achieving transparent practices was needed, by investigating the current relationships

among supply chain members as well as their perception regarding the constraints for

achieving BIM-based supply chain management. These constrains may occur in different



dimensions on inter-organizational level: social, organizational, technological and

economic. Only after understanding the potential which may be achieved by managing

supply chain with BIM and perceived constraints for reaching that potential, a guideline has

been produced, mainly concerning main contractor as the initiator of such practices.

Finally, main finding is related to the potential reinforcement between BIM and supply

chain. While the supply chain shall be stable and formed in a trusting environment (based

on principles of partnerships for tighter integration) in order to grasp the full value of BIM,

BIM can be used as a mean for regulating and tracking the information and material flows

among the actors in a standardized code-based and transparent form. By doing so, each

supply chain member is enriching building components with their piece of information and

in the moment of those information creation throughout the well-defined and regulated

collaboration processes enabled by BIM. Indeed, by pursuing such practices, value-added

in terms of rich building information models may be handed over to the Clients (besides the

physical assets) in the form of digital twins as a final result of successful collaboration. This

way of working may shift the competition in the construction sector from price based to

value based, as a result of supply chain management supported with BIM methodology.

Furthermore, this strategy may allow construction SMEs to gain competitive advantage

over the big industry players, by having whole supply chain by their side.

Key words: BIM; supply chain management; partnerships.



Sommario

Le imprese di costruzione implementano il BIM principalmente nella fase di pianificazione,

per la visualizzazione di progetti in 3D e per il rilevamento di conflitti (clash detection) tra gli

elementi costruttivi (Bosch et al., 2017). Tuttavia, le informazioni generate dal BIM non

vengono sfruttate appieno nell'ambito delle attività di gestione e installazione in cantiere

(Aram et al., 2013), e la condivisione di tali informazioni è molto scarsa lungo le complesse

catene di approvvigionamento del settore. Tale complessità può essere attribuita all'elevata

frammentazione presente tra gli attori del progetto di costruzione, a causa della presenza di

varie imprese multidisciplinari con processi operativi non fondati sulla collaborazione

(Nam e Tatum, 1992; Robson et al., 2014; Dainty et al., 2001). A causa della sua natura basata

sul progetto, il settore delle costruzioni non ha fatto molti sforzi nella gestione della catena

di approvvigionamento o per condividere equamente i rischi tra gli attori (O’Brien et al.,

2009). Le attuali pratiche comportano una scarsa comunicazione tra gli attori della catena di

approvvigionamento, basata su una frequente rielaborazione dei documenti condivisi.

Conseguenze dirette di questa situazione sono la mancanza di trasparenza nel conferimento

dei materiali e l'elevata variabilità dei dati lungo la catena di approvvigionamento, con

conseguenti aumenti dei costi e ritardi nella consegna del progetto. Una delle metodologie

che sembrerebbe avere un forte potenziale nel miglioramento delle prestazioni delle catene

di approvvigionamento nel settore delle costruzioni è il Building Information Modeling

(BIM), una metodologia digitale basata sullo scambio delle informazioni e sulla

collaborazione tra gli attori del progetto (Eastman et al., 2008; Bankvall et al., 2010; Bryde et

al., 2013).

La presente tesi si propone l’obbiettivo di definire i potenziali strumenti basati sul BIM che

potrebbero fornire ai membri della catena di approvvigionamento uno scambio tempestivo

delle informazioni, consentendo loro il controllo delle attività altamente interdipendenti.

Assumere il controllo di ciò che si sta producendo è molto rilevante, poiché il valore finale

consegnato al cliente è una funzione diretta dell'effettiva gestione della catena multi-attore;

infatti, circa il 75% del valore delle opere di costruzione è fornito da fornitori e

subappaltatori (Dubois e Gadde, 2000). Il focus della ricerca è stato posto sulla fase

costruttiva del progetto, elencando le applicazioni BIM già collaudate

nell'approvvigionamento dei componenti dell'edificio, nella loro produzione fuori sede, nel

trasporto e nella logistica, nonché nell'assemblaggio in situ. Tuttavia, a causa della natura



socio-tecnologica del BIM, è stata necessaria l'esplorazione di un ambiente collaborativo per

raggiungere pratiche trasparenti, indagando le relazioni attuali tra i membri della catena di

approvvigionamento e la loro percezione riguardo ai vincoli per la realizzazione della

catena di approvvigionamento basata sul BIM. Questi vincoli possono verificarsi secondo

diverse dimensioni a livello inter-organizzativo: sociale, organizzativo, tecnologico ed

economico. Solo dopo aver compreso il potenziale che può essere raggiunto gestendo la

catena di approvvigionamento con il BIM e percependo i vincoli per raggiungere quel

potenziale, è stata prodotta una linea guida, principalmente riguardante l’appaltatore

principale, considerato come il precursore di tali pratiche.

Il risultato principale di tale lavoro è legato al potenziale rafforzamento tra la metodologia

BIM e la catena di approvvigionamento. Mentre la catena di approvvigionamento deve

essere stabile e formata in un ambiente pienamente collaborativo (basato su principi di

partnership per una più stretta integrazione), il BIM può essere utilizzato come mezzo per

regolare e tracciare i flussi di informazioni e materiali tra le parti interessate in una forma

standardizzata, codificata e trasparente. In questo modo, ciascun membro della catena di

approvvigionamento arricchisce i componenti dell'edificio delle loro informazioni,

basandosi su processi di collaborazione ben definiti e regolamentati dal BIM. In effetti,

perseguendo tali pratiche, il valore aggiunto in termini di modelli ricchi di informazioni

può essere consegnato al cliente (oltre alle risorse fisiche) sotto forma del gemello digitale

dell’edificio, quale risultato finale di una collaborazione ben riuscita. Questo modo di

lavorare, in conseguenza della gestione della catena di approvvigionamento supportata

dalla metodologia BIM, può incentivare una concorrenza basata sul valore aggiunto

piuttosto che sul prezzo. Inoltre, questa strategia può consentire alle piccole e medie

imprese delle costruzioni di ottenere un vantaggio competitivo rispetto alle grandi imprese

del settore, sfruttando interamente la propria catena di approvvigionamento.

Parole chiave: BIM; gestione della catena di approvvigionamento; collaborazione.





Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 15

1.1 Research Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 15

1.2 Research Methodology .............................................................................................................. 16

1.3 Structure of the Thesis work .................................................................................................... 18

2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 21

2.1 Challenge in the Construction Sector ..................................................................................... 21

2.2 Building Information Modeling .............................................................................................. 23 2.2.1 Understanding the “Digital Evolution” .............................................................................................. 23 2.2.2 Setting up the BIM process for the Contractor ................................................................................... 29 2.2.3 Interoperability allows collaboration .................................................................................................. 32 2.2.4 BIM transforms enterprises ................................................................................................................... 33

2.3 Construction Supply Chain ...................................................................................................... 36 2.3.1 Construction Supply Chain | Flows and Stakeholders .................................................................... 36 2.3.2 “Big blocks” of the Construction Supply Chain ................................................................................ 41

2.3.2.1 Procurement of building materials / components .................................................................. 41 2.3.2.2 Off-site production of building materials / components ....................................................... 43 2.3.2.3 Transportation & Logistics .......................................................................................................... 43 2.3.2.4 On-site Assembly/Construction ................................................................................................ 45

2.3.3 Common issues of Construction Supply Chain Management ......................................................... 46 2.3.4 Philosophy of the Supply Chain Integration ...................................................................................... 48

2.4 BIM for Supply Chain Management in Construction ........................................................ 51 2.4.1 Interdependence between BIM and Supply Chain Management ................................................... 51 2.4.2 Requirements for BIM-enabled Supply Chain Management ........................................................... 54

2.5 Gaps found in the literature ..................................................................................................... 57

3 Research Methodology .......................................................................................................... 59

3.1 Purpose of the work ................................................................................................................... 59

3.2 Research Questions .................................................................................................................... 59 3.2.1 Which are the opportunities and trends of BIM-based Supply Chain? ......................................... 60 3.2.2 Which are the common barriers for establishing BIM-based Supply Chain? ................................ 60 3.2.3 How could a Contractor set up a BIM-based Supply Chain? .......................................................... 61

3.3 Research Methodology .............................................................................................................. 62 3.3.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................... 63



3.3.2 Survey ....................................................................................................................................................... 63 3.3.3 Interviews ................................................................................................................................................ 67

4 Findings ................................................................................................................................... 69

4.1 What is BIM-based Supply Chain Management? ................................................................ 69 4.1.1 Which are the opportunities and trends of BIM-based Supply Chain? ......................................... 70

4.1.1.1 Procurement of building materials/components .................................................................... 72 4.1.1.2 Off-site production of building materials/components ......................................................... 74 4.1.1.3 Transportation & Logistics .......................................................................................................... 78 4.1.1.4 On-site Assembly/Construction ................................................................................................ 80

4.1.2 Perception of the practitioners regarding the potential of BIM-based SCM ................................. 83 4.1.3 Why supply chain actors shall collaboratively embrace BIM? ........................................................ 86

4.2 Which are the common barriers for establishing BIM-based Supply Chain? ............... 89

4.3 How could a Contractor set up a BIM-based Supply Chain? ............................................ 98

4.4 Putting it all together ............................................................................................................... 107

5 Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................................................ 113

5.1 Summing up .............................................................................................................................. 113

5.2 Limitations of the study .......................................................................................................... 119

5.3 Recommendations for future research ................................................................................. 119

6 Bibliography & Sitography ................................................................................................ 121



List of Tables Table 1. Areas for boosting construction productivity .............................................................. 22

Table 2. LOD requirements for certain BIM applications ......................................................... 29

Table 3. Typical configurations of construction supply chain .................................................. 41

Table 4. Addressing Construction Supply Chain issues with BIM .......................................... 53

Table 5. Profile of the interviewees ............................................................................................... 67

Table 6. Potential of BIM by construction supply chain area ................................................... 71

Table 7. Perception regarding opportunities in SCM enabled by BIM ................................... 84

Table 8. Perception regarding supply chain areas of improvement ........................................ 85

Table 9. Solving Construction Supply Chain issues with BIM ................................................. 86

Table 10. Supplier selection criteria .............................................................................................. 90

Table 11. Nature of partnerships in the supply chain ............................................................... 91

Table 12. Barriers for supply chain partnerships ........................................................................ 92

Table 13. Perceived constraints for BIM implementation ......................................................... 93

Table 14. Perceived BIM-based SCM feasibility for the Contractors ....................................... 94

Table 15. Perceived BIM-based SCM feasibility for the Subcontractors/Suppliers .............. 95

Table 16. How to incentivize suppliers for BIM-based SCM .................................................... 95

Table 17. Future development of SCM with BIM ....................................................................... 96

Table 18. Opportunities offered by BIM for supply chain management .............................. 115

List of Figures

Figure 1. Research Methodology adopted ................................................................................... 18

Figure 2. Overall research framework ......................................................................................... 19

Figure 3. Core causes for low productivity in construction sector .......................................... 22

Figure 4. BIM Maturity levels ........................................................................................................ 24

Figure 5. Value of 3D BIM .............................................................................................................. 26

Figure 6. Overview of different LODs ......................................................................................... 27

Figure 7. BIM process flow - Starting from 2D drawings ......................................................... 30

Figure 8. BIM process flow - Collaborative model ..................................................................... 30

Figure 9. BIM process flow - Including fabricators .................................................................... 31

Figure 10. Areas of enterprise BIM-based transformation ........................................................ 34

Figure 11. Overview of the Construction Supply Chain Flows and Actors ........................... 39



Figure 12. The 3 Vs of Construction Project Data ....................................................................... 39

Figure 13. “The five rights” of logistics ........................................................................................ 44

Figure 14. General issues along the Construction Supply Chain ............................................. 47

Figure 15. Traditional (left) and BIM-enabled (right) information exchange ........................ 54

Figure 16. Overview of the BIM-based supply chain model .................................................... 55

Figure 17. Overall research framework ....................................................................................... 61

Figure 18. Research Methodologies adopted .............................................................................. 62

Figure 19. BIM for SCM survey questionnaire structure .......................................................... 65

Figure 20. Role of the companies in the supply chain ............................................................... 66

Figure 21. Annual turnover range ................................................................................................ 66

Figure 22. Types of projects executed .......................................................................................... 66

Figure 23. Number of employees .................................................................................................. 66

Figure 24. BIM-enabled material procurement ........................................................................... 72

Figure 25. Visualizing status of prefabricated components ...................................................... 76

Figure 26. Connecting the supply chain with RFID tags ........................................................... 80

Figure 27. BIM-enabled components status monitoring ........................................................... 81

Figure 28. Overview of barriers perceived for BIM-based SCM .............................................. 97

Figure 29. Guideline for setting up BIM-based SCM ............................................................... 109

Figure 30. Overall research framework ..................................................................................... 113

Figure 31. Overview of barriers perceived for BIM-based SCM ............................................ 116

Figure 32. BIM-based SCM implementation guideline ........................................................... 117

List of Abbreviations

BDOs | BIM Digital Objects

BIM | Building Information Modeling

CDE | Common Data Environment

CSC | Construction Supply Chain

SC | Supply Chain

SCM | Supply Chain Management





1 Introduction

This chapter briefly explains the purpose of the research, methodology used for conducting

the same as well as the overall structure of the thesis work.

1.1 Research Purpose

This research aims at understanding the potential applications of Building Information

Modeling (BIM) for Supply Chain Management (SCM) in Construction industry, their

benefits, barriers and enablers for implementation. Focus has been set on the construction

phase of the project lifecycle, and the perspective taken was that of the general contractor,

as the potential initiator of such practices and integrator of various project supply chain

actors.

The relevance of this exploratory research mainly lies in the lack of BIM utilization for

enhancing construction industry collaboration, especially those related to the complexity of

supply chain management. Namely, construction enterprises mostly seek to implement BIM

in the pre-construction phase, for 3D design visualization and clash detection (Bosch et al.,

2017). However, BIM generated information is not fully exploited within the activities of

construction management, fabrication, and erection (Aram et al., 2013), not to mention for

reaching full collaboration along the supply chain. Therefore, initial part of the research

focuses on understanding the potential applications in which BIM may support execution

of complex and highly intertwined supply chain management activates. That complexity

can be attributed to the high fragmentation present among the construction project

stakeholders, due to the presence of various multi-disciplinary companies with

unintegrated operational processes for collaboration (Nam and Tatum, 1992; Robson et al.,

2014; Dainty et al., 2001). Since the overall performance of the supply chain is dependent on

multiple actors besides the contractor (designers, numerous subcontractors and suppliers

of building materials/components), tools and methodologies for transparent and real-time

communication are needed to improve the overall process of value delivery to the Client.

Moreover, by effectively managing the supply chain, contractors should be able to take

more control of their processes and reduce wastes in terms of quality, costs and time which

are still present. Indeed, taking control is crucial due to the mutual interdependence among

supply chain actors, who shall maintain their relationships until the project targets have

been achieved (Frazier, 1983). One of the methodologies which has a strong potential for



harmonizing project-based supply chains is Building Information Modelling (BIM), as a

technological enabler for up to date information exchange and collaboration between the

actors (Eastman et al., 2008; Bankvall et al., 2010; Bryde et al., 2013).

Moreover, it was also needed to gather the perception regarding the feasibility of achieving

transparent supply chain practices offered by BIM. Therefore, survey questionnaire has

been distributed on a European level (and wider) in order to understand whether the main

barriers perceived by multidisciplinary supply chain members for adopting such

transparent supply chain practices may be country specific and/or related to their openness

for partnering and collaboration. The inspiration for such survey arises after reviewing

significant research efforts within the Dutch construction industry (Papadonikolaki et al.

2015; 2016, 2017), with a focus on inter-organizational level of BIM applications for

harmonizing information flows and relationships across the supply chain. However,

peculiarity of Dutch industry is related to well established SCM practices due to the culture

of long-term partnerships which may already be ready to grasp BIM as a technological

enabler. Thus, Costa et al. (2019) propose a further research addressing countries with more

significant construction activities segmentation, since the barriers and relationships among

actors could be context specific.

Finally, after the perception of the practitioners regarding feasibility of achieving

collaborative SCM practices has been gathered, this research tries to provide a guideline in

the form of three blocks as enablers for reaching the state of BIM-ed supply chain: people,

process and technology, as the connection of these three may enable integration. These

guidelines have been established after investigating practitioners’ opinion on potential

ways in which barriers for collaboration may be overcome.

1.2 Research Methodology

In order to cover the above-mentioned research topic in a comprehensive way, answering

to the three research questions has been set as a main objective of the thesis (represented

below). The first one concerns structuring the applications of BIM for improving different

areas of the project supply chain and benefits which may be achieved, while the second one

deals with understanding the perceived barriers which may arise when trying to achieve

such practices. Thus, the first question aims at answering the WHAT and WHY part of the

topic BIM for Supply Chain Management, to map the potential applications and benefits



which stem from implementation of BIM for information and material management

practices. However, certain resistance for BIM adoption may arise, thus posing the need for

second research question. Finally, the third question seeks to gather insights from the

practice by understanding the processes of collaboration enabled by BIM and core enabling

factors for reaching those. Therefore, the third question answers the HOW part of actually

setting up the BIM-enabled supply chain. The three research questions and structure of the

answers for those are presented below.

� RQ.1 Which are the opportunities and trends of BIM-based Supply Chain?

Following the logic of material and information flows from defining them within the 3D

environment to their installation on site, opportunities have been classified within four “big

blocks” of construction supply chain:

§ Procurement of building material/components;

§ Off-site production of building materials/components;

§ Transportation and Logistics;

§ On-site Assembly/Construction.

However, since the construction supply chain actors and activities are tightly intertwined,

consideration of overall benefits regarding information and material flows will be presented

as well.

� RQ.2 Which are the common barriers for establishing BIM-based Supply Chain?

Innovative technological tools such as BIM impose various barriers for adoption within the

single organization per se. However, in order to reach above-mentioned opportunities along

the whole project supply chain, observation of barriers on inter-organizational level is

needed as well. For the sake of understanding multidimensional factors influencing the

adoption of BIM for supply chain management, the barriers have been clustered into four

main blocks:

§ Economic – Lack of financial resources for investing into BIM solutions;

§ Organizational – Complexity of integrating processes and defining responsibilities;

§ Technological - Appropriate software infrastructure for collaboration;

§ Social – Attitudes towards information transparency and risk allocation.



� RQ. 3 How could a Contractor set up a BIM-based Supply Chain?

The answer to this research question seeks to provide a guideline and the key success factors

for setting up a BIM-enabled project supply chain, mostly concerning people, processes and

technology, from inter-organizational perspective, since supply chain actors are highly

interdependent and final value delivered to the Client is a direct function of

multidisciplinary collaboration.

Throughout the research work, different methods were utilized for gathering specific

insights related to the three above-mentioned research questions. The choice of the

methodology for answering the specific research questions is presented in the Figure 1

below.

Figure 1. Research Methodology adopted

1.3 Structure of the Thesis work

The following chapter (Chapter 2), Literature review, seeks to gather the existing research on

the two distinct topics of BIM and SCM separately, starting from understanding the basic

concepts of Building Information Modeling and its transformative power as a technological

support in the construction industry. Secondly, overview of construction supply chain and

current supply chain management practices have been presented, as a base for

understanding the issues which construction project actors are facing nowadays. Finally,

these two are merged together in a structured form to present potential of BIM for

improving collaborative practices along the supply chain, mostly concerning the downsides



stemming from the ways that current project supply chain operate. Finally, output of this

chapter are the gaps found in the literature, which have been used as a base for setting up

the research questions, as well as hypothesis under which the research has continued.

The third chapter, Research Methodology, presents the goals of the work in the form of

research questions stemming from gaps identified in the literature, methodology used

(literature review, survey and interviews) for reaching those goals and overall planned

structure of the guidelines in which unification of the findings will be presented. Due to the

exploratory nature of the research, a mixed method was used to gather the data from

multiple sources.

Following chapter – Findings presents the insights gathered from practitioners from two

sources: survey and interviews, which are mainly answering to HOW question of

establishing BIM-based supply chain management and barriers which may appear when

doing so. However, in this chapter literature was used as well, as a secondary source to

answer to the question WHAT, by listing proven potential applications of BIM for different

supply chain areas (the four big blocks above-mentioned). Finally, the findings are unified

in form of a structured guideline for establishing BIM-based supply chain solution, which

is the ultimate goal of the research work, presented in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Overall research framework

Finally, the fifth chapter Discussion and Conclusion sums up the overall research work done,

presents the limitations of the study as well as suggestions for future research work.





2 Literature Review

The aim of this chapter is to have a comprehensive overview of the academic research

regarding Building Information Modelling, Construction Supply Chain (CSC) and the

integration of the two, with the focus on the Supply Chain of the Contractors and their

interaction with other Construction Supply Chain actors, mainly throughout the

construction phase. Overview is crucial to provide possible directions for supply chain

management improvement with the support of BIM as a technological enabler for real-time

information sharing and integration among the stakeholders.

Therefore, main outcome of the literature review is a draft of the hypothesis about the

current state of CSC and BIM, as well as identification of research gaps which are crucial for

setting up the research questions and overall objectives of the work.

2.1 Challenge in the Construction Sector

Construction sector has been criticized for many inefficiencies, among which productivity

stagnation and low digitalization index (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017). On the one side,

demand for construction is expected to grow to $17.5 trillion by 2030 (Boston Consulting

Group, 2015), while there is the question whether the supply side (construction enterprises)

is ready to cope with it. This era of digital disruption shall not be considered as a threat for

traditional players due to accelerating number of new entrants with innovative solutions,

but rather as an opportunity to learn, collaborate and increase competitiveness on the

market. The opportunity is certainly there, and contractors shall seize it, while changing

their day-to-day business practices is certainly needed.

As researched by McKinsey Global Institute (2017), the core of the construction industry

stagnation can be attributed to: “Misaligned incentives among owners and contractors and with

market failures such as fragmentation and opacity”.

In order to understand the directions needed for change, it is relevant to identify issues the

industry has been facing according to their source of origin. Namely, Figure 3 below

demonstrates issues at three different levels, such as those related to external forces,

industry dynamics and firm’s operational practices. Within the following chapters, scope of

the research will focus on the latter two.



Figure 3. Core causes for low productivity in construction sector

Source: Adopted from McKinsey Global Institute, 2017

Nevertheless, according to McKinsey Global Institute (2017) there are some macro areas

from which the change of practices could start, with a potential of increasing sector’s

productivity by 50 to 60%. Those relevant to the scope of the research work are presented

in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Areas for boosting construction productivity

Source: Adopted from McKinsey Global Institute, 2017

First potential area of improvement concerns industry practices, where collaboration and

partnerships as seen as good starting point for change. On the other hand, advancement in

supply chain management practices and technology (digitalization) can significantly impact

the productivity of the sector and are related to the capabilities of the firm. Implementation

of technologically advanced solutions can secure the solid competitive positioning of the

companies, while lowering costs and increasing productivity of day-to-day business. As

Area of improvement Possible direction Impact on productivity

Collaboration and contracting

Seek for collaboration practices – Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), long-term partnerships and “single source of truth”

8-9%

Procurement and supply chain management

Digitalize procurement and supply chain flows, improve contractor-supplier transparency and reduce delays, strive for just-in-time principle

7-8%

Technology Make BIM universal, use cloud and IoT for accurate real time data 14-15%

§ Increasing project

complexity;

§ Extensive regulation;

§ Informalities and

potential for

corruption.

§ Lack of transparency

within the sector;

§ High industry

fragmentation;

§ Contractual incentives

are misaligned.

EXTERNAL FORCES INDUSTRY DYNAMICS

§ Underinvestment in

digitalization, innovation

and capital;

§ Poor project management

and execution practices.

FIRM OPERATIONS



reported by Boston Consulting Group (2017), digital solutions can provide annual global

cost savings up to $1.2 trillion in the engineering and construction phase (concerning non-

residential projects only).

Therefore, the following section of the literature review will focus on investigating issues

and opportunities within these areas previously mentioned, where the area of technological

solutions will tackle solely BIM as the technological enabler.

2.2 Building Information Modeling

This sub-section deals with the general definitions and characteristics of Building

Information Modeling (BIM), as well as its transformative power within the construction

enterprises. It covers those BIM-related topics relevant for understanding its application for

supply chain management in the following chapters.

2.2.1 Understanding the “Digital Evolution”

Construction industry has been facing the era of digital disruption. As any other industry,

construction has experienced the gradual process of digital transition by the introduction of

CAD (Computer Aided Design) which had at first allowed practitioners to switch from

hand-made to digital drawings in 2D format. This disruption brings new opportunities and

benefits to the industry actors, but some challenges arise as well within the need for

innovative operations of project delivery. In order to understand properly both the benefits

and the challenges, an overview of the BIM definitions is presented below.

“A BIM is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility. As such it

serves as a shared knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis

for decisions during its lifecycle from inception onward. “

- National BIM Standard

“A digital representation of the building process used to facilitate the exchange and

interoperability of information in digital format.”

- Eastman et al., 2011



“BIM is a verb or an adjective phrase to describe tools, processes and technologies that are

facilitated by digital, machine-readable documentation about a building, its performance, its

planning, its construction and later its operation.”

- Eastman et al., 2011

From the definitions above, three keywords regarding BIM can be extracted:

digital, information and process.

Interestingly, no definition mentions modelling. Even tough 3D modeling of facilities is

enabled with BIM, key letter here is “I” and the information or insight which BIM is able to

provide to project actors, through the usage of digital technologies and establishment of

new ways of working (processes).

There are various maturity levels which can be implemented starting from 0 to 3, where

they have all evolved starting from CAD and 2D drawings. By saying evolved, it is not just

a simple evolution passing from 2D drawing to 3D models and objects, but it is a new data

environment, able to store various information, as well as new way of working. As

Weisheng et al. (2019) note, BIM is “live”, while any of the 2D CAD drawings can be

considered quite static. This can be clearly seen in the Figure 4 by representing the evolution

of BIM maturity models, initially defined by the UK National Standard.

Figure 4. BIM Maturity levels

Source: Re-diagramed by Lin et al. (2015) from initial diagram by Bew and Richards



One of the core differences among above shown BIM maturities is the ability to collaborate

and create smooth and interoperable workflow, depending on the tools used. Firstly, BIM

Level 0 can be considered as a traditional construction practice pre-BIM period, where

specifications, quantities and cost estimates are produced manually, from 2D drawings

rather than derived from a 3D model. Data exchange can occur in the 2D paper/electronic

form. However, main difference between the levels 1, 2 and 3 could be noted as access

granted to the models used and level of integration among parties achieved, where Succar

(2009) has labelled the levels as Object-based modelling, Model-based collaboration and

Network-based integration respectively. The potentials for collaboration within the levels

are following:

§ Level 1 - Object-based modelling introduces the concept of object-based modelling

in single-disciplinary form in order to support 3D visualization, but without

modifiable parametric attributes. Thus, this level is supporting solely the design

project lifecycle stage, with no signs of model interchanges and collaborations.

§ Level 2 - Model-based collaboration enables the creation of BIM federated model,

which allows multidisciplinary project actors to share their parametric-based 3D

models within the common file formats such as Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs)

as well as working within the Common Data Environment (CDE). Furthermore, this

level introduces the other two BIM dimensions, 4D and 5D, by offering

interoperability with scheduling software or cost estimation databases respectively.

However, usage of certain standards related to files exchange and import/export

interoperability is needed to allow the smooth collaboration.

§ Even though majority of the industry actors are currently within Level 1 or 2, the

main goal is reaching Level 3 - Network-based integration and putting the concept

of “Open BIM” and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) into practice. Within Level 3,

complete information transparency and real-time modifications sharing is possible,

since all the parties can work on a collaborative single project cloud-based model.

Example of tools allowing this way of working are Autodesk 360 and Graphisoft

BIMX, where each project actor has access to the field relevant to his role on the

project. Furthermore, thanks to the power of real-time connection via cloud, data

coming from different sensors and devices may be integrated into this environment.

Nevertheless, as a prerequisite for its implementation, redefinition of contractual



relationships and processes, as well as revision of risk-allocation practices is needed

(Succar, 2009).

Another classification of BIM practices can be seen from the “dimensional” perspective.

When speaking about BIM, most would think of parametric-enabled modeling such as

architectural, structural, MEP or other, with the specific geometry data and specifications.

Indeed, these three dimensions allow the project team to spot the design gaps at early stages

of the project lifecycle, by having the possibility of clash detection and evaluation of

different design alternatives.

§ The core value of 3D BIM can be demonstrated with the Figure 5 below (AIA, 2007),

which can be considered as the “mainstream” curve of BIM’s role within AEC

industry, initially developed by Patrick MacLeamy describing the integrated project

delivery. Namely, BIM as a mean for prototyping and visualization allows

anticipation of project risks, mainly concerning ability to influence costs before

design issues in following phases occur. By early visualizing the discipline-specific

models in one BIM model, costs of design changes in early phases are lower than

those which may arise during the following project phases when the team and

machinery are already on the site and consume financial resources.

Figure 5. Value of 3D BIM

Source: American Institute of Architects, 2007



Speaking of 3D models, another question arises and is related to the Level of Definition or

Level of model Detail (LOD) required from each party contributing to the common BIM

environment. LODs required from various disciplines (structural, MEP, architectural) rise

accordingly to the project lifecycle stage in which a certain deliverable is needed. There is

no need for very detailed modelling of each and every part of the future facility, since the

process should be efficient and actually ease the assembly on the site. Furthermore, higher

level of detail may be required for components ordering or production. Overview of the

possible LODs is shown in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6. Overview of different LODs

Source: American Institute of Architects, 2007

Furthermore, by continuing to add dimensions over the 3rd, BIM gives the possibility of

answering to different project needs. Possible dimensions are listed below.

§ 4D – Adding time

By adding time as a dimension, BIM gives an overview of both spatial and temporal aspects

of the project, thus providing all the project actors with the unambiguous logic behind the

activities sequencing. By connecting the project schedule with the 3D model of the structure



and installations, alternatives of activities sequencing and installation plans can be

evaluated beforehand.

Moreover, time and space flows of specialized contractors (e.g. mechanical, electrical,

plumbing) on site can be visualized and managed more efficiently. Not only human

resources can be managed more accurately, but also flows of materials and equipment. This

is possible with the visualization of accesses to the site and throughout the site,

representation of large equipment and scaffolding locations and their alternatives, as well

as material storage areas.

All the above-mentioned functionalities can help optimization of on-site logistics,

concerning people and material flows, which will be tackled more in detail within following

sections.

§ 5D – Adding cost

The 5th dimension allows more accurate and automatized quantity take off and cost

estimation processes. BIM tools are able to compute the number of specific components,

space area and volume, quantities of certain materials, etc. This functionality significantly

reduces the probability of human errors and time waste, which may arise when computing

these quantities manually from 2D drawings. Nevertheless, mistakes related to the input

data can arise when developing the model itself.

Finally, when combining the previous dimensions and LODs, the Table 2 below outlines the

requirements of specific LOD in different project lifecycle phases. Certainly, this table differs

by project, where the specific requirements shall be specified within the BIM Execution Plan

(BEP).



Project Phase LOD 100 LOD 200 LOD 300 LOD 400 LOD

500

Design (3D)

Non-geometric line, area or volume, not

distinguishable by type or material

Three-dimension

generic object, with material but no layout

or location

Specific object with

dimensions, capacities and

space relationships

Shop drawing/fabrication with manufacturing

and installation-related information

As built

Scheduling (4D)

Total project construction

duration

Time-scaled, ordered

appearance of major

activities

Time-scaled, ordered

appearance of detailed

assemblies

Fabrication and assembly details N.A.

Cost Estimation

(5D)

Conceptual cost estimation

Estimated cost based on measurement

of generic element

Estimated cost based on measurement

of specific assembly

Committed purchase price of

specific assembly at buy out

As-built cost

Table 2. LOD requirements for certain BIM applications

Source: Adopted from Bedrick, 2008, Weisheng et al., 2019

One perspective which is missing the responsibility of project parties involved and their

contribution to BIM CDE. Following chapter tackles this from the perspective of possible

BIM information and document flows.

2.2.2 Setting up the BIM process for the Contractor

After having an overview of BIM level boundaries and opportunities they offer to project

actors, this section deals with the BIM process flow, mostly from the perspective of the

construction contractor and concerning the design and pre-construction project lifecycle

phases.

As Sacks et al. (2018) note, the general document and information flows depend on the

owner of the first construction model to enter the BIM flow. Initial example (Figure 7) deals

with the case when the Contractor develops a construction model from 2D drawing, thus

more traditional approach.



Figure 7. BIM process flow - Starting from 2D drawings

Source: Sacks et al., 2018

This traditional approach can cause inefficiencies when changes in the design model have

been made since there is a lack of parametric components and connection between the

construction and design model, thus causing time waste in model updates. This limits the

potential of the BIM solely on 3D (clash detection, constructability review, visualization)

and 4D (visual planning), diminishing the possibility of the 5th dimension. This occurs due

to inability to extract quantities from 3D model in order to support procurement and

production control (Sacks et al., 2018).

Figure 8. BIM process flow - Collaborative model




Another case, more advanced, is the one where the integration of designers’ and contractors’

models into a common collaborative model arises (Figure 8 above). Since the 3D models are

produces separately, risk of modifications update is still present as in previous case, while

the benefits of higher accuracy appear.

Important thing to emphasize in this case is the nature of the shared model itself, which can

be distinguished into 2 cases (Sacks et al., 2018):

1. Single platform model, where multidisciplinary models can be opened and modified in

a single BIM platform, thus allowing real-time updates;

2. Federated model, in which modifications to each single multidisciplinary model are

done in discipline-specific models and must be imported again into a BIM integration

tool (e.g. Autodesk Navisworks Manage, Solibri, VICO Office or other).

The benefits of BIM collaboration can amplify when fabricators are included within a model

(Figure 9), especially in the case of providing their own 3D models (not the 2D shop

drawings which require additional effort in modelling afterwards). By integrating their 3D

models, information such as production details about specific systems and components is

provided. AGC (2010) argue that his integration can be considered as a path towards

Integrated Project Delivery, thus unlocking the collaboration potential of BIM.

Multidisciplinary actors such as architects, designers, contractors, and subcontractors work

together from the early phases of the project, which is enabled by a joint contract.

Figure 9. BIM process flow - Including fabricators




Nevertheless, the usage of specific models and decisions regarding the information and

document flows shall be specified within the BIM Execution Plan. By doing so,

responsibilities regarding specific deliveries are clearly defined, mostly concerning the time

of the delivery, their required LOD as well as software used for model delivery and

communication (Hardin and McCool, 2015).

After having an overview of the possible document flows with BIM, another topic, related

to interoperability of data coming from various sources will be briefly discussed in the

section below.

2.2.3 Interoperability allows collaboration

BIM manager: “All right, so everyone using CAD needs to be saving down DWG s to 2010 for Frank. Make

sure you save those in the CAD folder and not the Native folder. We’re going to be using Tekla BIMsight for

coordination. If you’re using Revit, then you’ll need to export to IFC for BIMsight but export to DWG for

the CAD users. Don’t forget to save down to 2010.”

- Hardin and McCool, 2015

In order to allow BIM to unlock its collaborative potential, interoperability among project

actors’ deliverables must be enabled, as well application of certain BIM related standards

regarding information and document management. Given the complexity of construction

supply chain due to the involvement of many actors which generate data in different

formats and software infrastructures, some standards and procedures seem necessary

indeed. This complexity leads to inefficiencies in terms of work duplication, time waste for

information gathering and poor decision-making based on fragmented or outdated data,

due to the lack of the whole picture of the project (Ernst & Young, 2018). Furthermore, given

the multiple source of data in construction projects, which is being generated every day both

from site-related or office-related activities, real time connection among actors is crucial.

Thus, Sacks et al. (2018) explain the two most common approaches for achieving easily such

interoperability among project actors:

§ Usage of software infrastructure from the same vendor;

§ Usage of software from different vendors which support input/outputs files within

the same industry standard.

The potential of the two solutions differ, where the first one allows solid integration among

the multidisciplinary design models. As Sacks et al. (2018) notes, in a case when there have



been some modifications within the architectural model, mechanical model will experience

the same changes accordingly. In the second case, objects within the models shall be defined

in a proprietary or open-source way (e.g. Industry Foundation Classes) to allow

interoperability among various formats of data. This case could seem more realistic,

especially since inter-organizational data exchanges are needed (e.g. architectural design

has been generated by a consultant external to the Contractor’s enterprise). Given the

emergence of new technologies in construction such as IoT and drones or mobile devices,

interoperability is needed to capture and share this real-time data from site. In general, these

issues can be tackled with APIs (Application Program Interfaces) in the form of plugins as

well, by creating well-functioning digital ecosystems.

Even when trying to achieve the 4th dimension of BIM, intra-organizational capability

among the design and planning team shall be established. For example, if structural design

has been done in Revit and project schedule in MS Project or Primavera P6, Navisworks or

Synchro is needed as an integrative tool to connect this data, while following certain coding

principles.

However, practitioners are still lost in this sense, since there is no unique standard

specifying which software infrastructure and formats shall be used for data sharing, thus

posing additional re-works and costs for the purpose of data visualization, search and

exchange. In order to allow smooth data exchange, a clear definition of software

infrastructures and data formats which will be in use throughout the project development

shall be specified within the BIM Execution Plan.

By tackling the interoperability point, a more comprehensive picture of BIM has been

created, mostly in its transformative power within and among the construction enterprises.

Accordingly, next section deals with one of the prerequisites for establishing BIM processes

– change.

2.2.4 BIM transforms enterprises

“The heart of transformation is the biggest challenge for most people — change.”

- Ernst & Young, 2018

Indeed, BIM can offer various advantages, but the road to those applications can be quite

long. What is important to be stressed is that BIM shall not be seen only as an application of

a specific software (i.e. Revit or Navisworks) inside the company’s premises for obtaining



short term project-based benefits, but more as a methodology and mindset for future

construction supply chain optimization and effective multi actor collaboration within and

outside the enterprise boundaries. As noted by McKinsey (2019), success of BIM

implementation will ultimately depend on enterprise capability to establish smooth new

ways of working. However, in pursuance of this flow, a clear strategy and vision of BIM

shall be defined beforehand, with a clear roadmap explaining how to achieve those.

Even though application of BIM has been mainly conducted by the bigger or innovative

players within the AEC industry, its more intensive diffusion is expected to come. It is worth

mentioning that contractors and reinforcement manufacturers reflect a lower rate of BIM

adoption compared to architects and engineers (Aram et al., 2013). Study conducted by

Bosch et al. (2017) discovers lack of demand, both external (from clients and partners) and

internal (within the enterprise) as a barrier for BIM adoption. Following barriers are

concerning high investments needed for setting up hardware and software infrastructure,

as well as those related to the lack of competences and user-friendliness of the solutions

from the market.

That being said, BIM does really transform enterprises, both on intra- and inter-organizational

level. However, the areas of enterprise transformation stemming from BIM implementation

can be presented as in Figure 10 below:

Figure 10. Areas of enterprise BIM-based transformation

Source: Hardin and McCool, 2015

Hardin and McCool (2015) label these areas of transformation as:

“Three-legged stool as key success factors of BIM.”



Tools / Technology

Probably, when thinking of BIM implementation, companies initially think of which

software infrastructure to adopt. These solutions may be integrated with the existing ones

of company’s practices or may require developing radically innovative ones. When

speaking about inter-organizational relations, the question of interoperability of data

exchange outside company’s borders must be tackled for achieving successful

communication, as mentioned in the previous section.

Process

One of the main challenges could be the re-designing of the processes and interactions among the

stakeholders. Whichever BIM solution the enterprise decides to implement, it would probably

differ from the existing organizational practices and procedures. Therefore, the project

actors shall not expect the new tools to be used in the same way as in the previous processes

but should rather think of how to establish new workflows.

Behavior

When implementing BIM, traditional mindset and practices should be left aside, since new

ways of working are required. This innovative working procedures shall be carefully

introduced to the employees via specifically designed training sessions. However, there

shall be an internal innovation team, responsible for designing and execution of these

trainings, as well as implementation of BIM strategy overall (Aconex Group, 2018).

Nevertheless, the top management shall be on board as well. All this has a certain cost, but

it shall be offset by value added from BIM adoption in the long term. After all, the people

are those who will drive the adoption of BIM, thus employee training costs may exceed

those of setting up hardware and software infrastructure (Sacks et al., 2018).

Finally, as anticipated, establishing a clear BIM strategy and roadmap is needed, in which

the three above-mentioned factors shall be well defined. As a report by Ernst & Young (2018)

notes, a clear digital strategy is an engine for the sound transformation path.



2.3 Construction Supply Chain

“We will need a new supply chain to deliver our new products to our new set of customers. This supply

chain is the bridge between the customer needs of a market segment and the value-added of a product.

If we can’t connect the two, then we have a showstopper.”

- Walker William, 2016

Another relevant part of the research is understanding the construction supply chain itself.

This section will firstly tackle the overview of supply chain actors and flows among them,

as well as supply chain configurations in terms of diverse material flows. These

configurations are strictly related to the quote above. Namely, peculiarity regarding CSC

lies in its uniqueness for each and every construction project, because customer (Owner) is

the one which dictates the project requirements. Secondly “big blocks” of construction

material supply chain will be explained in detail (procurement of building materials /

components, production of building materials / components, transportation and logistics,

on-site assembly), following the logic of material flows towards the construction site.

Finally, core issues and integration trends among supply chain actors will be presented in

the final sections.

2.3.1 Construction Supply Chain | Flows and Stakeholders

In 1992, Christopher has defined supply chain as:

“The set of a downstream flow of material, an upstream flow of transactions and a bidirectional

flow of information.”

From the definition above, we can clearly identify three different flows within this chain:

material, financial and information. Later, a supply chain was considered to actually

constitute a network rather than a chain, as the multiple organizations that form it,

simultaneously generate different and multiple information streams (Christopher, 2005).

Therefore, the research on construction supply chain has been and may be conducted from

various perspectives, either intra-organizational, inter-organizational or cross-

organizational (Vrijhoef and London, 2009). The intra-organizational level concerns

material production chains, such as concrete (Aram et al., 2013) and specialized construction

operations. Despite material, information and financial flows, CSC is more complex, thus

requiring the observation of people, transportation routines and work equipment as well

(Cox and Ireland, 2002). In order to observe the inter-organizational SC level, the lack of



standardization along the supply chain and soft skills, such as trust and leadership and

commitment (Kim et al., 2010) shall also be taken into account.

However, in order to understand the nature of the construction supply chains, the

definitions of construction projects are presented below:

“An endeavour in which human, material and financial resources are organized in a novel way,

to undertake a unique scope of work, of given specification, within constraints of cost and time, so

as to achieve beneficial change defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives.”

- Turner, 1999

“A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result.”

- PMBOK

The abovementioned novelty can be identified within the construction supply chain as well,

due to its unique configuration, unique processes and stakeholders involved, as well as its

temporary nature. This could exactly be the point in which CSC differs from the

manufacturing one, since the construction supply chain is project based.

Construction Supply Chain Actors

What can be noticed from the definitions above is the configuration of the chain itself, with

multiple actors upstream contributing to the final value delivered to the Client downstream.

Those actors form the different tiers of construction supply chain (Lundesjö, 2015):

§ Tier 1 companies | Main Contractors and Designers (structural, MEP, architectural)

They are usually the closest to the Client and have a contractual relationship;

§ Tier 2 companies| Subcontractors (specialist/trade contractors or manufacturers)

They usually have a direct contractual relationship with the main contractor/tier 1;

§ Tier 3 companies | Manufacturers and material distributors

They could form a contractual relationship with tier 2 enterprises (as well as tier 1),

in order to supply materials or building components needed for specialist works.

As Lundesjö (2015) notes, tier 2 and 3 companies are hired to perform a certain work package

for the main contractor. Subcontractors can have a contract for installing

specific/specialized construction works, such as mechanical, electrical, piping, roofing,

façade, masonry/bricks. However, they may offer additional services such as design,

supply, and maintenance of their work package installed.Thus, the final value delivered is



a direct function of the effective multi actor chain management, since around 75% of the

value of the final works stems from works of suppliers and subcontractors (Dubois and

Gadde, 2000).

These last two tiers are exactly the spot where the fragmentation effects in the supply chain

arise, due to a large number of small, labor intensive companies and competition-based

relationships with conflicting inter-organizational culture (Nam & Tatum, 1992; Robson et

al., 2014; Dainty et al., 2001). This puts the general contractor in a position of supply chain

manager or integrator. Since contractor is usually responsible for the quality of the final

product delivered, compliance with certain rules and procedures by subcontractors is

needed. As Lundesjö (2015) claims, compliance may be related to management of

distribution, deliveries and storage of materials. Since subcontractors are responsible for

their own supply chains within this complex network, this poses additional difficulties for

the general contractor in managing the flows and diminishes the visibility and effective

communication along the distant parties in the chain (e.g. between contractor and building

component manufacturer).

Given that the general contractor has a position of a supply chain manager, multiple

responsibilities shall be approached carefully. As Council of Supply Chain Management

Professionals states:

“Supply chain management encompasses the planning and management of all activities involved in

sourcing, procurement, conversion and all logistics management activities. It also includes

coordination and collaboration with channel partners, which can be suppliers,

intermediaries, third party service providers, and customers.”

Therefore, contractor should not think only about managing the information and material

flows through different stages of their evolution throughout the project execution but shall

consider the management of the stakeholders involved as well.

In order to have an idea about the complexity of information and material flows along the

chain and positioning of different supply chain stakeholders, O’Brien et al. (2009) have

presented the configuration of CSC, shown in Figure 11 below.



Figure 11. Overview of the Construction Supply Chain Flows and Actors

Source: O’Brien et al., 2009

Construction Supply Chain Flows

For the sake of simplicity and understanding, information and material flows have been

overviewed separately in the following discussion.

§ Information flows

Demonstration of information flows complexity can be seen in the amount of data generated

within a large infrastructure project, where around 130 million emails, 55 million documents

and 12 million workflows can be exchanged (Aconex Group, 2018). Further complexity

concerns also variety and velocity of this data (Figure 12).

Figure 12. The 3 Vs of Construction Project Data

Source: Ismail et al., 2018



The 3Vs list from figure above give just a glimpse of the data which could be generated in

multiple formats, starting from the 3D design models, through planning and scheduling of

activities, to the data gathered on the site during the execution. Due to construction

companies’ inability to process this data, 95.5% of data gathered remains unused (Hill,

2017). To tackle this opportunity and exploit the “power of data”, construction industry

shall initially employ new ways of working and higher level of collaboration practices, in

order to be able to extract the value of the right data (insight) in a right moment and from

the right party.

Finally, what is important to be noted is the interconnected nature of these data and their

dependence on multiple supply chain actors. Information flows are usually readjusted

multiple times since they have to be revised and approved by various actors in order to

proceed flowing. As explained by O’Brien et al. (2009), the architect sends drawings to the

engineer, who recreates the CAD drawings with engineering information added. After

completion of design, the construction manager recreates the drawings to add construction

ready details and associated information. This type of information management practices is

highly inefficient. Issues stem from the lack of economic incentives for information sharing

and the absence of effective tools and methodologies to do so. The consequences are project

delays and errors, reflecting in the augmentation of the bullwhip effect (Lee and Billington,

1992) along the chain, where the building product manufacturers experience the highest

level of information variability, as the upstream tier suppliers.

§ Material flows

As anticipated by Vrijhoef and Koskela (2000), CSC all the material flows are converging to

the construction site semi-processed or ready to be assembled. Indeed, construction site is

an ad-hoc factory where all the material flows are transformed in their desired final form

(Cox and Townsend, 1998).

However, different material flows belong to different supply chain configurations. Those

chain configurations may depend on the location of material or component production (off

or on site), as well as the degree of engineering design required. Therefore, even the concrete

supply chain can range from prefabricated elements which are delivered and connected on

site (e.g. beams or columns) to delivery of ready-mix concrete which is poured on site. The

possible configurations of material supply chain can be seen in the Table 3 below.



Type of building component Description

Made-to-stock components (MTS) § Mass produced components; § Examples - standard plumbing fixtures,

dry-wall panels, pipe sections.

Made-to-order components (MTO)

§ Predesigned but only fabricated once an order is placed;

§ Examples - prestressed hollow-core planks, windows, and doors selected from catalogs.

Engineered-to-order components (ETO)

§ Engineering design is required before the manufacturing;

§ Examples - Structural steel frames, precast concrete elements, façades, MEP systems or any other component customized to fit a specific location and fulfill certain function.

§ Special case - Modular construction with off-site prefabrication.

Table 3. Typical configurations of construction supply chain


As Sacks et al. (2018) claim, due to the high level of engineering needed for ETO

components, managing this material flow requires tight collaboration among the designers,

components producers and those assembling the components on site. However, present

material management practices demonstrate a lack of clear responsibilities and real-time

communication among the supply chain actors (Perdomo-Rivera, 2004).

2.3.2 “Big blocks” of the Construction Supply Chain

In order to understand the construction supply chain and actors, this chapter will provide

an overview of the main phases or “big blocks” through which the materials and related

information flow, such as: Procurement of building materials/components, Production of

building materials/components, Transportation and Logistics, Construction/On-site

assembly. Description and definition for each block is provided, as well as pitfalls of the

current practices. Overview is needed to later analyze whether and how those can be tackled

by putting BIM into practice.

2.3.2.1 Procurement of building materials / components

Procurement in construction is quite a broad term, while being mainly related to the process

of acquiring goods or services necessary for project execution. Charvat (2000) defines



construction procurement as the process which enables the client to gather the project team

and resources needed to translate project idea into reality. Namely, acquisition of services

is related to the sourcing and contracting with construction subcontractors and material

suppliers, or other parties required to carry out a project. However, scope of the research

concerns acquisition of building materials, as it initiates the material flow towards the site

(the downstream part of the chain) and is highly bound to the activities of the supply chain

management.

Mission of the procurement department can be defined as following:

Acquiring the right products in the right quantity and within the project budget.

Therefore, needs of this department mainly concern a well-developed system for

information gathering required for drafting Bills of Quantities (BoQs) for each building

material/component, as well as their specifications and quality requirements. Indeed, in

this way the department can send the requests for proposals (RFPs) to various components

suppliers and evaluate their offers. After the supplier has been chosen based on the

established criteria, following step is revising the shop drawings delivered by the suppliers

before the production can start.

Procurement of materials is a dynamic process which can last throughout the whole

construction phase, thus shall be synchronized and connected with the needs of material

installation schedule on site. Special attention shall be given to those materials with long

lead times. As Sears et al. (2015) note, purchase orders shall contain the information related

to the time and location of material delivery, as well as specific requirements related to their

receiving, off-loading, inspecting, storage, handling and installation on site.

However, making mistakes in this dynamic nature is not quite desirable, since it has

drawbacks on other parties involved in the project supply chain. As Hadikusumo et al.

(2005) claim, traditional material procurement can be quite time-consuming process of

extracting material quantities and cost estimates, as well as informing the right supply chain

actors when changes in the design occur. If delay or uncertainty is present in these activities,

they will strongly affect the production of materials, their installation schedule on site, as

well as schedule of other construction activities which they are pushing. Therefore, there is

a need of tightly integrating the procurement and on-site logistics functions (Lundesjö, 2015)

in order to prevent these types of drawbacks.



2.3.2.2 Off-site production of building materials / components

Following the logic of material flows, next step in the process is their production (if needed)

after the purchase orders have been placed. Even tough building components

manufacturers belong to the 2nd or 3rd tier of the construction project supply chain, their

management highly affects the construction lead times and main contractors’ supply chain.

As anticipated before, the ultimate value of the project is a function of multiple stakeholders

within the chain, where the majority of the building components require customized

engineering and fabrication, especially those belonging to Engineered-to-Order supply

chain configurations. As Sacks et al. (2018) claim, when these processes are led by 2D

drawings, they require a lot of labor-intensive work, which may be prone to human errors.

Another consequence of traditional practices are the long production lead times due to the

poor connection between the design and production supply chain actors. By failing to

establish this connection, additional downsides emerge, such as project delays and re-works

on site, especially when design changes occur during the construction phase (Eastman et

al., 2011). Therefore, there is a need for real-time information exchange regarding fabrication

scheduling and material delivery to the construction site (Sears et al., 2015).

2.3.2.3 Transportation & Logistics

Logistics deserve a lot of attention when speaking about supply chain management. Quite

comprehensive and widely adopted definition of logistics management is provided below

by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP, 2013).

“Logistics management is that part of supply chain management that plans, implements, and controls the

efficient, effective forward and reverse flow and storage of goods, services, and related information between

the point of origin and the point of consumption in order to meet customers’ requirements.”

Another definition, taken from The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, labels

logistics as “the time-related positioning of resource”. Both of the definitions imply the dynamic

position of resources, while the initial one tackles the relevance of resource storage as well.

However, construction logistics quite differs from the manufacturing one, due to an

additional complexity related to its dynamic nature. Peculiarity is related to the management

of the multiple material deliveries on site, which should follow Just in Time (JIT) principle,

where the delivery is planned in the exact time period when the site is ready to install the

materials. Lundesjö (2015) describes logistics as a process of five rights (Figure 13), ensuring

that a certain product or service is in the right:



PLACE TIME QUANTITY QUALITY PRICE

Figure 13. “The five rights” of logistics

Source: Lundesjö (2015), own illustration

Nevertheless, construction logistics may be distinguished as following: off site (related to

material transportation and delivery planning) as well as on-site, where management of

different material storage and equipment location is needed (e.g. cranes or scaffolding).

Since integrated coordination of people, materials and equipment is needed, these two are

quite intertwined as well.

Speaking of off-site logistics, additional complexities for logistics planning and

management in construction industry are related to the nature of the construction site and

its location. Namely, construction site may be located in dense urban areas where traffic

congestions and lack of access to site can impose challenges. Another case is that when the

site is located far away from urban zones, where construction of material factories close to

the site may be required (Lundesjö, 2015).

However, on-site logistics requires quite a comprehensive scope of works as well, including

planning the site layout and access points before entering the construction phase, as well as

gathering the real-time input from the multiple supply chain actors throughout the

construction phase. It may concern the material inventory management and planning of

deliveries together with the procurement and production department, thus it may be

concerned as a key connection point between on and off-site teams. When mistakes are

made off site, they can be directly felt on the site, due to the lack of storage space for the

materials which were ordered in larger quantities, “just in case”, before the moment when

they are actually necessary according to their installation schedule (Mossman, 2008).

Furthermore, Strategic Forum for Construction Logistics (2005) stresses the fact that

delivering the materials on site before they are actually required imposes time waste in

moving these materials to locations where they do not present a location-based barrier for

executing the works on site. However, by doing so and keeping stocks for a long period of



time, an additional risk of goods damage or theft may emerge. Another important aspect of

early material delivery is its effect on cash flows, depending on the terms in contract

specified with the Client. If the contractor is paid only after the materials have been installed

(not delivered), this may significantly delay the cash inflows compared to cash outflows

(Sears et al., 2015). On the other hand, by failing to synchronize material deliveries with the

schedule, significant project delays may appear as a consequence, since the materials are

not available on site when their installation is planned.

The report “Accelerating Change”, issued by the Strategic Forum for Construction (2002),

calls for action within the current construction logistics management practices by

highlighting:

“A considerable amount of waste is incurred in the industry as a result of poor logistics”.

Nowadays the construction logistics has a secondary role, while it should be considered as

an important link between multiple supply chain actors, mostly concerning the connection

of teams off and on site, which is currently highly disjointed and not taken into

consideration even when executing very complex projects (Lundesjö, 2015).

2.3.2.4 On-site Assembly/Construction

Finally, after the materials and components has been designed, procured, produced and

delivered, they shall be installed on-site on the right position, quality and time planned.

Sears et al. (2015) define the construction as:

“The process of physically erecting the project and putting the materials and equipment into place, and this

involves providing the manpower, construction equipment, materials, supplies, supervision, and

management necessary to accomplish the work.”

Therefore, throughout the construction phase, all the previous planning efforts are put into

practice and tested. As anticipated before, general contractor is the supply chain manager

at risk (O’Brien et al., 2009), thus being responsible for the coordination of the works of

subcontractors and their work packages. Since the assembly of all the materials delivered

for the building is done on site, the contractors also have the responsibility of planning and

organizing people, materials and equipment in situ, while facing the uncertainty of the site

environment (Lundesjö, 2015).

In order to do so and guarantee the installation of components as planned, team on site

needs real-time information from multiple supply chain actors. However, it is relevant to



note that majority of the practitioners on the filed still trace the installation status of

components based on paper documentation, by utilizing the drawings, specifications,

checklists and reports (Wang et al., 2007). Problem with these manually performed practices

is their inability to provide timely information exchange among the supply chain actors.

Consequently, delays of components deliveries and their incorrect installation may arise on

site (O’Brien et al., 2009). Typical example provided by Sears et al. (2015) concerns late

material delivery, when the material is not placed in its installation point when planned.

This stops the works, causing time and cost waste due to the idle labor and machinery on

site. Thus, poor management of information across various supply chain actors bring and

multiple all the issues on site, thus requiring additional effort from the site time for

coordination and problem-solving, while this time may be invested in value-added

activities. This shall be considered as a significant waste. As argued by Eastman (2008) only

10% of the time on site is invested in value added activities, while in the manufacturing

sector this number may reach 62%.

While this section has outlined the general definitions and issues within the separate parts

of the supply chain in order to present current practices of supply chain actors in a

structured form, the following section provides more integrative perspective of the supply

chain practices, since the actors and their activities are tightly interdependent.

2.3.3 Common issues of Construction Supply Chain Management

Looking at the performances of the construction sector overall, Shehu et al. (2014) claims

that efficiency and performance is on a significantly lower level than other industries.

Furthermore, as Koskela in 1992 claimed, this uniqueness in time and configuration may be

the cause for productivity stagnation of the CSC compared to the practices in manufacturing

industry. In order to have a comprehensive overview of sector’s (under) performance, the

identification of complexities and peculiarities of the construction supply chains are the

starting point, as presented in previous section but separately. However, understanding

these complexities is relevant for diminishing the barriers that prevent performance

improvement within the construction sector (Costa et al., 2019).

Therefore, some of the aforementioned CSC problems can be seen in the Figure 14 below

(O’Brien et al., 2009), represented in the form of project phases and actors involved within

those.



Figure 14. General issues along the Construction Supply Chain

Source: O’Brien et al., 2009

The Figure 14 clearly aligns with the common opinion among the researchers, which is the

labelling of information flows as imprecise and non-transparent among the supply chain

actors, and certainly not timely. The major part of these wastes and issues stem from the

traditional management practices (Vrijhoef and Koskela, 2000). As a response to this loosely

coupled CSC, there has been an increased interest in the supply chain management theories

to design solutions for coordination improvement of subcontractor and supplier networks.

Therefore, SCM and related concepts (e.g. partnering among SC actors) have been proposed

as a mitigation strategy (Ying et al., 2015).

In general, SCM was labelled as a comprehensive management approach to increase

customer satisfaction, value, profitability and competitive advantage (Mentzer et al., 2001).

A more comprehensive view defines the role of SCM as achieving trusting and transparent

collaborations among the different SC members, returning mutual profits and

counterbalancing the project uncertainties (London, 2009; Vrijhoef and Koskela, 2000;

Vrijhoef, 2011).

This management of the CSC itself has been facing barriers of different kind for successful

implementation in the construction industry. As stressed by Costa et al. (2019), barriers are

those of industry specific, organizational (poorly defined roles & responsibilities) and

cultural (lack of trust, change inertia and short-term project orientation) kind, thus giving

many directions for the improvement, but requiring quite comprehensive solutions as well.

The construction industry “curse” of a single project focus and frequent presence of



competitive tender offerings also present a barrier for supply chain integration (Dubois and

Gadde, 2000). Interesting fact is that various contractors and building material and services

suppliers, are willing to challenge this scenario by entering in more collaborative

relationships as a way of increasing their competitiveness (Costa et al., 2019).

Thus, the overall complexity and bottle necks of the CSC call for studying how different

SCM agreements could emerge and which consequences they could produce on the

industry’s efficiency and competitiveness.

2.3.4 Philosophy of the Supply Chain Integration

“In no other important industry in the world is the responsibility for design

so far removed from the responsibility for production.”

- Sir Harold Emmerson (1962)

As a response to fragmentation and downsides it imposes for construction supply chain

actors, several CSC integration guidelines have been proposed. For instance, Fabbe-Costes

and Jahre (2007) have classified the supply chain integration as the integration of flows

(physical, information, financial); processes and activities; technologies and systems and finally,

people (structures and organizations). Thus, in order to achieve this philosophy, the efforts

have to be put towards multiple directions, as a result of SC configuration complexity.

Furthermore, Mentzer (2001) suggests the following activities to implementation of an

effective SCM philosophy:

§ Mutually sharing information and knowledge;

§ Mutually sharing channel risks and rewards;

§ Cooperation and coordination;

§ The same goal and the same focus of serving customers;

§ Integration of processes and

§ Partners to build and maintain long-term relationships.

Timely information exchange and communication throughout the supply chain is perceived

as essential, specifically through early involvement of the actors, for example contractors,

subcontractors and engineers (Love et al., 2004). If actors continue pursuing linear and

sequential communication practices, early stages of the project will continue to suffer from

lack of value added. According to Akintoye et al. (2000), early engagement of contractors

and suppliers in the project design phase decreases the risks of buildability issues and



increases the work integration and knowledge exchange. Furthermore, Bankvall et al. (2010)

propose a development of effective Information and Communications Technology (ICT)

systems for information dissemination, coupled with the use of standards for mutual

alignment of those, with the final aim of coordinated working and development of future

close relationships built on trust and understanding.

Therefore, the potential solution for the integration of CSC shall be technology-based in

order to enable timely information sharing among actors, but somewhat standardized, thus

allowing interoperability of the data exchanged. Furthermore, there shall be specific

organizational structure within the collaborators so to guarantee more efficient information

distribution. Finally, crucial aspect for integrating CSC is the trust among the contractors,

suppliers and subcontractors which is currently constraining transparent communication.

This barrier could hardly be defeated with a technological solution per se, thus some

regulatory initiatives or long-term partnerships for benefits sharing could be drivers for

incentivizing the SC actors to seize this opportunity. SC partnerships, which consist of

multiple sets of relations from the contractor, use SCM philosophy to regulate the material

and information flows, by encouraging close project-based collaboration and engagement

in future projects (Papadonikolaki et al., 2016). As argued by Kundu and Portioli Staudacher

(2015), these partnerships can be established on a project (short-term) or a strategic (long-

term) level. Short term relationships can allow reaching higher quality (Karim et al., 2006)

or cost efficiency (Harland et al., 1999) for a certain project execution by integrating

operational processes, while the long-term ones require years of collaboration and

commitment to share the culture and proven practices with partners.

The issue that arises is that the changes at a cultural level (i.e. lack of trust) are hard to be

implemented quickly since they depend on companies’ leadership directions and behavior

changes and are highly affected by industry-related and organizational barriers (Costa et

al., 2019). Since organizational barriers are those that are totally under the control of the

company, they could present a starting point for inter organizational SC reconfiguration,

further spreading it to other actors by clearly demonstrating the need and benefits of more

coupled supply chains. This initiative shall be most probably taken by contractors, with a

high bargaining power towards their suppliers and subcontractors, in order to allow

quicker diffusion of collaboration along the CSC.



Some relevant examples can be taken from practice, such as Mace Business School, formed in

2006, with the aim of training the supplier companies, since Mace’s strategy favors long-

term partnerships with suppliers. Namely, the company has selected 20 suppliers from their

supply chain which were provided with top management training to improve supply chain

practices. Aim was to prepare the trusted suppliers to face the challenges of complex

construction projects.

In that sense, the following section aims at discovering the potential of BIM for achieving

collaborative supply chain management practices, as the technological enabler for real-time

information exchange among actors, by taking inter-organizational perspective.



2.4 BIM for Supply Chain Management in Construction

“We are not going to ask you to produce anything more than you did in the past, just that it will be in a

different format. You probably already have what we need.”

- Skanska

As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, digital technologies could appear as a solution

for construction supply chain fragmentation and performance stagnation. Therefore, the

following sections will present an overview of the literature regarding interdependence of

BIM and construction supply chains from inter-organizational perspective. After having an

overview regarding overall potential of BIM for SCM, some proposed requirements for

establishing such practices will be presented.

2.4.1 Interdependence between BIM and Supply Chain Management

When looking at the role of BIM in the CSC, it could be defined as collaborative

methodology that ensures the correct parties get the correct information at the correct time

and get it right in the first time (BCIS of RICS, 2011). BIM enables information creation,

integration and preservation throughout the project life cycle (Barak et al.,2009), by allowing

database generation for future effective decision-making. Papadonikolaki and Wamelink

(2017) further define BIM as following:

“A domain of loosely coupled information technology (IT) systems for generating (authoring tools),

controlling (model checking tools), and managing (planning tools) building information flows

intra- and inter-organizationally, based on principles of information systems’ interoperability”.

Therefore, we could label BIM as a “single truth” of the project incorporated into the

Common Data Environment (CDE), where all the information is consistent, classified and

coherent (Eynon, 2016). Furthermore, this information shared shall be transparent and of a

certain quality (Kundu and Portioli Staudacher, 2015). By doing so, it is possible to eliminate

limited visibility among the distant supply chain actors and lead towards their closer

integration (Dubois and Gadde, 2000). The benefits of effective communication could be felt

not only within on-site activities, but also at a corporate and strategic level.

The concepts of SCM and BIM have only recently gained such a momentum within the AEC

industry, where BIM has been identified as a potential methodology for enhancing the CSC

performance by effectively integrating project stakeholders and managing the flows among

them. Nevertheless, BIM-enabled SCM practices are still far from commonly spread across



the industry. Papadonikolaki et al. (2015) report the increasing interest of construction

actors in the application of the two, where the academic research has a role to outline the

benefits of doing so, by mapping and analyzing proven practices within the AEC industry,

in order to trigger future actions.

Papadonikolaki et al. (2015) claim that the four areas of BIM application, such as design,

information, construction and performance management, could be determinants of successful

BIM-enabled SCM, especially highlighting the importance of information and performance

management as a core of CSC. Thus, BIM could sufficiently regulate building information

flows, because it is a structured data model of building information per se (Eastman et al.,

2008) and could offer more consistent flows through open standards, such as Industry

Foundation Classes. By enabling open standards and interoperability of the information

exchanged among the actors, BIM does seem as an opportunity to be seized. But how much

are contractors and other actors using it?

Well, adoption has still not diffused on a large scale, but we could say that is steadily

increasing (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012).As anticipated in one of the previous sections, one

of the barriers to implementation is that of the need fordeveloping new processes, intra-

and inter-organizationally, since collaboration within BIM is not a built-in feature

(Cerovsek, 2011; Eastman et al., 2008). Cidik et al. (2014) highlights that the SC actors have

to pragmatically tailor their “design workflow” with the BIM models to their particular

discipline-related needs. Furthermore, sophisticated technological solutions for integrating

BIM with the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system would be needed to guarantee

effective processes achieved on a project portfolio level.

However, one of the commonalities of both Supply Chain Management and BIM is their

potential to integrate multi-disciplinary actors for more effective collaboration. As proposed

by Bankvall et al. (2010), application of information technologies have the potential to

integrate information flows among multi-disciplinary teams by improving their

collaboration (Eastman et al., 2011) and enhancing project control (Bryde et al., 2013). Thus,

some of the CSC issues which can be solved by BIM are summarized in the Table 4 below,

by clustering them in intra and inter organizational level.



Table 4. Addressing Construction Supply Chain issues with BIM

Source: Adopted from Vrijhoef and Koskela, 2000; Madanayake (Undated); Lee and Billington,1992; Kolaric and Vukomanovic, 2018

One of the most relevant areas for improvement enabled by BIM is the information

exchange, as a driving engine of the project supply chain, but improving communication

practices can trigger the improvement of material flows. By having up to date information,

building materials / components production planning can be harmonized, similarly to the

concept of Lean philosophy, where the materials are pulled to the site exactly when they are

needed according to their installation schedule. By doing so, wastes are eliminated in terms

of waiting for the right information, but also in terms of inventory reduction on site. These

practices may be achieved through BIM-enabled centralized information storage and access

for all the supply chain actors (Figure 15).

Level of observation

Issues in Supply Chain Management Practices Application in practice Potential of BIM

INTR

A-

OR

GA

NIZ

ATI

ON

AL

LEV

EL No supply chain metrics Not measured too often

By centrally gathering all the data, BIM can support

performance evaluation process with previously

defined KPIs

Missing link between enterprise and project

resource planning

ERP quantities (purchased) and real

executed project quantities do not match

ERP shall be integrated with BIM in order to allow real

time information update on a project portfolio level

INTE

R- O

RG

AN

IZA

TIO

NA

L LE

VEL

Poor communication among supply chain

actors

Supply chain fragmentation causes low

interconnection among actors

Information with parametric properties ensures up to date

changes of documents in a CDE, where accessibility of

the specific supply chain actor depends on his role and

responsibilities

Lack of material delivery transparency

Suppliers downstream face delays in material orders due to “foggy”

data

Supply Chain actors can access to updated delivery

times, since they can be tracked (e.g. Barcodes), stored

and shared in the CDE

Variability of data along the supply chain

Presence of bullwhip effect (especially for last tier suppliers) causing

difficulties for suppliers’ production planning and over/under inventory on

site

Real time visualization and classification of inventory on site with BIM can smooth the

material flow and reduce waste

Incomplete shipment analysis

Difficulty in distributing real time information to all supply chain actors

Cloud solutions can connect suppliers, contractors and logistics providers (if any)



Figure 15. Traditional (left) and BIM-enabled (right) information exchange

Source: Lundesjö, 2015

Thus, BIM can produce positive effects on the information flows and configuration of CSC,

where for the guarantee of the successful implementation, a central responsibility is needed.

For instance, a BIM Manager would be responsible for the creation of a project database to

be used throughout the project lifecycle (Khalfan et al., 2015), in order to provide up to date

transparent information for separate SC actors, as well as to use it for future projects and

relationships.

After reviewing the potential of BIM for harmonizing SCM, following section deals with

prerequisites identified by researchers for establishing such practices.

2.4.2 Requirements for BIM-enabled Supply Chain Management

As a response to the opportunity of CSCM with BIM, Papadonikolaki et al. (2015) have

presented a BIM-based SCM model with a unique combination of a product and a process

model (i.e. BIM) with an organizational one by the means of Modelling and simulation.

Process modelling was used for SC activities mapping, product for IFC files representation

and organization for roles specification (Figure 16). Therefore, when considering BIM-based

supply chain management practices, all the three perspectives must be taken into account.



Figure 16. Overview of the BIM-based supply chain model

Source: Papadonikolaki et al. (2015)

Modelling and simulation approach have outlined the stakeholder complexity along the

chain and the incompleteness of BIM to analyze the interactions among them, but only to

provide access to common information. Overall, one of the main takeovers from

Papadonikolaki et al. (2015) is the importance of BIM not only for the material and

information flows, but also for managing the stakeholder network within the supply chain, due

to the absence of a suitable organization structure. Thus, the following guidelines proposed

by Robinson (2006) have been used when designing the BIM-based SCM model:

§ The model should contain the information flows from BIM applications;

§ The model should be applicable and extendable to different SC projects;

§ The model when applied to a case should analyze the project phases;

§ The model should produce quantitative results for further analysis;

§ The model and its output should be acceptable by the SC actors.

Moving to the long-term perspective of integrated SCM with BIM, a multiple project case

study within Dutch AEC (Papadonikolaki et al., 2016) has analyzed SCM activities that

contribute to SC integration with BIM (adopted Vrijhoef, 2011) as well as BIM application

areas per SCM project (adopted from Cao et al., 2014). The SC actors analyzed have used

BIM protocols to define their BIM process aside from the existing SC contracts, which

defined their financial obligations and rewards.



The research has resulted in categorizing SC collaborations with BIM as:

ad-hoc, linear and distributed.

Within the ad-hoc configuration (1/5 cases), contractor has been the coordinator of BIM, but

BIM application was not required by the contract among actors. Higher level of BIM

adoption was identified in linear configuration (except certain suppliers), where in 2/5 cases

the contractor kept the role of BIM coordinator, but had separate BIM meetings with the SC

actors, causing duplication efforts in information exchange. Finally, distributed

configuration (2/5 cases) has proven to be more efficient than the linear one, due to the

uniform information sharing among the actors. Results of the research have marked the new

emerging roles of the CSC actors within BIM-enabled SC partnering, such as:

§ The contractor was usually the BIM-coordinator and often offered the infrastructure

(physical and digital) for BIM sessions (4/5 cases), where also the architect was

responsible for this function (1/5 cases);

§ The architects and structural engineers were BIM-proficient in all cases. The architects

usually had the additional task to integrate building information from suppliers that

were not using BIM (3/5 cases).

§ Some suppliers and subcontractors also used BIM because of either internal or external

demand (4/5 cases).

Overall, BIM does show the potential for the integrated approach to CSCM, where the

contractor would have a role of a BIM-based SCM initiator and coordinator, but further

information standardization is needed for the specific needs along the organizational

structure. Concerning suppliers and subcontractors, it is interesting to note that almost all

of them included in the research have used BIM. This could be a peculiarity of the Dutch

construction industry, as well as their willingness for information transparency, but it shall

be considered as an important pre-requisite for effective functioning of BIM-based SCM.



2.5 Gaps found in the literature

There is still room for exploring inter-organizational working with BIM, and particularly

from a SCM perspective (Papadonikolaki et al., 2017). One of the researches proposes in

depth exploration of the interdependences among actors, processes and the sharing of

building product models (Papadonikolaki et al., 2016).However, seems that within the BIM-

based SCM research presented the gap concerning the collaborative management of the

material flows, which could be the direct consequence of timely information exchange.

Therefore, future research should try to include the BIM-enabled material management in

the model, and as proposed by Robinson (2006), by considering the different phases of the

project lifecycle. Therefore, the first research question emerges:

� Which are the opportunities and trends of BIM-based Supply Chain?

Moreover, the main part of the research regarding implementation of BIM along the supply

chain has been mainly conducted within the boundaries of the Dutch and UK construction

industries, while the authors are highly encouraging the validation of the hypothesis and

models developed for other countries. The peculiarity of the Dutch industry is a quite low

presence of cultural barriers, thus Costa et al. (2019) propose a further research addressing

countries with construction activities segmentation, since the barriers and relationships

among actors could be context specific.

Therefore, it would be of an interest to conduct an exploration on a European level (and

wider) in order to understand the main barriers perceived by various supply chain actors for

adopting such transparent supply chain practices which may be enabled by BIM. However,

a research shall be also able to detect the enablers for overcoming those barriers perceived

by the actors.

Therefore, in order to explore the two above-mentioned topics, other two research questions

have emerged:

� Which are the common barriers for establishing BIM-based Supply Chain?

� How could a Contractor set up a BIM-based Supply Chain?

However, final aim of the research should be to propose a comprehensive guideline for the

BIM-enabled collaborative practices along the construction project supply chain, by starting

with Main Contractors as initial supply chain integrators.



Finally, it is relevant to note some of the hypothesis drafted after the initial literature review

regarding BIM and SCM, under which the research will continue:

§ Hypothesis 1: Construction Supply chain is very fragmented, due to its temporary

project-based nature.

§ Hypothesis 2: This fragmentation is coupled with inefficient information

management and high variability of data along the supply chain actors.

§ Hypothesis 3: Information Technologies (IT) such as Building Information Modeling

(BIM) have the potential to improve the information exchange.

§ Hypothesis 4: Application of BIM to the Supply Chain Management of Contractor

can increase the overall performance of the construction supply chain and

competitive positioning of the companies.



3 Research Methodology

This section explains the purpose of the work, research questions used as a guideline for

covering the topic in a comprehensive way, as well as multiple methodologies applied for

answering to those questions.

3.1 Purpose of the work

Aim of this research is to understand the trends regarding various BIM-enabled applications

for supply chain management in construction industry, and consequently, collaborative

potential of BIM for integrating the currently highly fragmented construction project supply

chains for improving information and material flows. Under the hypothesis that BIM is able

to improve these currently wasteful practices, it was of interest to systematically list

potential of BIM for different supply chain areas, as well as explore among the practitioners

the awareness of such applications, perception regarding barriers for achieving those and

key enablers necessary for successful implementation.

3.2 Research Questions

In order to cover the above-mentioned research topic in a comprehensive way, answering

to the three research questions has been set as a main objective of the thesis. In the following

discussion, these questions are explained briefly, as well as proposed structure for

systematically answering to those in the form of “blocks” of focus, with the aim of

simplifying the wide scope of the research, which includes multiple stakeholders and areas

of the construction supply chain. The three research questions are listed below, while

structure of the answers for those are presented in the following section.

� RQ.1 Which are the opportunities and trends of BIM-based Supply Chain?

� RQ.2 Which are the common barriers for establishing BIM-based Supply Chain?

� RQ. 3 How could a Contractor set up a BIM-based Supply Chain?

The first one concerns structuring the applications of BIM for improving different areas of

the project supply chain as well as the overall supply chain performance, while the second

one deals with understanding the perceived barriers by practitioners for achieving such

practices. These two questions aim at answering the WHAT and WHY part of the topic BIM

for Supply Chain Management, to map the potential applications and benefits which stem

from implementing those for getting the control of information and material flows in supply



chains. Finally, the third one seeks to gather insights from the practice by understanding the

processes of collaboration and core enabling factors necessary for reaching the vision of

BIM-based SCM. Therefore, the third question answers the HOW part of actually setting up

the BIM-based supply chain solution.

3.2.1 Which are the opportunities and trends of BIM-based Supply Chain?

Following the logic of material and information flows from 3D environment to their

installation on site, opportunities have been classified within four “big blocks” of

construction supply chain:

§ Procurement of building material/components;

§ Off-site production of building materials/components;

§ Transportation and Logistics;

§ On-site Assembly/Construction.

As anticipated, material flows are triggered from the upstream part of the chain with the

process of material procurement and purchase orders, towards the downstream part (their

assembly on site) and value delivery for the Client. However, since the construction supply

chain actors and activities are tightly intertwined, consideration of overall benefits

regarding information and material flows will be presented as well, underlying the

importance of integrating these blocks and connecting them in real-time as a prerequisite

for effective management and control of the supply chain which BIM can offer.

3.2.2 Which are the common barriers for establishing BIM-based Supply Chain?

Innovative technological tools such a s BIM impose various barriers for adoption within the

single organization per se. However, in order to reach above-mentioned opportunities along

the whole project supply chain, observation of barriers on inter-organizational level is

needed as well. For example, social factor may be very relevant, since sharing of data and

knowledge facilitated by BIM shall go beyond the boundaries of one organization and

require tighter collaboration among the members of supply chain (designers, contractors,

suppliers/subcontractors). For the sake of understanding multidimensional factors

influencing the adoption of BIM for supply chain management, the barriers have been

clustered into four main blocks:







Inspiration for such division has come after reviewing previous researches, where the

authors encourage examination of barriers and exploration whether they could be context

specific, mostly concerning the social component which could be tightly dependent on the

country of operations (Costa et al., 2019).

3.2.3 How could a Contractor set up a BIM-based Supply Chain?

The answer to this research question seeks to provide a guideline in the form of key success

factors needed for setting up a BIM-enabled project supply chain, mostly concerning people,

processes and technology. Perspective taken was that of the main contractors, as potential

initiators of such practices, but considering the enablers for BIM-based collaboration among

tightly interdependent supply chain actors as well. As argued by Fabbe-Costes and Jahre

(2007), in order to achieve successful integration of actors along the supply chain,

multidimensional perspective must be taken into account, while considering the integration

of people (organizations and their relationships), processes, technology and consequently

information and material flows.

Figure 17 below presents the three research questions and structure of their answers.




3.3 Research Methodology

Throughout the research work, different methods were utilized for gathering specific

insights related to the three previously mentioned research questions. Since the nature of

the research is explorative, mixed method has been chosen for data gathering and critical

analysis. Indeed, certain overlaps among chosen methodologies occurred when answering

to the research questions. For example, in order to answer to the first research question, both

findings from literature and survey in the form of questionnaire were used to compare the

opportunities listed in literature and those perceived by the construction practitioners.

However, literature review has been used throughout the whole research, both for

understanding the topics and getting the author confident with the concepts of BIM and

supply chain management in construction, as well as for structuring the potential of BIM

for SCM applications in the later stage of the research. The choice of the methodology for

answering the specific research questions is presented in the Figure 18 below, while the

process followed is explained in following sub-sections.

Figure 18. Research Methodologies adopted



3.3.1 Literature Review

Literature was constantly supporting the research. Firstly, literature review was used as a

base for setting the knowledge and confidence in the topic of the author, mostly concerning

BIM per se and the meaning of the concept, overview of the supply chain management

practices in construction industry and potential areas of improvement, as well as for

identifying the research gap in current findings related to BIM-based supply chains.

Furthermore, literature review was conducted in the later stage of the research, for

answering the first research question by clustering the identified opportunities of BIM

applications for supply chain management by the area of their occurrence along the chain.

Academic literature was mostly collected via search engines such as Scopus and Google

Scholar, by using the key words relevant for the topic. Besides the academic papers found

on those platforms, many books related to Building Information Modeling or Supply Chain

Management in Construction were constantly supporting the research. Furthermore, due to

the quite novelty of the topic and its relation to digital transformation of the construction

industry practices, consultancy house papers were used as well (e.g. McKinsey and Boston

Consulting Group) in order to complement to the knowledge of existing academic research

with real case studies. Primary language of the search was English.

3.3.2 Survey

The choice of using survey as a methodology in this research arises from the need to gather

insights from multiple supply chain actors about their current supply chain relationships,

their awareness about the potential of BIM for improving those, as well as barriers perceived

which may arise when deciding to collaboratively use BIM in multiple areas of the project

supply chain. Therefore, quantity in terms of data gathered was needed to assess the current

industry awareness regarding the possibilities which BIM could offer for SCM.

Furthermore, both quantity and diversity were needed to gain insight whether the barriers

for transparent collaboration could differ according to certain actor and/or country of

operations. Since the survey was used in a standardized form, it can be considered as a

measurement tool for gathering the “snapshot of how things are” at a certain moment, from

a target sample of respondents (Denscombe, 2010). However, one of the risks when

performing research with the support of survey lies in the quality of data gathered (which

may in certain way bias the interpretation of the results obtained) and inability to tackle the

topics in depth (Kelley et al., 2003). Thus, in order to tackle this trade-off between quality



and quantity, interviews with BIM-related industry experts have been performed in a later

stage of the research, which will be mentioned in following sections.

Sample & distribution

Survey has been conducted on the European level and wider, where the target respondents

were multiple actors along the construction supply chain: Owners/Clients, Designers,

Consultants, Contractors, Suppliers/Subcontractors. These multi-disciplinary respondents

have been chosen due to the nature of explorative study and the need for including diverse

perspectives when tackling topics related to the inter-organizational practices.

Survey has been communicated in a form of close-ended questionnaire to the companies via

e-mail directly, via national construction organizations (e.g. ANCE in Italy) and finally via

BIM-focused LinkedIn groups to widen the sample and include respondents outside

Europe.

Survey structure

Questions for the respondents has been divided into 4 blocks (Figure 19):

Block 1: Profiling the respondent companies

Questions from block 1 were relevant for understanding the sample of the respondents

regarding their role in the supply chain, size (in terms of annual turnover and number of

employees), country of operations and types of projects they execute (public or private).

Block 2: Supply chain relationships

Main aim of the questions from this block was to understand the nature of the relationships

within the supply chain, related to supplier selection criteria, existence and nature of the

partnerships, as well as barriers for pursuing partnering practices.

Block 3: Perception about BIM for supply chain management

3.1 Mapping the perceived potential of BIM for SCM

These questions were mostly aimed at mapping the current perception of industry players

regarding BIM potential in different areas of the supply chain and overall in terms of

improvement which these practices could bring.

3.2 Mapping the perceived barriers of BIM for SCM

Barriers were observed at two different levels: intra-organizational (regarding BIM

implementation constraints within one organization) and inter-organizational in the form



of perceived feasibility for integrated implementation of BIM along the supply chain.

Respondents were asked to indicate feasibility perceived separately for main contractors

and suppliers/subcontractors.

3.3 Future of supply chain management with BIM

Finally, it was interesting to ask the respondents about their perception of future

development of SCM with the support of BIM.

Figure 19. BIM for SCM survey questionnaire structure

Types of questions

Some of the questions were designed as multiple-choice ones, where the respondents were

given the opportunity to choose multiple areas where BIM could bring improvement and

cause constraints for implementation. In these types of questions, it was important to gather

information about the overall sample awareness and perception of how things are. On the



other hand, some questions required from respondents to give a certain grade, based on a

5-point Likert scale, mostly concerning the strength of the barriers for establishing

partnerships with supply chain actors (1-very low relevance to 5-high relevance), as well as

when mapping the feasibility for BIM implementation along the supply chain from four

different perspectives (organizational, technological, economic and social). The latter type

of questions required from respondents to grade the feasibility separately for the contractors

and suppliers/subcontractors to identify whether there is some difference in feasibility

perceived for two different types of supply chain actors, with the aim of tailoring the

guidelines for implementations separately.

Total responses collected were 33, of which 21 European companies and 12 diffused

worldwide. In the Figures 20, 21, 22 and 23 below, the profile of the respondent companies

is shown, where they quite differ in terms of position in the project supply chain (mostly

led with Contractors and Designers), number of the employees and annual turnover.

In this section, profiling of the respondents is shown only in order to demonstrate the

sample. Insights gathered will be used within the Sections 4.1 and 4.2, mostly related to the

potential of BIM-based SCM perceived by the companies and barriers of different kind

respectively.

27%

18%33%

9%

12%

DesignerConsultantContractorSupplier/Sub-contractorNo response

64%15%

21%

BothPublic ProjectsPrivate Projects

30%

21%18%

9%

21%No responseUp to EUR 2 millionEUR 3 million to 10 millionEUR 11 million to 50 millionMore than EUR 50 million

6%

15%

24%

55%

No response

1 to 9 employees

10 to 50 employees

More than 50employees

Figure 20. Role of the companies in the supply chain Figure 22. Types of projects executed

Figure 21. Annual turnover range Figure 23. Number of employees



Data analysis

In general, data was analyzed by simply ranking the responses in order of their relevance,

corresponding to the number of respondents which have chosen the answers from multi-

choice type questions or by the strength of the barriers perceived. This helped collecting the

perception of “how things are right now” in the construction industry and where the focus

of future improvements shall be. Finally, analysis will also indicate whether there are some

differences in perceptions according to different variables: profile of the respondents (e.g.

role or country of operations).

3.3.3 Interviews

After mapping the potential opportunities, perception of improvements which they could

bring, as well as barriers which could be faced, interviews were needed to collect data

mostly on the HOW part of collaboratively establishing BIM for project supply chain, from

the perspective of Main Contractor. In order to answer to this question, experience of the

people interviewed regarding BIM was crucial, while in the survey questionnaire this had

no such relevance. Profile of the interviewees is presented within the Table 5 below.

Table 5. Profile of the interviewees

The choice of the interview arose from the novelty of the topic and lack of numerous projects

executed in a completely BIM-integrated supply chain, such as those in the Netherlands

explored by Papadonikolaki et al. (2016; 2017). Due to this constraint, conversation with

experts was more explorative in order to gather their opinion about the prerequisites and

key enabling factors for establishing BIM-based SCM practices, through following three

dimensions: People, Process and Technology. As mentioned before, the choice of these three

Specialization of the interviewees

Years of experience in AEC industry

Country of current operation

Position in the supply chain

BIM Manager and Adjunct Professor 10+ Italy General Contractor

BIM Coordinator 15+ Germany Consultant

BIM Manager & BIM Serbia Board Member 15+ Serbia BIM Solutions Developer

CEO and Managing Partner 25 + Serbia Consultant (Project and

Contract Management)



areas come from Fabbe-Costes and Jahre (2007) since they are crucial aspects which must be

taken into account when speaking about inter-organizational integration.

The nature of the interviews conducted was mostly unstructured, relying on the open-

ended questions, in order to allow the interviewees to focus on their areas of expertise

(Denscombe, 2010). For example, conversation with Italian BIM Manager was mostly

oriented on the process part and guidelines used for designing and managing the

workflows, since it is his areas of occupation, as well as relationships with suppliers. On the

other hand, interview with the CEO and contract specialist was more oriented towards the

contractual aspect of BIM when implemented collaboratively on the project. Furthermore,

since Serbian BIM Manager is also a BIM solution developer, technology and people

dimensions were mostly relevant, due to his experience in BIM solution implementation in

various companies and projects, supported with training. However, in order to keep them

on the topic, three blocks were mostly used as a guideline and scope of discussion. Within

the block of people, topics tackled were mostly related to suitable contractual relationships

among supply chain actors operating in BIM environment, as well as organizational

structures, capabilities and trainings needed for driving the BIM implementation.

Moreover, block of processes concerned the need of BIM-driven workflows, protocols and

standards. Finally, technology block was focused on infrastructures for information and

material management solely provided by BIM platforms and those complementary ones

needed to support this way of working.



4 Findings

This chapter tries to unify all the findings from various research sources and tools used

throughout the research. Section 4.1 tries to define the concept of SCM with BIM, as well as

demonstrate some proven BIM-enabled applications for collaborative supply chain

planning, management and tracking. At the end of the section, perception from practitioners

about the potential of BIM-based SCM gathered from the survey will be presented. Section

4.2 deals with understanding the barriers which shall be overcome to reach those practices.

Within this section, some findings from the survey will be presented and critically analyzed,

mostly comparing to the insights gathered from the literature. Following section (Section

4.3) tries to identify the key enablers for implementation of SCM solutions, in the form of

overcoming four barriers mentioned before. Finally, Section 4.4 sums all the findings and

provides a guideline for setting up BIM-based SCM.

4.1 What is BIM-based Supply Chain Management?

Firstly, it is interesting to take a look at the chosen two definitions below:

BIM

“ABIMisadigitalrepresentationofphysicalandfunctionalcharacteristicsofafacility.Assuchitservesasasharedknowledgeresourceforinformationaboutafacilityformingareliable

basisfordecisionsduringitslifecyclefrominceptiononward.“

-NationalBIMStandard

SCM

- CouncilofSupplyChainManagementProfessionals

SCM may actually present the mindset oriented towards collaboration and cooperation

among the supply chain actors, while BIM may be considered as a technological enabler for

connecting them, by storing, sharing and visualizing reliable and timely information

regarding the status of the facility and its components.

“Supplychainmanagementencompassestheplanningandmanagementofallactivitiesinvolvedinsourcing,procurement,conversionandalllogisticsmanagementactivities.Italsoincludescoordinationandcollaborationwithchannelpartners,whichcanbesuppliers,intermediaries,thirdpartyserviceproviders,andcustomers.”



When the two are put together, they may present (author’s interpretation):

“Collaboration and cooperation for achieving just-in-time management and tracking of

interdependent construction supply chain activities with the aim of value co-creation and

the means of transparent BIM-based technological environment.”

Therefore, if these two are used to complement each other, outstanding opportunities may

be grasped, which will be presented in the following discussion.

4.1.1 Which are the opportunities and trends of BIM-based Supply Chain?

While Chapter 2 has shown a clear interdependence between BIM and SCM, especially

regarding their ability to integrate members of the supply chain by allowing them real-time

communication, this chapter dives into specific applications of BIM to activities relevant for

SCM, mostly related to supply chain tracking, or “taking control of the supply chain”. These

applications are direct consequence of features which BIM offers, such as visualization and

real time communication, supporting members of the supply chain in collaborative decision

making such as planning of material deliveries just-in-time, in the right quantity and quality

when they are needed on the site. In that sense, following discussion tries to identify

numerous potentials which can be unlocked when having BIM proficient supply chain

network connected in an intelligent digital and timely way. However, these are presented

independently from the contract types which may regulate exchange of the information and

data among supply chain members (designers, general and specialist contractors and

material suppliers). This point of view will be briefly tackled when answering to the HOW

part in the Section 4.3.

As anticipated before, the logic followed was that of the stages of supply chain where the

materials “flow” starting from defining them within the visual digital environment (3D

information model) according to Client’s preferences. Namely, after components are being

modelled in a 3D environment and correlated with all the additional information (their size,

shape, location, specifications), they are then procured, fabricated, transported to the site

and assembled on a planned facility’s position by their schedule. Finally, they should “flow

back” to the digital environment from the real one, into a “digital twin”, which is the ultimate

value-added for the Client.



Table 6 below summarizes main findings related to the opportunities which may be

facilitated with BIM proficient supply chain, while the following discussion explains each

of the blocks in detail.

Table 6. Potential of BIM by construction supply chain area

Source: Own illustration

Area of the supply chain Potential applications of BIM

Building materials/components

Procurement

§ Export of accurate material quantities coupled with

specifications from object-based BIM model; § Creation of bills of materials (BoMs) and purchase of

materials directly through BIM cloud tools; § Specification of codes for identification, coherent with

manufacturer (e.g. RFID tags, Barcodes/QR codes); § Complete 4D-enabled construction schedule for material

ordering; § Integration of up-to date BIM data with ERP.

Building

materials/components Off-site Production

§ Usage of BIM Digital Objects, coordination and update from real-time exchanged BIM model;

§ Specification of codes for components identification (e.g. RFID tags, Barcodes/QR codes);

§ Error free fabrication via BIM and CNC machines; § Establishment of pull production flow.

Transportation and Logistics

§ Site workspace and layout management; § Modelling of equipment movement and positioning; § Schedule coordination for Just in Time delivery; § Real-time location tracking of materials (e.g. with RFID

tags, Barcodes/QR codes); § On-site inventory optimization.

Construction / On-site assembly

§ Improved coordination of specialist contractors on site;

§ Code-based components quality control (e.g.

Barcodes/QR Codes, RFID tags);

§ Real-time installation status monitoring and uploading;

§ Scan to BIM and generation of the digital twin.



4.1.1.1 Procurement of building materials/components

BIM approach to material procurement allows gathering object-oriented information in the

form of size, shape and location of a specific building component, as well as material’s

physical characteristics, its unit cost and quantity take off (Grilo et al., 2011). However, the

3D federated model must be generated properly, containing all the necessary attributes and

classifications (Eynon, 2016) in one place, pulled from various disciplines (e.g. structural,

MEP, architectural, façade). By being able to obtain such information, procurement process

can be harmonized in terms of quality and reliability of data obtained, especially compared

to the manual quantity take off practices from 2D drawings. Example of BIM-based platform

can be seen in the Figure 24 below, which demonstrates the clear benefit of BIM in creating

material and component lists, as well as bills of quantities.

Figure 24. BIM-enabled material procurement

Source: Bexelconsulting1

However, another possibility may be related to using object and location-based codes for

identification inside the 3D models and transferring those to the manufacturers, in order to

establish unambiguous communication, coupled with visualization. Indeed, if proper

1 https://bexelconsulting.com



codification is done at earlier stages of the project, more accurate tracking of their flows and

status towards the downstream part of the chain can be facilitated in later stages. As Grilo

et al. (2011) argue, BIM can be driving a change in material procurement, due to its ability

to harmonize unstructured information into structured data which can be used in an

interoperable way among the supply chain actors.

Furthermore, the emergence of BIM Digital Objects (BDOs) and BIM procurement

tools/applications may completely revolutionize the material procurement process, leading

it toward online procedure (Eastman et al., 2011). Example of such application is

BIMsupply®, as a cloud-based solution that allows the creation of bills of materials, tenders,

bids and direct orders within a BIM project in Autodesk Revit. Therefore, lists of products

and materials can be shared with building product manufacturers in order to get pricing,

quotes or to place direct orders. However, this tool may be merely used for MTS material

components due to their standardization and wide availability, while for ETO components

more tight collaboration with suppliers is needed.

Moreover, possibilities of BIM do not stop here. By connecting the 4th dimension (time) with

object and location-based 3D information model, BIM facilitates timing of purchase orders,

enabled by dynamic visualization. This is very important feature for procurement planning,

especially concerning building components with long lead times which could significantly

cause delays on site (Eastman et al., 2011) if procurement and on-site teams do not exchange

timely information. Furthermore, buffers may be planned in a more accurate way, or at

least, unambiguous impacts of late procurement on following construction activities may

be visualized with schedule simulations. Contribution of 4D arises in improved timing of

releasing purchase orders, related to triggering the material flows from the upstream part

of the chain (component suppliers) in the right moment. By visualizing the exact works

scheduled (in terms of their scope and location) for a specific date, procurement department

can unambiguously plan the material orders and their delivery on the site, in the right

moment, at a right quantity and specifications (ibid).

Another emerging topic regarding BIM-enabled procurement is its integration with existing

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) solutions. Both BIM and ERP have a purpose of

“Information Systems”, where BIM can take this role on a project level, while ERP on

enterprise and project portfolio level. If those two systems would be integrated, resource

planning and purchasing process could be significantly improved on the enterprise level.



One study, conducted by Kolarić and Vukomanović (2018), argues that BIM potential has

not been fully exploited since there is a lack of data integration with ERP software. This

triggers the issue of mismatch between real project data (ordered, built and charged

quantities) and enterprise accounting data.

For example, Kolarić and Vukomanović (2018) have stressed an opportunity of ERP and

BIM (Revit software) integrated solution, provided by Olilo Technologies2, where the

functionalities are following:

§ Direct link between Revit Object database & ERP;

§ Designer is made aware of stock at design time, to make sure that right

object/family/material is available at production time;

§ Bill of quantity extraction from Revit to ERP;

§ Cost estimation can be automated by pulling the quantity & material details from

Revit and their corresponding cost from the ERP;

§ Work schedule can be generated from the Revit model and ERP data;

§ The system can keep updated people of various departments by automating the

email process and informing them with stock, material and cost updates;

§ Field Staff Collaboration.

4.1.1.2 Off-site production of building materials/components

Kensek and Noble (2014) stress:

“BIM’s ability to link a manufacturer’s specifications to a designer’s model is one of its best strengths.”

Indeed, by facilitating timely data exchange among designers, contractors and building

components manufacturers in the form of object-based and “smart” digital data linked to

those objects, BIM can harmonize information exchange and consequently material flows

among supply chain members. As Hardin and McCool (2015) argue, suppliers can

contribute to the project success by creating parametric components that contain product

specifications in a digital format, as well as life-cycle information useful for facility

management. This is exactly what the early adopters within the industry are trying to

accomplish, by involving their suppliers in the early project phases and seeking to synergize

the production with the design (Alwisy et al., 2018). According to Erwin Van Schooten,

2 https://www.olilo.ae



Managing Director at Spelsberg3, inclusion of suppliers/manufacturers into BIM

collaborative environment can add significant value to both contractors and material

suppliers.

When having BIM proficient suppliers, supply chain actors are given a greater degree of

flexibility when changes in design of components occur, due to the easiness of exchanging

up-to-date parametric-based changes within 3D models (Holzer, 2016) and cloud-based

CDE. As Eastman et al. (2011) claim, manual checking and verification of these documents

may take weeks, while in the reviewing system offered by BIM, this type of time waste is

significantly reduced. Furthermore, by minimizing the manual checks along the process,

higher degree of both design and production accuracy is guaranteed, as well as reduction

of human errors (Garagnani and Manferdini, 2013; Hardin and McCool, 2015; Gigante-

Barrera et al., 2017) due to unambiguous visualization in 3D for all parties. By carefully

coordinating the design changes and production process, BIM significantly improves

information exchange and synchronizes the workflows (Mirarchi et al., 2017), as well as

reduces cycle times for design revision and production (Sacks et al., 2018). Another

consequence of these practices concerns reduction of Requests for Information (RFIs) and

excessive costs and delays those may impose (ibid). An example worth mentioning is BIM-

enabled construction of baseball stadium in USA, where timely communication among

supply chain members have resulted in less than 100 RFIs for structural steel elements,

compared to possible 10.000 RFIs if such project was not supported with BIM (Boston

Consulting Group, 2016).

Moreover, when having 3D models from suppliers in higher levels of detail needed for

fabrication and construction (LOD 400), coupled with their object and location-based

codification (as mentioned in previous sub-section), time needed for problem solving on

site, potential reworks and generation of as-built models can be significantly reduced,

making these practices a valuable resource for contractors. It is true that this codification

and identification of building components can be done in Excel spreadsheets, but this

actually has no real value in BIM-enabled communication where elements can be associated

with their location and scheduled installation on site. Real value of codification with means

of Barcodes/QR codes or RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags lies in tracking status

3 Spelsberg is a German manufacturer of plastic enclosures for the electro technical market.



of these components throughout their production, transportation and installation on the

site. Identification tags associated to digital objects in the model correspond to the ones

assigned to the real building components. By tracking components status in real time,

production flows between factories off-site and on-site are synchronized and both

contractors and manufacturers gain in terms of inventory reduction and costs of keeping

those in stock (Sacks et al., 2018). Furthermore, manufacturers are able to get control of their

production planning and schedule the components delivery when they are needed (e.g.

maybe one month after initially scheduled by procurement plan if delays on site have

occurred), by clearly visualizing components status (e.g. solely on cloud or 4D). These RFID-

based practices have already been proved for precast concrete components (Ergen et al.,

2007). Namely, example may be provided for prefabricated concrete elements, where the

digital collaboration within the supply chain has managed to track the status of thousands

of concrete precast elements throughout their fabrication, delivery and installation (Sawyer,

2008). This was achieved through the sharing of color-coded and synchronized Tekla model

viewer among the project parties, as well as usage of RFID tags for components status

tracking (Figure 25 below).

Figure 25. Visualizing status of prefabricated components

Source: Vela Systems, Inc (adopted from Sacks et al., 2018)

Eastman et al. (2008) mentions another successful case study of involving the steel producer

into the CDE where all the information exchanged was up to date (e.g. 3D and 4D models,

plans and all documents). When having the access to synchronized 4D model, steel



producer has managed to plan more accurately the schedule of production and delivery of

the components. By doing so, the unique connection between the site and the components

production has been achieved, allowing the pull production flow from CDE and up-to date

information sharing. However, a key factor for achieving production planning offered by

BIM is the timely and unambiguous bidirectional information flow among the suppliers and

contractor on site.

Even though Hardin and McCool (2015) argue that BIM can provide strongest potential in

ETO material flows (e.g. structural, MEP elements) due to the ability to close the gap

between designers, contractors and manufacturers, impact of BIM in standardized material

flows (MTS) shall not be neglected. Namely, it is interesting to mention that usage of BIM

digital objects (BDOs) may revolutionize the way building component manufacturers

operate and compete. There are some manufacturers which already present their building

products in a form of BDOs (not catalogs in pdf format) and store them in online databases.

Besides providing certain product details and specifications, with usage of BDOs, suppliers

are able to deliver rich geometric information to the contractors regarding the products (Al-

Saeed et al., 2019). Example of such online platform is NBS National BIM Library4, where

searching various categories of digital objects (e.g. windows and doors, floor finishes),

downloading them in the IFC format and integrating them parametrically with existing 3D

models is made possible.

Concept of BIM-enabled fabrication and capability of coordinating 3D models is still far

away from being widely spread among the material suppliers, even though they could

significantly benefit from establishing such practices (Hardin and McCool, 2015), both in

terms of waste reduction (e.g. reworks, design changes and inventory) as well as securing

their competitive advantage. Not to mention the potential of introducing Computer

Numerically Controlled (CNC) machinery integrated with BIM software (e.g. Autodesk

Inventor CAM) within their production systems, which have already been successfully used

in precast concrete components, steel and glass elements (Sacks et al., 2018). As Hamid et

al. (2018) claim, by having building components already defined in 3D environment, this

information from BIM environment can be easily translated to those needed for production

activities of CNC machinery. Indeed, usage of BIM for production may lead towards more

4 https://www.nationalbimlibrary.com/en/



frequent pre-fabrication practices, especially those related to modular construction (Sacks

et al., 2018).

4.1.1.3 Transportation & Logistics

BIM applications for workspace management optimize the construction activities on site,

such as inventory location and storage (Moon etal., 2014). Various BIM-based solutions (e.g.

Trimble Sketchup or Autodesk InfraWorks 360) offer features which can support

developing plans for crane logistics, material storage areas, site access points, material

hoists, scaffolding (Hardin and McCool, 2015). Furthermore, by integrating BIM with

Geographic or Geo-spatial Information Systems (GIS), additional level of detail can be

added and enable more precise vertical construction and more accurate tracking of material

deliveries (Irizarry etal., 2013).

Role of BIM lies in timely logistics planning and management prior to the start of the

construction process. Instead of having multiple static 2D site logistics plans, BIM offers

dynamic visualization, since different stages of building components’ assembly have

different needs of site layout in time. For example, 4D simulations of crane lift schedules

connect the activities of the schedule and allow optioneering in executing parallel works on

multifloored building (Hardin and McCool, 2015). Some add-in applications for BIM

platforms such as smartCON Planner by Archicad provide detailed site layout and options

for simulation of equipment positioning (Sacks et al., 2018).

When the site layout has been optimized in terms of equipment access points and

positioning as well as storage of materials, this data may be shared with the building

components suppliers to plan material production and deliveries more accurately, or just

when they are needed (not earlier nor later). Overview of the dynamic site environment in

real time and with components coding and their inventory status on site allows

collaborative planning with suppliers, enhanced with status monitoring of building

components and pulling according to the updated installation plan. Since the construction

site is a dynamic factory, where multiple material flows are needed in different moments

and set of subcontractors may be responsible for their procurement (e.g. MEP elements and

architecture for ceilings), it is important to conduct this material coordination in a controlled

way, with all information in one CDE shared among project members. In that sense, logistics

plays a crucial role in connecting the supply chain members on site and outside the site.

These practices lead to reduced inventories on construction site (Eastman et al., 2011), which



is a great value for the construction sites with the lack of storage and handling areas in a

tight environment, thus deliveries must be carefully planned according to daily or weekly

schedule needs. In that sense, real just-in-time logistics is necessary to allow the smooth flow

of materials when and where they are needed. Here RFID and Barcodes/QR codes

coherently specified with material suppliers and shared via cloud environment may play a

crucial role of pulling these materials according to inventory status and installation needs

on site (Lu et al., 2011; Hinkka and Tätilä, 2013). These can be related to the Kanban system

of lean philosophy, whose aim is to signal the inventory status in an electronic way

(Brintrup et al., 2010). However, in order to make this component tracking system work,

these tags shall be agreed with the components suppliers beforehand and attached to the

components (as mentioned in previous sub-section), prior to their delivery on site.

Furthermore, by integrating RFID with GIS, opportunities for component tracking go

beyond the site and their inventory management but can also gather real-time information

regarding transportation of these components (Irizarry et al., 2013). These practices can add

significant value when the production of the components is done in a foreign country, where

borders may have significant impact on transportation lead times. However, in other cases,

usage of Barcodes/QR codes may be sufficient for determining components status in the

form of milestones (e.g. in production, ready to be shipped, in transportation, arrived)

which shall be then updated to cloud environment and visible for all parties.

As anticipated within the sub-section 2.3.2, the role of the logistics management in

construction shall not be neglected, especially in BIM functioning environment. Indeed,

when multidirectional communication between site, procurement department and building

components producers is made possible in real time and supported with 4D visualization,

uninterruptable material flows may be achieved in the form of just-in-time delivery and

logistics management.

For example, Skanska, as one of the most prominent first movers in the industry, was

developing a Tag & Track system, excelling the use of RFID tags and barcodes on products

and components delivered to the site. By obtaining real-time monitoring of material

production, delivery, storage and installation, this new way of working could save up to

10% of project construction costs (World Economic Forum, 2016). Furthermore, these

connected systems can provide forecasts and alerts to project team when inventories are

running short in order to execute timely orders for replenishment (McKinsey & Company,



2016). In that sense, Edirisinghe (2019) illustrates an interesting vision of fully connected

supply chain with the usage of RFID sensors (Figure 26 below).

Figure 26. Connecting the supply chain with RFID tags

Source: Edirisinghe, 2019

Thus, logistics integrates the data flows from upstream part (components production and

shipment status) with the downstream part (real time status of components installation on

site). Therefore, the following section will explain how this downstream data may be

visualized from the site by inputting installation status of components.

4.1.1.4 On-site Assembly/Construction

By using BIM as a tool for virtual prototyping (even in the form of 3D solely), initial benefit

which arises is the multidisciplinary design visualization in one federated model. This can

significantly reduce the costs of design changes or errors within on-site assembly. Namely,

functions of BIM such as clash detection and constructability analysis allow anticipation of

these risks (Papadonikolaki et al., 2015). Significance lies in the reduced time and resources

for problem solving when they arise on the site, since labor and machinery shall be paid for

well, stagnating and waiting for problems to be solved on site. However, if needed, problem

solving for the teams on site is also made easier with visualization of 3D drawings and

details for eventual clarifications before the real components “fitting” and coordination

issues occur.



When adding time into visualization practices (4D), all the above-mentioned opportunities

which BIM offers for procurement, production and logistics may be obtained. Namely,

gathering real-time components installation status on site is needed, which distributes this

information to all the supply chain members upstream via cloud and keeps the components

status up to date. In order to do so, a simple tablet or mobile device connected with the

common cloud environment may be used on site to update the status of the certain building

components (e.g. arrived, checked, stored, installed) or percentage of their realization. This

data is than used for the purpose of logistics planning which then pulls all the other material

flows to the site when they are needed. Numerous studies have proven the concept of BIM-

enabled progress monitoring and components status update on site, with a simple

connection of real environment and status of components with their associated objects in a

shared 4D model (El-Omari and Moselhi, 2011; Davies and Harty, 2013; Tserng et al., 2014).

Thus, construction schedule may be updated in a timely manner and distributed to all

project actors in need, rather than waiting for updated 2D MsProject or Primavera files to

be printed and distributed within the dynamics of construction site where multiple issues

may impact the schedule just within one day. By integrating tools like BIM 360 field and

Navisworks for visualization, real updates may be transmitted in a matter of seconds.

Example of such case is shown in Figure 27 below, taken from Matthews et al. (2015).

Figure 27. BIM-enabled components status monitoring

Source: Matthews et al., 2015



However, as a model for progress monitoring proposed by Getuli et al. (2016) notes, final

verification of components installation status shall end with the site director.

Finally, when integrating BIM with another emerging technologies such as laser scanning,

passing from as-designed to as-built has never been easier (Bosche , 2012). This may be

achieved by scanning real components installed via point cloud principle and uploading

them to the multidisciplinary visualization tools as Navisworks (Hardin and McCool, 2015;

Stojanovic et al., 2018). These processes also facilitate quality control and assessment of the

components installed (Kalyan et al., 2016).

This is the ultimate value, going downstream the chain as a result of collaboration, in

providing the digital twin to the Owner and supporting the harmonization of facility

maintenance process. By doing so, the material and components flows have finalized their

cycle from the Client’s vision and their initial representation within the 3D models, to their

physical installation on site and generation of as-built by putting them back into 3D digital

world with all the additional information which they have collected throughout their flow

(mostly contributed by the material manufacturers).

Even though the potential of BIM has been shown by different blocks of application, it can

be seen within the initial Table 6 that some opportunities do intertwine within the blocks

(e.g. components coding and tracking with Barcodes/QR codes or RFID tags). That is

exactly the value which BIM offers, by connecting those blocks in one common

environment, where real time information sharing allows collaborative management and

tracking of material flows throughout the supply chain stages. This is an important point to

be stressed since common practices are fragmented and do not pursue such integration as

demonstrated above.

In that sense, it is also needed to understand the current awareness of the supply chain

actors regarding the potential improvements enabled by BIM, since one of the constraints

for adoption could be also related to their lack of awareness. Following discussion will

represent the potential perceived by the practitioners (from the survey described in Section

3.2).



4.1.2 Perception of the practitioners regarding the potential of BIM-based SCM

Due to the core value of BIM in facilitating real-time information exchange and keeping all

supply chain members updated, it was important to gather the perception of industry actors

about the efficiency of current information exchange practices. Thus, when practitioners

were asked to grade the information exchange efficiency from 1-very low to 5-very high,

opinions were quite aligned and graded the efficiency as medium (grade 3/5 from Likert

scale), where almost 40% of the respondents have graded it is low-medium (grade 2/5). This

common opinion among the practitioners validated the hypothesis generated at the

beginning of this research and confirms the findings from multiple academics as well.

However, this shall not be approached as a problem, but more as an opportunity for the

improvement, where BIM is ready to step in and ease day-to-day activities in the industry,

as demonstrated in the previous discussion.

Thus, it is relevant that supply chain parties are aware of this opportunity which BIM can

offer regarding information flows. Table 7 below confirms this, where centralized information

storage and information transparency are those ranked as top 3 benefits (chosen by 20 out of

33 respondents) which BIM can offer for SCM. Another positive feedback from companies

concerns recognizing control of processes as the most important opportunity provided by

BIM, which is crucial requirement for effective supply chain management (Bryde at al.,

2013), especially in the context of fragmented construction supply chains with limited

visibility on the overall project execution processes. Furthermore, when the practices are

transparent, mistakes can be identified more easily and solved in a timely manner, as

demonstrated.

It is interesting to note that BIM-enabled material and stakeholder management do not appeal

that much to the companies, as well as the potential of improving supply chain responsiveness

(Table 7). These are other relevant BIM-enabled values stemming from information sharing

and transparency, but the issue may be that of the unawareness about the potential, since

the literature and pilot projects mentioned in previous discussion proved benefits in these

areas. Another consequence of information transparency - reduced variability of data, whose

potential has been recognized by less than 50% of the respondents, shall be able to close the

gap among those operating off-site (designers and building components manufacturers)

and on-site (contractors), and reduce the occurrence of bullwhip effect, where the last tier



suppliers are receiving high variations in orders quantities and timing of deliveries (Lee and

Billington, 1992).

Table 7. Perception regarding opportunities in SCM enabled by BIM

Another relevant topic is the awareness about different supply chain areas in which BIM

could bring benefits, presented in the form of the four big blocks from previous sub-section.

Common opinion of the respondents can be seen in the Table 8 below, where almost 70% of

the respondents think BIM could bring improvements within On-site assembly, followed by

Procurement of materials. On the other hand, a lower number of companies marked

Transportation and Logistics and Production/Prefabrication as potential areas of improvement.

However, as argued before, logistics shall be core area of improvement which pulls the

information from downstream part (the site) towards the upstream part (manufacturers) in

real time. Finally, less than 30% of companies recognize the opportunity of BIM-enabled

production, even though manufacturers could be those quite advanced in BIM, especially

with the usage of BDOs and digital catalogs.

Which of the following opportunities could BIM provide to Supply Chain Management?

Response type: Multiple choice Ranking Count Response

1 24 Control of processes 2 21 Cost efficiency 3 20 Centralized information storage 3 20 Information transparency 3 20 Quality control 6 14 Material management 6 14 Reduced variability of data 8 11 Stakeholder management 8 11 Supply chain responsiveness

10 10 Reduced bureaucracy effort Out of Total 33



In which supply chain areas could BIM bring benefits?

Response type: Multiple choice

Ranking Count Response 1 23 On-site assembly 2 17 Procurement of materials 3 12 Transportation and Logistics 4 8 Production/Prefabrication

Out of Total 33

Table 8. Perception regarding supply chain areas of improvement

To conclude, main opportunities of BIM have been recognized within the information

exchange practices relevant for effective SCM. By facilitating timely data exchange among

the actors, companies do agree that BIM can enable them control of their supply chain

activities. This observation is very positive due to the complexity of the project chain related

to the amount of information exchanged on a daily basis. Opportunities identified are

considered as relevant during on-site assembly and procurement of materials. Interestingly,

even though academic research stresses the potential and importance of just-in-time

logistics and off-site production management with BIM, respondents do not feel so

confident about it.



4.1.3 Why supply chain actors shall collaboratively embrace BIM?

As mentioned in the previous sections, BIM-based SCM solutions should be able to solve

many problems which actors are facings nowadays, mostly related to the complexity of

managing and controlling all the information and material flows in the short-term oriented

and fragmented project environments, which practitioners have recognized within the

exploratory survey conducted. That is the ultimate power, eliminating misunderstandings

(“foggy” data) and late information exchange between teams on site (contractors and

specialist subcontractors) and those off-site (suppliers of the building materials, designers,

Clients as well). BIM should be able to smooth these flows among dispersed actors and lead

them towards collaboration for mutual benefits of establishing fully transparent, controlled

and responsive supply chain and consequently, satisfied Clients. Summary of BIM potential

for solving information management issues is shown in Table 9 below.

Table 9. Solving Construction Supply Chain issues with BIM

Source: Adopted from Vrijhoef and Koskela, 2000; Madanayake (Undated); Lee and Billington,1992

Therefore, when striving for cooperation enabled by BIM, collaborative planning and

management of the supply chain can be obtained, leading to significant improvements.

These practices may be able to move the construction industry from being scrutinized as

one of the least productive ones. Furthermore, BIM-based SCM leads towards Lean

construction and eliminates the wastes, by allowing transparent processes, signaling the

Issues in Supply Chain Management Practices Scenarios in practice Potential of BIM

Poor communication among supply chain

actors

Supply chain fragmentation causes low

interconnection among actors

Information with parametric properties ensure up to date changes of documents in a

CDE, where accessibility of the specific supply chain actor depends on his role and

responsibilities

Lack of material delivery transparency

Suppliers downstream face delays in material orders due to “foggy”

data

Supply Chain actors can access to updated delivery times, since they can be tracked (e.g.

Barcodes), stored and shared in the CDE

Variability of data along the supply chain

Presence of bullwhip effect (especially for last tier suppliers) causing

difficulties for suppliers’ production planning and over/under inventory on

site

Real time visualization and classification of inventory on site with BIM can smooth the

material flow and reduce waste

Incomplete shipment analysis

Difficulty in distributing real time information to all supply chain actors

Cloud solutions can connect suppliers, contractors and logistics providers (if any)



bottlenecks and allowing stable workflows (Sacks at al., 2018), compared to the traditional

practices of shifting risks to other supply chain parties. BIM-enabled way of working allows

contractors and suppliers to catch information when it is created by any of the supply chain

parties and consequently, to take control of the material flows and interdependent activities

in real time (e.g. logistics management and quality control).

On the other hand, there is another perspective which should be taken into account when

answering to WHY and it is the motivation for investing significant effort and resources for

the establishment of BIM-based SCM. If the supply chain members are not aware of the

potential and do not initiate on their own pursuing such practices, the demand side may

soon be the one which will require full exploitation of BIM among the supply chain, leaving

those who lag behind with limited business opportunities. Therefore, it is relevant to

consider the demand side as well, and the Clients (both public and private) which pull their

requirements from all the supply chain members. When speaking of the public ones, efforts

from policy makers have been made both on the national and European level. With the

update of European Union Public Procurement Directive (EUPPD) in 2014, aim of the

European Parliament was to raise national initiatives for BIM adoption by specifying:

“All the 28 European Member States may encourage, specify or mandate the use of BIM for publicly

funded construction and building projects in the European Union by 2016”. (Autodesk, 2014)

Nevertheless, leaders in BIM-related regulation may be found in the UK, Netherlands,

Denmark, Sweden and Norway (Autodesk) with a clear vision and strategy on a national

level, thus incentivizing the supply chain members towards the BIM implementation

throughout the execution of public projects. This may be one of the ways to incentivize the

adoption, as a “selection criteria”, with a clear obligation to comply with certain BIM

requirements if they wish to bid for the project. However, some sophisticated or informed

Clients and facility management companies from the private sector have also started to

impose BIM as a requirement when tendering. The ultimate value in both cases lies in the

“digital twin” for the future Owner, thus they shall be willing to pay more for this significant

value-added of having the complete information of physical asset in a digital form, which

allows reduction of operation and maintenance costs (PwC, 2018).

Indeed, reaching the state of BIM-based SCM in construction industry shall be a vision,

which requires a long process and commitment from the supply chain members, while their

mission shall be to take position of the leaders in that field and grasp the potential which



BIM offers them. On this path, constraints of different kind and resistance from network of

multidisciplinary actors may occur and block the process. These constraints may be those

related to technology adoption solely (as BIM), eagerness for partnerships and collaboration

relevant for SCM, and finally those related to completely digitalizing the supply chain.

Thus, study of supply chain members’ current relationships and barriers for integration can

help design the guidelines for the successful implementation. Indeed, BIM can enable

integration by means of technology, but the supply chain must be ready to cope with it and

pass from linear and sequential to collaborative and parallel communication. This is exactly

what the following sub-section tries to achieve, to collect the insights from current industry

practices and feasibility of achieving the vision of BIM-based SCM.



4.2 Which are the common barriers for establishing BIM-based Supply Chain?

When speaking of barriers in the context of BIM and SCM, they shall be carefully considered

from different perspectives:

§ Intra-organizational perspective

These are related to BIM adoption challenges solely which may arise within the boundaries

of one organization and affect the motivation for BIM adoption.

§ Inter-organizational perspective

On the other hand, since collaborative SCM solutions require involvement of multiple

supply chain members and their commitment, it is necessary to explore the current nature

of the relationships among supply chain members and their eagerness for cooperation,

before tackling the topic of digitalizing the whole supply chain.

Therefore, in order to answer to this question (RQ.2), the multidimensional barriers for

establishing transparent collaborative practices enabled by BIM have been clustered into

four blocks:





Therefore, the following discussion presents findings gathered from survey questionnaire

by firstly tackling nature of relationships in the supply chain and barriers for partnering

practices, followed by BIM adoption barriers on intra-organizational level and finally

perceived feasibility of establishing BIM-based SCM from the four aspects listed above.



Nature of relationships in the supply chain

Firstly, before tackling the BIM-related part of the supply chain, it is of interest to

understand the current relationships between actors and their nature, since existence of

partnerships among actors is tightly coupled with collaborative management of information

and material flows along the supply chain (Vrijhoef, 2011).

Table 10. Supplier selection criteria

Table 10 above signals the traditional construction practices, where the project actors use

price as the most common selection criteria when sourcing suppliers, followed by quality.

This may indicate that price-based competitive tendering is still present, which could pose

difficulties in achieving supply chain integration (Dubois and Gadde, 2000). However, it is

encouraging to notice the relevance of trust when choosing suppliers in more than 50% of

the responses. Furthermore, timeliness which should be important criterion is used only by

less than 30% of the respondents. Finally, application of BIM has still not been used as a

selection criterion widely. Out of six respondents which require usage of BIM from their

suppliers, four are the designers, and only two contractors (out of eleven contractors in total

from sample) which fully or partially operate in the public sector. Therefore, there is the

feeling that those contractors using BIM as a selection criterion, probably do so due to the

regulation (e.g. EUPPD). However, this finding may also be correlated with the wider BIM

adoption among the designers than the contractors.

According to McKinsey Global Institute (2017), collaboration and partnerships are one of

the possible areas of improvement within the construction industry and could boost

productivity by 8-9%. Therefore, in order to understand the current situation on partnering,

How does your company select subcontractors and/or material suppliers?


Ranking Count Response

1 25 Price 2 24 Quality 3 18 Trust 4 12 Timeliness 5 6 BIM Application 6 2 Competence

Out of Total 33



respondents were asked whether they have some strategic partnerships in place and if so,

in which activities related to supply chain management (Table 11 below, where the activities

were adopted from Vrijhoef, 2011). Overall, almost 60% of the companies do have some

partnerships in place (19 out of 33). However, it is relevant to understand the nature of these

partnering practices.

Table 11. Nature of partnerships in the supply chain

In the case when partnerships are present among the supply chain members questioned,

they are mostly aimed at partner sourcing, as well as at integration of operations and information

and knowledge exchange. Motives for partner sourcing are those of the need for additional

resources or services which may be provided by supply chain member and could be both

short-term (project-based) and long-term oriented. Presence of the latter two (operations

integration and information and knowledge exchange) is highly positive since it is bounded to

more efficient management of the flows in the supply chain (Vrijhoef, 2011).

On the other hand, partnerships which may require deeper collaboration in performing

quality management and logistics management are not so widely present but are two important

activities which, if planned and managed in a collaborative way, could lead to tighter

integration among the supply chain members. Finally, partnership types which require the

deepest integration among the parties, with the aim of cultural alignment were noticed only

in the three cases. As argued by Sambasivan and Yen (2010) this shall be the ultimate vision

of collaborative supply chain, where the highest value may be created by establishing a

common vision and values of the supply chain members, which may act as a single firm.

If you have some partnerships with suppliers, in which Supply Chain activities?


Ranking Count Activity of the SCM

1 8 Partner sourcing

1 8 Integration of operations

1 8 Information and knowledge exchange

4 6 Quality management

5 4 Logistics management

6 3 Cultural alignment Out of Total 19



Overall, it is relevant to note that a prerequisite for achieving successful supply chain

integration is the presence of collaborative management of all the activities mentioned

above, while the respondents had on average two out of total six factors present. For

comparison, within the case study research conducted in the Netherlands (Papadonikolaki

et al., 2016), at least four were present.

Perceived barriers for partnerships

After having an overview of the partnership nature of the supply chain members, it is

relevant to understand why they are of a certain type previously identified and what could

be the reasons blocking deeper integration among the actors for successful value co-

creation. Table 12 tries to demonstrate this.

Table 12. Barriers for supply chain partnerships

In general, the barriers have received scores in the range from low-medium (2/5) to medium

(3/5). The strongest barrier perceived is that related to the complexity of integrating processes,

with an overall mean of 3.2 out of maximum 5, while for the other three the scores are

somewhat lower and opinions are aligned, as indicated by lower standard deviation. The

finding regarding the ranking of lack of trust as the lowest barrier is encouraging, which may

indicate that the companies are willing to collaborate but are not so confident in how to

arrive there from the process integration side.

Perceived barriers for BIM adoption overall

As anticipated before, another barrier which shall be taken into account is the technology

adoption one. Overall, when looking at the difficulties which could arise from BIM

implementation (regardless of the supply chain network), almost 80% of the companies

agree on the problematic of inadequate skills (Table 13 below). Therefore, when speaking of

If you do not have partnerships in place, what are the strengths of the barriers?

Response type: 1 - very low importance to 5 - very high importance Ranking Barriers Mean Max Min ST.DEV

1 Complexity of integrating processes 3,211 5 1 1,357

2 Short-term project orientation 2,684 5 1 1,157

3 Fear of transparency and appropriate risk allocation 2,579 5 1 1,216

4 Lack of trust 2,526 5 1 1,073



technologically related barriers, highest one perceived concern the people (and their skills)

who should actually drive the BIM inside and outside organization, where new BIM

proficient roles would be needed, such as that of a BIM Manager (Khalfan et al., 2015) acting

as a central figure. This constraint is followed by the topic of technological interoperability,

both inside and outside company’s boundaries (with suppliers/subcontractors).

Table 13. Perceived constraints for BIM implementation

Perceived feasibility of BIM-based SCM for Contractors and Suppliers/Subcontractors

Finally, in order to complete the perception of barriers by practitioners, they were asked to

grade the feasibility of establishing BIM-based SCM, from four different perspectives

(Organizational, Technological, Economic and Social). It was required to indicate the

feasibility separately for contractors and suppliers/subcontractors to gain insight whether

there are some differences in constraints which these two types of supply chain members

may face. In general, average feasibility perceived is not so encouraging, slightly above

medium feasibility (higher than 3), both for the contractors and suppliers /subcontractors.

Within the Tables 14 and 15 below, average feasibility perceived is presented according to

the whole sample (33 in total), only contractors (11 in total) and solely contractors from

Europe (7 in total). Ranking of the feasibilities from different perspectives (from highest to

lowest) is shown from contractors’ perspective since their perception is considered as the

most relevant one, as they could be the ones to initiate the cooperation enabled by BIM

(Papadonikolaki et al., 2016).

Which problems can arise when implementing BIM overall?


Ranking Count Barriers

1 26 Inadequate skills

2 23 Interoperability with suppliers/sub-contractors

3 17 Interoperability with existing ICT systems

4 15 Inadequate organizational structure

4 15 Complexity of usage Out of Total 33



Overall, the lowest feasibility for both types of the supply chain actors is the economic one

(3/5), followed by the technological, while the organizational and social ones seem quite more

feasible for the companies.

In your opinion, how much is BIM-based SCM feasible for the Contractors from various perspectives?

Response type: 1 - very low feasibility to 5 - very high feasibility Mean

Ranking by Contractors Perspective All

Contractors European

Contractors Whole sample

1 Organizational - Clear roles and responsibilities 3,727 3,571 3,548

2 Social - Openness for information transparency and risk allocation 3,455 3,143 3,226

3 Technological - Appropriate software infrastructure for collaboration 3,182 3,429 3,323

4 Economic - Sufficient financial resources 3,182 2,857 3,161

Table 14. Perceived BIM-based SCM feasibility for the Contractors

Since the sample is quite low (33 responses in total), there are no significant differences

found in the perception of solely contractors for themselves and other supply chain actors

(standard deviation is not so high). However, European contractors perceive lower economic

feasibility compared to the whole sample and all the contractors included in the sample

(Table 14 above). This may be related to the structure of the construction market in Europe,

with almost 95% of micro-enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 5,

thus arises the feeling of high hardware and software set up costs needed for achieving full

interoperability among the supply chain actors. This finding may be coupled with the

perception of technological feasibility, which is equally low as well and is related to software

infrastructures for collaboration and data exchange. However, this should not be perceived

as such a strong barrier due to the existence of IFCs and open-file formats. Finally, social and

organizational feasibility have received the highest scores, which may indicate for another

time that contractors may be quite open for transparent practices and could structure their

organization in such way to manage the supply chain with BIM.

5 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction_en



In your opinion, how much is BIM-based SCM feasible for the Subcontractors / Suppliers from various perspectives?

Response type: 1 - very low feasibility to 5 - very high feasibility Mean

Ranking by Contractors Perspective All

Contractors European

Contractors Whole sample

1 Social - Openness for information transparency and risk allocation 3,636 3,571 3,419

2 Organizational - Clear roles and responsibilities 3,455 3,429 3,387

3 Technological - Appropriate software infrastructure for collaboration 3,091 2,714 3,097

3 Economic - Sufficient financial resources 3,091 2,857 3,097

Table 15. Perceived BIM-based SCM feasibility for the Subcontractors/Suppliers

Comparing to the results obtained concerning contractors, subcontractors’ feasibility from

social perspective is quite higher and perceived as the strongest one. This could signal that

the suppliers are quite ready to collaborate but are still waiting for contractors to take the

move. However, their readiness, in terms of establishing technological solutions for

collaboration and having sufficient financial resources to do so, may not be so high and is a

bit lower than those for main contractors.

Furthermore, respondents were also asked about the potential ways of incentivizing the

suppliers/subcontractors for establishing BIM-based SCM as well as their perception about

the future development of SCM practices with BIM (Tables 16 and 17).

If Suppliers’ readiness is not so high for establishing BIM-based SCM, how should Contractor incentivize them?


Ranking Count Response 1 21 Training 2 9 Seminars

3 8 Short-term project benefits sharing

3 8 Long-term partnerships Out of Total 33

Table 16. How to incentivize suppliers for BIM-based SCM

Common perception is that the suppliers could be incentivized for BIM-based collaborative

practices with trainings, which could be appropriate concerning the perception of very low

technological feasibility. On the other hand, less than 30% of the companies have chosen



long-term partnerships as appropriate incentive, but it is quite positive that almost all of

them are the Contractors, which should be the ones initiating the integration and BIM

adoption along the chain.

How do you see the future development of Construction Supply Chain Management with BIM? Response type: Multiple choice

Ranking Count Response 1 19 Increased Supply Chain integration 2 15 Usage of barcodes/QR codes

3 14 More frequent prefabrication practices

4 12 Increased diffusion due to the regulation 5 10 Control of logistics 6 8 Usage of blockchain 7 2 Don't know

Out of Total 33

Table 17. Future development of SCM with BIM

Finally, it was important to gather the perception of actors about the future trends which

may be shaping the development of SCM with BIM (Table 17 above). Positive feedback

received is related to the expectations about increased supply chain integration and usage of

complementary technologies for supply chain tracking with the support of barcodes and QR

codes. However, since also in this case, only around 30% of the companies expect BIM-

enabled control of logistics, they are probably not aware about the potential since the case

studies mentioned in Section 4.1 clearly indicated the feasibility of such practices. However,

another reason may be related to the tighter integration and collaboration required for

planning and managing the logistics collaboratively, but since integration is expected this

shall not be the case, rather the question of not knowing how to reach that potential.

Summing up the perception of barriers

Overall, practitioners are aware of most of the core potentials which BIM-based SCM could

offer (control of processes and improved information exchange), but probably are not sure

how to arrive there, since they perceive that inside their companies they do not have people

with adequate skills to drive BIM nor sufficient financial resources, while outside

company’s boundaries they have difficulties of integrating the processes with other supply

chain members (mostly from technological perspective and concerning interoperability



needed for efficient exchange of files). On the other hand, it is quite positive that the

respondents are open to partnerships, since they envision tighter supply chain integration

in the future and long-term partnerships, which is a core prerequisite for arriving to fully

BIM-ed supply chain. However, the most relevant insight is that related to the social factor

and openness for information transparency, where the feasibility for conducting transparent

SCM enabled by BIM is somewhat higher for the suppliers than for contractors, while the

contactors shall be the ones to lead their partners and take a role of the integrator

(Papadonikolaki et al., 2016). Finally, a brief representation of the barriers perceived can be

seen in the Figure 28 below.

Figure 28. Overview of barriers perceived for BIM-based SCM

After having a comprehensive understanding of the barriers and their causes, next section

will try to tackle those by providing a guideline on overcoming them and unlocking the

powerful collaborative potential of BIM-based supply chain.



4.3 How could a Contractor set up a BIM-based Supply Chain?

As literature and the findings from survey have demonstrated, BIM is able to harmonize

some of the practices along the construction supply chain, but in order to fully diffuse its

power, well-functioning supply chain shall be present. For this reason, observation of

current relationships and barriers for collaboration among the supply chain members has

been done in the previous section. Technological enablers such as BIM cloud solutions can

lead towards the integration of information in the fragmented construction supply chains,

but the supply chain must be ready. Therefore, the first question which pops out is, who

should be responsible for making the supply chain ready? Opinions found in the academic

literature mostly point at main contractors (Volk et al., 2014; Papadonikolaki et al., 2016;

Ghaffarianhoseini et al., 2017), as supply chain members who are usually early BIM

adopters, thus being responsible for BIM adoption dissemination and setting BIM-related

requirements to suppliers and subcontractors. Therefore, if considering main contractors as

quite BIM proficient (compared to the actors upstream), they shall be the ones to initiate

integration of the supply chain and support the development of BIM capabilities of their

partners. This shall also be in the interest of main contractors, to prepare their future

collaborators since the project success and Client satisfaction (downstream) is highly

dependent on the successful management of the supply chain and its members (upstream),

which supply main contractor with building components and/or services. In that sense,

following discussion will present the potential ways in which main contractors could

overcome the four types of barriers together with their suppliers and subcontractors.

Overcoming the barriers

§ Social – Attitudes towards collaboration, information transparency and risk

allocation

Even if the results from survey have demonstrated the highest feasibility concerning the

social factor and openness for information transparency, this barrier shall be carefully

approached. As O’Brien et al. (2009) note, it is in the nature of construction sector to shift

risks from downstream part (protecting the Clients) towards the actors upstream of the

supply chain – from main contractors to subcontractors and suppliers. Indeed, this way of

working can quite diminish the motivation for collaboration and partnerships among

supply chain members. However, since the survey results have shown that contractors and

suppliers are quite open for partnerships, this could be a good starting point.



There is one point which was quite stressed by two Serbian interviewees. Namely, they have

both noted that real transparent ways of working may not be easily achieved in the countries

where the corruption is possible and quite common, especially within the construction

sector. However, they do see the potential of bypassing this obstacle, mostly by closely

collaborating with known suppliers/subcontractors, where the previous project experience

was positive for all parties. In this way, if relationship is based on trust, parties can be open

for accepting the advice of their known partners (e.g. knowing well the top management)

and experimenting together to increase competitiveness on the market. Another option

which the Serbian BIM Manager has mentioned is related to the usage of Integrated Project

Delivery (IPD), in order to align the interest of the parties and motivate them to closely

cooperate for mutual benefits. Thus, both long-term and short-term partnerships may be a

solid base for initiating transparent supply chain practices. However, main decision driver

is considered to be the motivation for being transparent, and in the cases of trusted partners

it is quite clear and could provide stability and continuous improvement to the supply

chain, while in the case of IPD benefits achieved are more of a single project-based nature.

When the members realize the value of collaboration and knowledge sharing for mutual

interest, they may be open to experiment with methodologies as BIM. But they must be

aware of the potential which may be achieved and have appropriate motives for

implementing new transparent ways of working. In that case, cultural barriers may be

overcome if contractors decide to pilot BIM project with the trusting partners and design

the potential BIM solutions with them. As anticipated before, supply chain must be ready

to enter in BIM-related ways of working, where openness for information sharing plays a

key role for extracting full potential of BIM. This information shall be shared even outside

the project context, or by including all the partners in the early phases so to design solutions

which could suit to everyone’s needs.

As reported by Skanska6, by not having manufacturer as a partner before starting BIM-

enabled material tracking process on the site, obstacles related to willingness to share all the

information on components’ status have occurred. Namely, at the beginning of BIM and QR

codes application, manufacturers did not feel comfortable in sharing real time information

on components status via the cloud. Manufacturers felt that Skanska wanted to gain more

6 https://www.autodesk.com/autodesk-university/class/Supply-Chain-Management-BIM-360-2018#video



insight about their operations in order to judge their performance and conduct claim

management with proofs which may be tracked in the BIM environment. However, a lot of

effort and time has been invested by Skanska to convince the supplier in benefits which may

be achieved. At the end, manufacturer got convinced after experiencing the improvements

in material tracking and collaborative quality control. Only after a successful project

delivery with extraordinary results (only 3/1.468 prefabricated pieces of non-conforming

quality) the trust between the two parties has been established, as well as enthusiasm for

further exploration of BIM potential.

Thus, main takeover from the case study noted and interviews is related to the importance

of early involvement of the suppliers and subcontractors into the BIM environment.

Moreover, not only involvement is relevant but the engagement which shall facilitate

openness for information transparency. Thus, this barrier may be overcome through long-

term partnerships or IPD, since these strengthen the motives for tight cooperation.

However, since the choice of IPD cannot be directly impacted by contractors but rather by

Clients as a procurement strategy, partnerships shall be preferred solution for guaranteeing

trusting environment.

§ Organizational – Complexity of integrating processes & defining responsibilities

As anticipated before, contractor’s organization shall be ready to engage supply chain

members upstream and drive the BIM, since contractors could be the ones to initiate the

diffusion along the supply chain. Thus, BIM oriented culture within the contractor’s

organization is absolutely necessary, an organization which is curious to see the

improvements and grasp the opportunities of the four blocks previously mentioned. It is

interesting to note that all of the interviewees have stressed the need of enthusiastic and

BIM savvy people who will be eager to test the opportunities of BIM (e.g. at least during an

internship). In the case of the contractor, Italian BIM Manager emphasized the relevance of

the Research & Development team, as well as BIM Development team, which always have

the eyes outside the organization to catch the opportunities, test them and pilot if considered

promising. Therefore, it is also the culture of continuous improvement. However,

subcontractors (e.g. MEP, façade) should also have BIM proficient people who will drive

BIM within their organizations. Having one BIM Manager as a leader (e.g. that of main

contractor) and one BIM specialist for each subcontractor discipline is needed to guarantee

the smooth BIM workflow. Furthermore, requirement for this workflow is clear definition



of roles and responsibilities of each party, which is actually the job of the BIM Manager,

acting as a coordinator from general contractors’ organization and defining the BIM

Execution Plan. Moreover, when adding 4th and 5th dimensions, BIM responsible for 4D and

5D must be assigned as well, notes Italian BIM Manager. In order to clearly define duties of

the parties, Responsibility Assignment Matrix (e.g. RACI: Responsible, Accountable,

Consulted, Informed), which is commonly used in project management practices, may

support BIM workflows as well. For example, research by Getuli et al. (2016) has defined

BIM-related responsibilities in terms of supply chain members’ accessibility given to certain

action connected with BIM model (e.g. permission to view, add information, edit) within

the environment of Autodesk BIM 360.

Furthermore, interaction among supply chain members shall be regulated as well, with

clearly defined BIM-related standards, workflows and protocols (e.g. British Construction

Industry Council one) for managing interdependent activities, included in the contracts. All

the interviewees have agreed on the role of the codification as the core link among all the

information which is shared within CDE among the parties and 3D building information

models. Codes are the ultimate language unambiguously linking the elements with all their

associated information: geometrical ones, specifications and time-schedule, as well as

language for communication with the suppliers and subcontractors (e.g. purchase orders

and material tracking). In that sense, Italian BIM Manager stresses the relevance of

establishing common standards among the supply chain parties and encourages the usage

of Singapore BIM Guide (issued by Singapore Building and Construction Authority) due to

its simplicity as well as PAS 1192 (issued by The British Standards Institution) for

information management.

However, the first international BIM-related standard ISO 19650 (Organization and

digitization of information about buildings and civil engineering works, including building

information modelling (BIM) – Information management using building information modelling)

launched in 2018 may play a crucial role for allowing planning and management of smooth

collaborative processes along the supply chain by providing information management

framework. Like ISO 9001 for quality management, ISO 19650 shall become a universal

language for digital information management.

Finally, it is worth mentioning the example of Skanska and another issue faced during initial

implementation of BIM 360 Field with unknown suppliers for the management of precast



concrete elements flows. Namely, due to the difference in components’ codification

practices among parties, it was difficult to integrate quality control process in real time via

cloud. However, throughout the project execution, the solution was aligned to suit needs

and workflows of both parties, since speaking the same language was crucial for achieving

smooth information and material flows from supplier’s factory to the construction site. As

project manager of Skanska has noted, crucial success element would be:

“Speak and listen to everyone’s struggles and understand them to find a common solution.”

- Skanska, Autodesk University 7

Overall, BIM related standards and protocols (e.g. British CIC) should be able to regulate

the interdependent activities among the supply chain members, however processes must be

planned in advance. If desire is to achieve just-in-time material deliveries, efforts of

contractors and suppliers are needed. They shall be both open for compromise when

introducing new BIM tools which will impact their ways of working. However, by using

same information management standards and having a clear BIM Execution Plan, with a

definition of roles and responsibilities of the supply chain members, smooth workflows may

be achieved.

§ Technological – Appropriate and linked software infrastructure for collaboration

There is one interesting characteristic related to adoption of BIM as a technological

innovation for SCM and it is the phenomenon of network effect. The logic behind is very

simple – the more agents use it, the benefits when implementing it rise accordingly, or as

Shapiro and Varian (1999) stress: “The value of connecting to a network depends on the number

of other people already connected to it.” In that sense, the more supply chain actors collaborate

within BIM environment and contribute with their piece of information, the more value may

be created. The same observation is valid for the management of the supply chain activities

enabled by BIM. True information sharing can only be accomplished with both upstream

and downstream BIM diffusion (Benton and McHenry, 2010). However, this is possible in

the case of exchanging interoperable data, which can be achieved through the usage of IFC

or BCF files, which all of the interviewees have confirmed as currently in use and

functioning. In addition to these, usage of Application Program Interfaces (APIs) for

connecting manufacturers and their BIM-capable factories may be done to allow them




visualizing components status monitoring in 4D (e.g. usage of color-coded elements in the

models according to their progress on site).

Indeed, using a software from the same vendor (e.g. Autodesk which offers numerous

software solutions for multiple stages of the project and different needs of the supply chain

actors) would be a first best solution for tackling the question of software interoperability,

but quite far from reality. Thus, if actors are not able to use the software from the same

vendor and data losses may occur (in terms of losing parametric characteristics, not just for

visualization purpose), technological constraint may still have a big impact on diffusion of

BIM across the whole supply chain. For that reason, contractors should initiate workshops

and knowledge exchange sessions with suppliers and subcontractors, in order to

understand their workflows and technology needs, with the aim of co-creating a solution

which would be suitable for all parties. It is relevant for main contractors to be informed

regarding the software packages used by subcontractors and suppliers in current practices

and identify whether there are some common solutions suitable for them. Thus, the earlier

the supply chain members get together and try to find BIM-based solutions for integrating

their interdependent activities, the better. Main contractors should act as quickly as possible

while they can support those suppliers with a lack of digital competences (Wang et al., 2017).

On the other hand, there could be some BIM advanced manufacturers as mentioned by BIM

Coordinator and Italian BIM Manager, thus they could also contribute to solution

development. By doing so, contractors may impact the decisions of lower tiers in terms of

software infrastructure choices for BIM data exchange before the market becomes too

diverse in terms of technological solutions.

If BIM-based solutions are not present in the lower tiers, one of the practices used (example

from Italian BIM Manager) is hiring the 3rd party (in terms of software consultancy house)

to integrate all the non-compatible BIM formats. However, if the shop drawings provided

by suppliers and subcontractors stay in 2D, they may be blocking “live” characteristic of

BIM and prevent realizing full value of flexibility and timeliness realization through real

time changes and updates within federated information models. Keeping 2D may seem to

block the full potential of BIM but can be used in the transition phase during the first BIM

project, as noted by Italian BIM Manager. Namely, when the Italian contractor has piloted

the BIM project, traditional 2D driven workflows were followed in parallel with the newly



established BIM-enabled one. This was done with the aim of comparing the two workflows

and measuring improvements.

Furthermore, all the interviewees have stressed the importance of having cloud enabled

CDE which connects all the supply chain members in one digital ecosystem, especially the

teams on site and those in office for timely communication. Example of such proven cloud

solution is Autodesk BIM 360 Field, which offers components’ information in the form of:

code, location, status, install date, purchase date (Getuli et al., 2016). This cloud-based

workflow allows transparent material tracking directly via cloud, by scanning the

components code in certain milestones even with a mobile device and updating components

status. By doing so, pull-based lean methodology may be achieved, by informing all the

supply chain members in the moment when certain information is produced, thus

triggering further timely actions (e.g. material production and deliveries). This is also

enabled by unambiguous visualization in 4D environment, where each building component

has its unique code and color-coded status (Getuli et al., 2016). Furthermore, Italian BIM

Manager mentions another smart solution provided by iTWO 8 in the form of cloud-based

5D BIM enterprise solution, enabling demand-driven production for the suppliers, by

visualizing the status of building components enabled by connecting procurement and real-

time schedule on site.

However, one interesting topic raised by Serbian BIM Manager is related to the technology

readiness level concerning real time connections via cloud which could be considered as the

main enabler for the shared information models visualization and updates from

multidisciplinary sources. It may be more convenient to wait for 5g network to mature and

fasten the real-time information exchange process, since CDE platforms may be overloaded

and slow if shared among the whole supply chain, thus frustrating the users. On the other

hand, Serbian CEO stresses yet another advancement of the manufacturing sector which

does not wait 5g to diffuse but rather develops local 5g networks within their factories to

enable continuous communication and information exchange among smart machinery.

Thus, waiting for others to take action just results in losing the potential competitive

advantage and opportunity to pilot projects and gain knowledge before others in the market

do.

8 https://www.itwo.com/en/5d-bim-enterprise-platform-itwo-4-0/



Overall, main takeover is related to the need to gather the supply chain members and choose

the most suitable cloud and object-based solution offered by BIM, where the interoperability

will be tackled beforehand, in order to smooth the implementation process and neutralize

interoperability issues when BIM pilot project kicks out.

§ Economic – Lack of financial resources for investing into BIM solutions

Finally, not having sufficient financial resources shall not be perceived as a critical constraint

even for the SMEs, since the cost for BIM-related software packages could be somewhat

similar to that of CAD systems (Bryde et al., 2013) and due to the presence of network effects

explained before. However, perception is that labeling financial inability as a constraint for

any technology adoption is a common issue of enterprises and is tightly coupled with short

term orientation on the problem, since the benefits which could arise in the long run can

outweigh the costs of setting up and maintaining software solutions for collaboration.

Indeed, this is a common opinion and it is considered reasonable, but to one contractor or

subcontractor it sounds quite intangible and may not help in pursuing the investment.

Difficulty arises in providing exact quantification of cost savings which may be achieved by

implementing BIM solutions. As Serbian BIM Manager notes, during the introductory

presentations for the top management of the construction companies seeking to implement

BIM solutions, topic of economic feasibility is one of the first on the list. Their BIM solution

development team does mention the potential of around 10% project costs savings with BIM

solutions implementation and stresses the amount of wasteful activities as a result of

traditional fragmented and 2D-based approach to projects execution. However, these 10%

may vary according to the complexity of the project as well as be a direct consequence of

supply chain BIM capability and overall team performance. Thus, it would be more tangible

and reasonable to speak about benefits realization and demonstrate those with proven case

studies in terms of optimization of inventory management up and downstream, reduction

of RFIs and improved communication, reduction of production lead times (both on and off

site). In that way, motivation for investing may be impacted, by having satisfied supply chain

team and Clients.

Thus, this consideration on economic feasibility should be valid for all, even for SMEs.

Actors should just be aware of the potential which may be reached and the best way to make

them believe so is to show them. Here, main contractors shall step in and lead the process.

In the case of Skanska, this is exactly was has been done, by sharing the short-term project



benefits with subcontractors just to demonstrate the opportunities of real-time connection

and components installation status tracking which may be achieved with BIM 360 Field

(Autodesk)9. Skanska even provided supply chain members with portable devices (tablets)

connected to the cloud environment. By doing so, team on site was able to exchange the

data regarding prefabricated components ‘status with manufacturers by simply scanning

the component code and attaching the notes of the components’ conditions on cloud (e.g.

damaged or complying with quality standards).

As mentioned before, even in the case when subcontractors are not BIM proficient, a third

party may be hired to generate BIM-compatible documents. However, like Italian BIM

Manager has noted, suppliers and subcontractors will be paid less since they cannot

contribute fully with all the necessary information in a timely manner. Here the motivation

for investing plays a key role in adoption. For example, the motivation for building

components suppliers is clear when offering digital catalogs in BDOs form, due to the

marketing exposure. By doing so, fastening the design process for the architects (BIM

Coordinator gives an example of Velux and digital windows) and providing them with

smart digital product which contain all the additional information may be achieved.

However, in the case of subcontractors and less BIM proficient suppliers, contractors should

play an important role in helping them to build BIM capabilities, while clearly

demonstrating to the lower tiers benefits when piloting the projects, learning together and

feeling the improvements.




4.4 Putting it all together

Since cooperation and collaborative efforts of multidisciplinary supply chain members were

present as crucial elements for overcoming each of the barriers in previous section, this shall

be considered as the starting point for action. Perception is that general contractors shall be

ready to initiate integration and incentivize other parties to do so due to his bargaining

power and ability to influence lower tiers by posing requirements for collaboration (e.g.

using BIM as selection criteria). However, this shall not be done in an aggressive way, but

rather by forming a trusting environment based on partnerships. Contractors cannot and

shall not be alone in this process, since efforts and inputs from the upstream part of the

chain are crucial in order to establish integrated and responsive supply chain supported

with BIM.

Even though the survey respondents have identified technological and economic barriers as

the strongest ones for establishing BIM-based supply chain solutions, these may be

overcome with collaboration and knowledge sharing among supply chain members, after

clearly aligning the motives for doing so. Thus, resolving the social constraint is a priority.

In that sense, before grasping opportunities related to BIM-enabled supply chain

information and material management (4D visualization coupled with components status

monitoring with RFID tags and GIS or solely with QR codes linking the components from

the model to their real flows towards the construction site), all supply chain members must

be on board for this way of working. More specifically, they shall be ready to re-design their

processes from sequential to collaborative (e.g. material procurement, quality control or

logistics), or at least make a compromise for the common realization of the value along the

supply chain. However, this transition takes time and contractors should focus on

developing BIM capabilities of their suppliers and subcontractors (Wang et al., 2019). Thus,

this change shall be initiated with the trusting subcontractors and suppliers, those with

whom main contractor already had positive experience in project execution or has good

relationships with the top management.

Figure 29 below tries to explain the core concept of guideline in the following discussion,

and is related to the need of integrating following dimensions:

§ People (supply chain members: main contractor, subcontractors and suppliers);

§ The interdependent processes which those members follow throughout the project

execution (planning and management of supply chain activities: procurement of



materials, off-site production of building components, transportation and logistics

and on-site assembly of components) and only after

§ Technology (BIM related cloud solutions for real time information and material

tracking through components codes specifications and status updates).

The first step for main contractors is really to set up a well-functioning supply chain, in a

trusted environment, by closely collaborating with contractors and suppliers, as well as

integrating their processes by considering the needs of all parties upstream of the chain.

However, since survey has shown that supply chain members find this difficult and quite

complex, it shall be done in a partnering and trusting environment before any BIM pilot

project. This means that the members are aware that supply chain activities they execute on

a project base are highly interdependent and require efforts both from upstream and

downstream actors (presented with the link between members and activities in Figure 29)

which are needed to input the data for smooth collaboration. Only when the supply chain

is ready and eager to test the opportunities of BIM, technological element may be added to

reach that potential. By including BIM into the system, real time tracking of information and

material flows is facilitated, which are represented as the links between supply chain

members and activities respectively. What is relevant to be stressed is that BIM also plays a

role of the regulator of interdependent activities. Namely, its implementation requires clear

BIM Execution Plan, containing usage of information management standards (e.g. ISO

19650), definition of roles and responsibilities of the supply chain members regarding

information deliveries, as well as design of BIM workflows for achieving smooth

collaboration practices.



Figure 29. Guideline for setting up BIM-based SCM

In this way, BIM and supply chain are reinforcing each other. While the supply chain shall

be stable and formed in a trusting environment (based on principles of partnerships for

tighter integration) in order to grasp the full value of BIM, BIM can be used as a mean for

regulating and tracking the information and material flows among the actors in a

standardized code-based and transparent form. By doing so, each supply chain member is

enriching the building components with their piece of information and in the moment of

those information creation throughout the well-defined and regulated collaboration

processes enabled by BIM. Indeed, by pursuing such practices, value-added in terms of rich

building information models may be handed over to the Clients (besides the physical assets)

in the form of digital twins as a final result of successful collaboration. This way of working

may shift the competition in the construction sector from price based to value based, as a

result of supply chain management supported with BIM methodology. Furthermore, this

strategy may allow SMEs to gain competitive advantage over the big industry players.

Thus, contractor shall have partners eager for long term collaboration and invest a lot of

effort in raising the importance of cooperation, with top management involvement and

tailored trainings in order to guarantee the commitment and align the cultures of



organizations (such as done by Mace Business School10 and Skanska Supply Chain School11).

Partners should closely work together on integrating processes of quality control and

logistics management, supported with unambiguous language of communication (common

BIM-related standards for codification, protocols and workflows).

On the other hand, if contractors choose to set BIM as a selection criterion and continue to

build their BIM-related skills without including suppliers and manufacturers, only few of

the lower tier players may survive if being innovative. This approach may demonstrate

benefits in raising awareness of the lower tier regarding the importance of BIM proficient

skills and solutions within their enterprises, since industry is going towards BIM and

laggards may start losing numerous business opportunities. Namely, as Italian BIM

Manager noted, in the case when subcontractors are not BIM proficient, they are usually

paid less on the expense of the 3rd party needed to generate BIM compatible documents

from 2D drawings. However, within this approach, smooth integration of process is not

enabled per se, since the parties do not know each other nor trusting environment is present,

even in the case of selecting BIM proficient suppliers.

It is also interesting to mention that contractual forms such as Integrated Project Delivery

could suit quite well for BIM-based SCM practices (Succar, 2009). This is made clear after

looking at the definition of IPD below:

“Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a project delivery approach that integrates people, systems,

business structures, and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and

insights of all participants to reduce waste and optimise efficiency through all phases of design,

fabrication, and construction.”

- IPD Definition Task Group, 2007

It seems that by definition, agreements among supply chain parties as those in form of IPD

would suit perfectly as a solution for BIM-based supply chain management. The main

reason why this contractual form would suit well is the existence of clear motives for such

tight collaboration, since the reward scheme is directly related to the project success, and

risks are equally shared among the parties. By conducting such practices, actors do not have

the right nor interest to shift the risk to other parties, since they are focused on value co-

10 https://foresite.macegroup.com 11 https://www.supplychainschool.co.uk/partners/skanska/



creation with the aim of grasping higher profits. The better they perform together, the

higher the reward. And it is that simple. However, as anticipated, IPDs would be triggered

by the choice of Client’s procurement strategy, thus cannot be directly initiated by

contractors.

Finally, the most suitable strategy would be to pilot BIM learning project with chosen

partners. Since a prerequisite for this option is existence of tight and well-established

relationships between main contractors, their subcontractors and suppliers, supply chain

will be ready to grasp the opportunities offered by BIM and strengthen their relationship

cohesion with this learning experience. Lastly, it would be recommended to conduct pilot

projects with long lead and large components, mainly concerning ETO configurations (e.g.

prefabricated concrete elements, steel frames or façade) as proven with the case studies,

where tight integration among the members is needed. The crucial point here is Learn by

doing. Moreover, not only to learn but to feel the improvements which will highly affect the

future adoption process for enterprises.





5 Discussion and Conclusion

This chapter briefly answers to the research questions, presents limitation of the study and

recommendations for future research.

5.1 Summing up

Overall research framework in form of research questions and structure of respective

answers is shown in the Figure 30 below, while the following discussion will briefly present

the answers and main findings. Main logic followed was to firstly inspect practical

applications which BIM can offer for supply chain management purpose, followed by

barriers which could be faced by contractors and suppliers when thinking to implement

such solutions. Understanding of these barriers was relevant in order to provide guidelines

for successful application of BIM into network of supply chain actors, their interdependent

processes which determine the success of the complex construction projects.


RQ.1 Which are the opportunities and trends of BIM-based Supply Chain?

Opportunities which BIM can offer to support management of construction supply chain

are able to cover the whole material flow process, starting from generation of 3D

information models containing BIM digital objects connected with all the additional

information (their size, shape, location, specifications, enriched with installation schedule

and real time status), their procurement from that model, off-site fabrication, transportation



to the site and assembly on a planned facility’s position by their schedule. In this way, by

means of BIM, BDOs are able to trigger just-in-time flow of materials to the construction site

when they are needed according to their installation schedule and real progress on site. This

is made possible by unambiguous 4D visualization and CDE connecting all the supply chain

actors (those off and on site), where they can transparently collaborate, input their piece of

information and stay updated by other supply chain members actions. At the end, the

building components “flow back” to the digital environment from the real one, into a “digital

twin”, which is the ultimate value-added for the Client. BIM-enabled applications per

supply chain area are summarized in the Table 18 below.

Area of the supply chain Potential applications of BIM

Building materials/components

Procurement

§ Export of accurate material quantities coupled with

specifications from object-based BIM model; § Creation of bills of materials (BoMs) and purchase of

materials directly through BIM cloud tools; § Specification of codes for identification, coherent with

manufacturer (e.g. RFID tags, Barcodes/QR codes); § Complete 4D-enabled construction schedule for material

ordering; § Integration of up-to date BIM data with ERP.

Building

materials/components Off-site Production

§ Usage of BIM Digital Objects, coordination and update from real-time exchanged BIM model;

§ Specification of codes for components identification (e.g. RFID tags, Barcodes/QR codes);

§ Error free fabrication via BIM and CNC machines; § Establishment of pull production flow.

Transportation and Logistics

§ Site workspace and layout management; § Modelling of equipment movement and positioning; § Schedule coordination for Just in Time delivery; § Real-time location tracking of materials (e.g. with RFID

tags, Barcodes/QR codes); § On-site inventory optimization.



Table 18. Opportunities offered by BIM for supply chain management

According to McKinsey Global Institute (2017), these collaborative ways of working

(enabled by management of the supply chain and supported with technological means as

BIM) are able to boost productivity in the sector up to 20% and move away negative

perception about the construction sector’s progress stagnation. The core value of BIM here

is keeping the supply chain actors informed by allowing them communication within CDE,

where BDOs are coded in a unique way. In this way, enhanced information management in

a digital form alows timely material tracking in a physical world.

Thus, author has interpreted BIM-bas SCM as following:

“Collaboration and cooperation for achieving just-in-time management and tracking of

interdependent construction supply chain activities with the aim of value co-creation and

means of transparent BIM-based technological environment.”

However, the second research question has been set with the aim of understanding the

potential barriers for establishing such transparent practices along the supply chain.

RQ.2 Which are the common barriers for establishing BIM-based Supply Chain?

After discovering the opportunities enabled by BIM, it was of crucial importance to

understand the barriers perceived by supply chain members and their potential resistance

which could arise when implementing BIM solutions for total supply chain collaboration.

However, barriers are multilayered. Firstly, there are barriers related to technology

adoption solely within company’s borders (intra-organizational ones). Secondly, when

speaking about supply chains, relationships between actors shall be taken into account to

better understand their openness for information sharing and collaboration. This may be

considered as a requirement for implementing transparent BIM practices, as well as

collaborative management of the processes on inter-organizational level. Barriers perceived

by practitioners and their strengths are presented in the Figure 31 below.

Construction / On-site assembly

§ Improved coordination of specialist contractors on site;

§ Code and cloud-based components quality control (e.g.

Barcodes/QR codes, RFID tags);

§ Real-time installation status monitoring and uploading;

§ Scan to BIM and generation of the digital twin.



Figure 31. Overview of barriers perceived for BIM-based SCM

Even tough economic and technological barriers are perceived as the strongest ones for

initiating BIM-based SCM practices, it is positive to note the social one is somewhat lower.

This may signal that practitioners may be quite open for collaboration but are not quite sure

how to achieve those practices with lack of financial resources and choices of software

infrastructures for process integration along the chain. It is interesting to stress that

economic constraints are even stronger in the context of European construction market,

composed of almost 95% of SMEs. Due to these reasons, a third research question was set

with the aim of providing potential guidelines for overcoming the barriers identified and

grasping the potential of BIM identified while answering to the first research question.

RQ. 3 How could a Contractor set up a BIM-based Supply Chain?

Due to the nature of BIM-based supply chain, which may be considered as socio-

technological concept, it was interesting to spot the reinforcement between the topic of

supply chain management and BIM. Thus, the main takeover of this research is related to

this interdependence between the two, which can be seen in the Figure 32.



Figure 32. BIM-based SCM implementation guideline

Namely, this interdependence is relevant to be understood for BIM-based SCM

implementation. First step is related to integration of supply chain members, their activities

and processes, in order to provide a stable and trusting environment for future technological

applications. By conducting partnering practices, supply chain members are aware that

supply chain activities they execute on a project base are highly interdependent and require

efforts both from upstream and downstream actors (presented with the link between

members and activities in Figure 32) which are needed to input the data for smooth

collaboration. Only when the supply chain is built in a trusting environment and eager to

test the opportunities of BIM, technological element may be added to reach that potential.

By including BIM into the system, real time tracking of information and material flows is

facilitated, which are represented as the links between supply chain members and activities

respectively. In this sense, BIM can be used as a digital mean for regulating and tracking the

information and material flows among the actors in a structured and code-based cloud

environment, where interoperability among the parties is assured with the usage of IFC

data formats. Another contribution of BIM to supply chain management is related to its

regulatory power of actors’ responsibilities and execution of interdependent activities.

Namely, establishment of BIM requires clear BIM Execution Plan, containing usage of

information management standards (e.g. ISO 19650), definition of roles and responsibilities



of the supply chain members regarding information deliveries, as well as design of BIM

workflows for achieving smooth collaboration practices (with the support of BIM protocols).

By following this sequence of actions, barriers may be overcome with collaborative efforts,

mainly due to the presence of trust among the parties, encouraging them to find common

solutions suitable for achieving benefits.

By doing so, each supply chain member is enriching the building components with their

piece of information and in the moment of those information creation throughout the well-

defined and regulated collaboration processes enabled by BIM. Indeed, by pursuing such

practices, value-added in terms of rich building information models may be handed over to

the Clients besides the physical assets, in the form of digital twins as a final result of

successful collaboration. This way of working may shift the competition in the construction

sector from price based to value based, as a result of supply chain management supported

with BIM methodology.

Thus, main contractors, as initiators of such practices and integrators of the supply chain

shall call their partners for action, both suppliers and subcontractors, and start to closely

work on integrating their processes such as quality control and logistics management,

supported with unambiguous language of communication (common BIM-related standards

for codification and information management, protocols and workflows).



5.2 Limitations of the study

One of the main limitations of the study is related to the small number of interviews

conducted and lack of case study approach, which are considered as methodologies for high

quality data gathering. Even though the author was trying to fill this gap with the case

studies published in academic articles, BIM-related books and those from Autodesk

University, there was no access to the deeper exploration of the interdependence between

supply chain management and BIM. Another limitation is related to the generalization of

the concept and lack of detail, since no specific material flow has been chosen, while the

focus was mostly given to the Engineered-To-Order building components (e.g.

prefabricated concrete elements and steel frames).

5.3 Recommendations for future research

One of the perspectives which is missing within this research is related to financial flows,

deeper exploration related to integration of BIM and ERP solutions and impact of BIM-

based SCM on project cash flows. Furthermore, since the economic barrier is still perceived

as critical by practitioners (especially concerning European SMEs), potential supply chain

finance solutions shall be explored for financing BIM-ed supply chain. Namely, there could

be financing advantages which may arise when looking at the financial profile and

performance of the whole supply chain, not solely the enterprise one.





6 Bibliography & Sitography

Aconex Group (2018), “Three Technology Trends Shaping the Future of Design and Construction in 2018”.

Agarwal, R., Chandrasekaran, S. and Sridhar, M. (2016); “Imagining Construction Digital Future”, McKinsey & Company.

Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G. and Fitzgerald, E. (2000), “A survey of supply chain collaboration and management in the UK construction industry”. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 6 (2), 159-168.

Al-Saeed, Y., Pärn, E.A., Edwards, D.J. and Scaysbrook S. (2019), “A conceptual framework for utilizing BIM digital objects (BDO) in manufacturing design and production: A case study”, DOI: 10.1108/JEDT-03-2019-0065

Alwisy, A., Bu Hamdan, S., Barkokebas, B., Bouferguene, A. and Al-Hussein, M. (2018), “A BIM-based automation of design and drafting for manufacturing of wood panels for modular residential buildings”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 19, pp. 187-205. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2017.1411458.

American Institute of Architects - AIA (2007), “Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide”.

Associated General Contractors of America - AGC (2010), “The Contractors’ Guide to Building Information Modeling”, 2nd edition, Arlington, VA. www.agc.org/news/ 2010/04/28/contractors- guide- bim- 2nd- edition.

Autodesk (2014), “European Parliament Directive to Spur BIM Adoption in 28 EU Countries”, www.inthefold.autodesk.com.

Aram, S., Eastman, C. and Sacks, R. (2013), “Requirements for BIM platforms in the concrete reinforcement supply chain”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 35, pp. 1-17.

Bankvall L., Bygballe L.E., Dubois A. and Jahre M. (2010), “Interdependence in supply chains and projects in construction”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(5), 385-393.

Barak, R., Jeong Y.-S., Sacks R. and Eastman C. (2009), “Unique requirements of building information modeling for cast-in-place reinforced concrete”, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 64, 64–74.

BCIS of RICS (2011), “Building Information Modelling”, Survey Report, RICS, BCIS.

Bedrick, J. (2008), “Organizing the Development of Building Information Model”, AEC Bytes.

Benton, W.C. Jr. and McHenry, L.F. (2010), “Construction Purchasing & Supply Chain Management”, McGraw Hill, ISBN: 978-0-07-154886-1

Bosché F. (2012), “Plane-based registration of construction laser scans with 3D/4D building models”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 90-102.

Bosch-Sijtsema P., Isaksson A., Lennartsson M. and Linderoth H.C.J. (2017), “Barriers and facilitators for BIM use among Swedish medium-sized contractors“, Visualization in Engineering 5:3, DOI 10.1186/s40327-017-0040-7

Boston Consulting Group Perspectives (2015), “Solving the Construction Industry’s Productivity Puzzle”.



Boston Consulting Group (2016), “Digital in Engineering and Construction: The Transformative Power of Building Information Modeling”.

Boston Consulting Group (2017), “Shaping the Future of Construction: Inspiring Innovators Redefine the Industry”.

Brintrup, A., Ranasinghe, D. and McFarlane, D. (2010), “RFID opportunity analysis for leaner manufacturing”, International Journal of Production Research, 48(9), 2745.

Bryde, D., Broquetas, M. and Volm, J.M. (2013), “The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM)”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 971-980.

Cao, D., Li, H., and Wang, G. (2014), “Impacts of isomorphic pressures on BIM adoption in construction projects”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(12), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000903

Cerovsek, T. (2011), “A review and outlook for a ‘Building Information Model’ (BIM): A multi-standpoint framework for technological development”. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25 (2), 224–244. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.003

Charvat, W.C. (2000), “Construction Procurement in the Architect's Handbook of Profession al Practice”, 13th edition John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Christopher, M. (1992), “Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing Cost and Improving Services”, Financial Times Professional Ltd, London.

Christopher, M. (2005), “Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Adding Networks”, Financial Times Prentice Hall, New York, NY.

Cidik, M. S., Boyd, D. and Thurairajah, N. (2014), “Leveraging collaboration through the use of building information models”. Paper presented at the proceedings 30th annual ARCOM conference, Portsmouth, UK.

Costa, F., Granja Ariovaldo D., Andrea F., Picchi F. and Portioli Staudacher A. (2019), “Understanding Relative Importance of Barriers to Improving the Customer–Supplier Relationship within Construction Supply Chains Using DEMATEL Technique”, DOI: 10.1061/ (ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000680 © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Cox, A. and Ireland, P. (2002), “Managing construction supply chains: the common sense approach”, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 9 Nos 5/6, pp. 409-418.

Cox A. and Townsend M. (2000), “Strategic Procurement in Construction”, International Journal of Project Management 18(2):151-152, DOI: 10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00037-X.

Dainty, A.R.J., Millett, S.J. and Briscoe, G.H. (2001), “New Perspectives on Construction Supply Chain Integration”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 6, 163-173. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540110402700

Davies, R. and Harty, C. (2013), “Implementing site BIM: a case study of ICT innovation on a large hospital project, Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 15–24.

Denscombe, M. (2010), “The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects”, 4th edition, Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education.

Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.E. (2000), “Supply strategy and network effects-purchasing behaviour in construction industry”, European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 6 (3-4), 207-215.



Eastman, C. (2008), “BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers, and contractors” (1st ed.), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., and Liston K. (2011). “BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers, and contractors” (2nd ed.), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Edirisinghe, R. (2019), “Digital skin of the construction site: Smart sensor technologies towards the future smart construction site”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2019, pp. 184-223, Emerald Publishing Limited 0969-9988, DOI 10.1108/ECAM-04-2017-0066

El-Omari, S. and Moselhi, O. (2011), “Integrating automated data acquisition technologies for progress reporting of construction projects”, Automation in Construction 20 (2011) 699-705.

Ergen, E., Akinci, B. and Sacks, R. (2007), “Life-Cycle Data Management of Engineered-to-Order Components Using Radio Frequency Identification”, Advanced Engineering Informatics 4 (21): 356-366.

Ernst & Young (2018), “How are engineering and construction companies adapting digital to their businesses?”.

Eynon, J. (2016), “Construction Manager’s BIM Handbook”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Fabbe-Costes, N. and Jahre, M. (2007), “Supply Chain Integration Improves Performance: The Emperor's New Suit?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 37 No. 10, 2007, pp. 835-855, Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0960-0035, DOI 10.1108/09600030710848941

Frazier, G.L. (1983), “On the Measurement of Interfirm Power in Channels of Distribution”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, pp. 50-69

Garagnani, S. and Manferdini, A.M. (2013), “Parametric accuracy: building information modeling process applied to the cultural heritage preservation, 3DArch2013”, The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 25th to 26th February, Trento, Italy. DOI: 10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W1-87- 2013.

Getuli, V., Mastrolembo Ventura, S., Capone, P. and Ciribini, L.C.A. (2016), “A BIM-based construction supply chain framework for monitoring progress and coordination of site activities”, Creative Construction Conference 2016, Procedia Engineering 164 (2016) 542 – 549

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, No. XX, pp. 1046-1053. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.083.

Gigante-Barrera, A., Dindar, S., Kaewunruen, S. and Ruikar, D. (2017), “LOD BIM element specification for railway turnout systems risk mitigation using the information delivery manual”, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, DOI: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/245/4/042022.

Grilo, A. and Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2011), “Challenging electronic procurement in the AEC sector: A BIM-based integrated perspective”, Automation in Construction 20 (2011) 107–114.

Hadikusumo, B.H.W., Petchpong, S. and Charoenngam, C. (2005), “Construction material procurement using Internet-based agent system”, Automation in Construction 14(6):736-749, DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2005.01.004



Hamid, M., Tolba, O. and El Antably, A. (2018), “BIM semantics for digital fabrication: A knowledge-based approach”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 91, pp. 62-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2018.02.031

Hardin, B. and McCool, D. (2015), “BIM and Construction Management – Proven tools, methods and workflows”, 2nd edition, Wiley.

Harland, C. M., Lamming, R. C. and Cousins, P. D. (1999), "Developing the concept of supply strategy", Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 650–674.

Hill, B.L. (2017), “Digging for the Big Data Gold in Today’s Construction Projects” (2017); Xpera Group.

Hinkka, V. and Tatila, J. (2013), “RFID tracking implementation model for the technical trade and construction supply chains”, Automation in Construction 35 (2013) 405–414.

Holzer, D. (2016), “Best practice BIM, The BIM manager’s handbook”, Wiley and Sons, DOI: 10.1002/9781118982310.ch1, ISBN: 9781118982426.

Ismail, S.A., Bandi, S. and Maaz, Z.N. (2018), “An Appraisal into the Potential Application of Big Data in the Construction Industry”.

Irizarry, J., Karan, E.P. and Jalaei, F. (2013), “Integrating BIM and GIS to improve the visual monitoring of construction supply chain management”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 31, pp. 241-254.

Kalyan, T.S., Zadeh, P.A., Staub-French, S. and Froese, T.M. (2016), “Construction Quality Assessment Using 3D as-built Models Generated with Project Tango”, Procedia Engineering 145:1416-1423, DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.178

Karim, K., Marosszeky, M. and Davis, S. (2006), "Managing subcontractor supply chain for quality in construction", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 27–42.

Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V. and Sitzia J. (2003), “Methodology Matters: Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research”, International Journal for Quality in Health Care; Volume 15, Number 3: pp. 261–266

Kensek, K.M. and Noble, D. (2014), “Building Information Modeling: BIM in Current and Future Practice”, John Wiley & Sons

Khalfan, M., Khan, H. and Maqsood, T. (2015), “Building Information Model and Supply Chain Integration: A Review”, Journal of Economics, Business and Management, Vol. 3, No. 9.

Kim, D.-Y., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2010), “Performance assessment framework for supply chain partnership”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 187-195.

Kolarić, S. and Vukomanović, M. (2018), “Application and integration of BIM and ERP systems in civil engineering”, Common Foundations 2018 - uniSTem: 6th Congress of Young Researchers in the Field of Civil Engineering and Related Sciences, pp. 108-113, DOI: 10.31534/CO/ZT.2018.15

Koskela, L. (1992), “Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction”, CIFE Technical Report No. 72, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

Kundu, K. and Portioli Staudacher, A. (2015), “Lean Thinking and E-Commerce as New Opportunities to Improve Partnership in Supply Chain of Construction Industries”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering Vol:9, No:11.



Laakso, M. and Kiviniemi, A. (2012), “The IFC standard: a review of history, development, and standardization, information technology”, ITcon, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 134-161.

Lee, H. and Billington, C. (1992), “Managing supply chain inventory: pitfalls and opportunities”, Sloan Management Review, 33 (3), pp 65–73.

Lin, E.S.H., Roithmayr, R. and Chiu, S.K. (2015), “A Review of BIM Maturity for Tensile Membrane Architecture”, Conference: IASS 2015: Future Vision, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

London, K. (2009), “Industrial Organization Object-Oriented Project Model of the Facade Supply Chain Cluster”, in Construction Supply Chain Management Handbook, W.J. O’Brien, et al., Editors, CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida, USA, p. 13-1-13-46

Love, P.E.D., Irani, Z. and Edwards, D. J. (2004), “A seamless supply chain management model for construction”. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(1) 43- 56.

Lu, W., Huang, G.Q. and Li, H. (2011), “Scenarios for applying RFID technology in construction project management”, Automation in Construction 20 (2) (2011) 101–106.

Lundesjö, G. (2015), “Supply chain management and logistics in construction – Delivering tomorrow’s built environment”.

Madanayake, U. (Undated), “Value of adopting Building Information Modeling (BIM) to the supply chain in construction industry”, Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom.

Matthews, J., Love, P.E.D., Heinemann, S., Chandler, R., Rumsey, C. and Olatunj, O. (2015), “Real time progress management: Re-engineering processes for cloud-based BIM in construction”, Automation in Construction 58 (2015) 38–47 , DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.004

McKinsey Global Institute (2017), “Reinventing Construction: A route to higher productivity”.

Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D. and Zacharia, Z. G. (2001), Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2), 1–25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.tb00001.x

Mirarchi, C., Pasini, D., Pavan, A. and Daniotti, B. (2017), “Automated IFC-based processes in the construction sector: a method for improving the information flow”, Lean and Computing in Construction Congress - Joint Conference on Computing in Construction, Heraklion, Greece. DOI: 10.24928/JC3-2017/0274.

Moon, H., Dawood, N. and Kang, L. (2014), “Development of workspace conflict visualization system using 4D object of work schedule”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 50-65.

Mossman, A. (2008), “More Than Materials: Managing what’s needed to create value in construction”, 2nd European Conference on Construction Logistics, ECCL, Dortmund

Nam, C. and Tatum, C. (1992), “Noncontractual Methods of Integration on Construction Projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(2), 385–398. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364 (1992) 118:2(385)

O’Brien, W.J., Formoso, C.T., Vrijhoef, R. and London, K.A. (2009), “Construction Supply Chain Management Handbook”, CRC Press.

Papadonikolaki, E., Vrijhoef, R. and Wamelink, H. (2015), “Supply chain integration with BIM: a graph-based model”, Structural Survey, Vol. 33 Iss 3 pp. 257 – 277, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SS-01-2015-0001



Papadonikolaki, E., Vrijhoef, R. and Wamelink, H. (2016), “The interdependences of BIM and supply chain partnering: empirical explorations”, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12:6, 476-494, DOI: 10.1080/17452007.2016.1212693

Papadonikolaki, E., Verbraeck, A. and Wamelink, H. (2017), “Formal and informal relations within BIM-enabled supply chain partnerships”, Construction Management and Economics, 35:8-9, 531-552, DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2017.1311020

Papadonikolaki, E. and Wamelink, H. (2017), “Inter- and intra-organizational conditions for supply chain integration with BIM”, Building Research & Information, 45:6, 649-664, DOI:10.1080/09613218.2017.1301718

Perdomo-Rivera, J.L. (2004), “A framework for a decision support model for supply chain management in the construction industry”, Diss. Virginia Tech.

PwC (2018), “BIM Level 2 Benefits Measurement Methodology”, Report, © 2018 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Robinson, S. (2006), “Issues in conceptual modelling for simulation: setting a research agenda”, Proceedings of the 2006 OR Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop, Birmingham, 28-29 March.

Robson, A., Boyd, D. and Thurairajah, N. (2014), “UK Construction Supply Chain Attitudes to BIM”, 50th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings.

Sacks, R., Eastman, C., Lee, G. and Teicholz, P. (2018), “BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers, and contractors” (3rd ed.), John Wiley & Sons.

Sambasivan, M. and Yen, C.N. (2010), “Strategic alliances in a manufacturing supply chain: influence of organizational culture from the manufacturer’s perspective”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40 (6), 456-474.

Sawyer, T. (2008), “Modeling supply chains”, ENR, 260(14), 24.

Sears, S.K., Sears, G.A., Clough, R.H., Round, J.L. and Segner, R.O. (2015), “Construction Project Management: A Practical Guide to Field Construction Management”, Sixth Edition, John Wiley & Sons.

Shapiro, C. and Varian, H.R. (1999), “Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Shehu, Z., Endut, I.R., Akintoye, A. and Holt G.D. (2014), “Cost overrun in the Malaysian construction industry projects: A deeper insight.” Int. J. Project Manage. 32 (8): 1471–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman .2014.04.004.

Stojanovic, V., Trapp, M., Richter, R., Hagedorn, B. and Döllner J. (2018), “Towards the Generation of Digital Twins for Facility Management Based on 3D Point Clouds”, ARCOM 2018: 34th Annual Conference, Belfast, UK.

Strategic Forum for Construction (2002), “Accelerating Change”, A report by the Strategic Forum for Construction Chaired by Sir John Egan (www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/accelerating_change.pdf)

Strategic Forum for Construction Logistics (2005), “Improving Construction Logistics: Report for the Strategic Forum for Construction Logistics Group (www.strategicforum.org.uk/pdf/Logistics Report August 2005.pdf)



Succar, B. (2009), “Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders”, Automation in Construction 18, 357–375.

Tserng, H.P., Ho, S.P. and Jan, S.H. (2014), “Developing BIM-assisted as built schedule management system for general contractors”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 20 (1): 47-58, DOI: 10.3846/13923730.2013.851112

Turner, J.R. (1999), “The handbook of project-based management:”, 2nd ed., London: McGraw-Hill.

Volk, R., Stengel, J. and Schultmann, F. (2014), “Building Information Modeling (BIM) for existing buildings – Literature review and future needs”, Automation in Construction 38, pp 109-127.

Vrijhoef, R. and Koskela L. (2000), “The Four Roles of Supply Chain Management in Construction”. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. 6. 169-178. DOI: 10.1016/S0969-7012(00)00013-7.

Vrijhoef, R. (2011), “Supply chain integration in the building industry: The emergence of integrated and repetitive strategies in a fragmented and project-driven industry.” Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Walker, W.T. (2016), “Supply Chain Construction - The Basics for Networking the Flow of Material, Information, and Cash”, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Wang, L.C., Lin, Y.C., Lin, P.H. (2007), “Dynamic mobile RFID-based supply chain control and management system in construction”, Advanced Engineering Informatics 21, 377–390, DOI: 10.1016/j.aei.2006.09.003

Wang, Y., Gosling, J., Kumar, M. and Naim, M.M. (2017), “Accelerating BIM adoption in the supply chain”, Cardiff Business School.

Wang, Y., Gosling, J. and Naim, M.M. (2019), “Assessing supplier capabilities to exploit building information modelling”, Construction Innovation 19(3), DOI: 10.1108/CI-10-2018-0087

Weisheng, L., Chi Cheung, L. and Tung, T. (2019), “BIM and Big Data for Construction Cost Management”, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

World Economic Forum (2016), “Shaping the Future of Construction - A Breakthrough in Mindset and Technology”, Prepared in collaboration with The Boston Consulting Group.

Ying, J. F., Tookey J. and Roberti J. (2015), “SCM competencies in construction: Issues and challenges in New Zealand.” J. Eng. Des. Technol. 13 (4): 522–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-01-2013-0002.

Documents

Scuola di Ingegneria Industriale e dell’Informazione ... · POLITECNICO DI MILANO Scuola di Ingegneria Industriale e dell’Informazione Master of Science in Management Engineering