Building Information Modelling in the Canadian Architecture,

Engineering, and Construction Industries

by

Li Hao Zhang

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Master of Applied Science

Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering

University of Toronto

© Copyright by Li Hao Zhang 2019

ii

Building Information Modelling in the Canadian Architecture,

Engineering, and Construction Industries

Li Hao Zhang

Master of Applied Science

Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering

University of Toronto

2019

Abstract

Building information modelling (BIM) has gained popularity in the architecture, engineering, and

construction (AEC) industries around the globe. Comparing to other leading nations, Canada has

limited studies and initiatives on BIM. To fill the knowledge gap, the research will assess and

quantify the adoption of BIM in the Canadian AEC industry, and identify relevant visualization

technologies that facilitate the adoption of BIM. The first and second annual BIM surveys were

reported for the Greater Toronto Area and Canada in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Key findings

were highlighted in the thesis, such as the limited use of BIM in engineering, construction, and

facility management. In addition, a content-based literature review was conducted for 126 journal

articles from 2000 to 2018. Eight construction applications were identified and discussed. The

contributions of this research include three conference papers, two technical reports, and a review

article that will be submitted for peer review.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my upmost gratitude to my supervisor - Dr. Brenda Y. McCabe. She has

been an exceptionally wonderful mentor and I am very grateful to meet someone as intelligent,

charismatic, and elegant as Dr. McCabe. Her knowledge, guidance, and support have helped me

develop into the young professional today, and it has truly been an amazing two-year experience

at the Building Tall Research Centre.

I would like to thank Dr. Arash Shahi, who has been providing great advice and guidance

throughout the rollercoaster ride. His professionalism and editorial support have made it possible

for me to publish successfully in a timely manner.

I would like to recognize the members of the research group – Yuting Chen, Farid Mirahadi, Pouya

Zangesh, Kamellia Shahi, Mohammad Nahangi, Yuan Cao, Hossein Nasrazadani, Navid Kayhani,

Mark Whitell, Linzhuo Wei, and Ruifang Yang. Your support, comments, and suggestions were

well appreciated.

My family and friends have made my master’s journey much more colorful and exciting. Thank

you all for your encouragement and support.

Special thanks to the staff in the Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering. As the outgoing

President of the Civil Engineering Graduate Student Association, I would like to express my

sincere appreciation for your gracious support throughout the academic year.

Lastly, I am grateful for the financial assistance from the NSERC-RESCON Research Grant

(CRDPJ479087-15) and NSERC CGS-M Scholarship. Industry support from RESCON, Toronto

BIM Community, Canada BIM Council, and buildingSMART Canada were also greatly

appreciated.

iv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii

Introduction .................................................................................................................................1

Objectives ............................................................................................................................3

1.1.1 Thesis Timeline ........................................................................................................4

Methodology ........................................................................................................................5

Thesis Overview ..................................................................................................................6

Benchmarking Building Information Modelling in the Greater Toronto Area ...........................8

Abstract ................................................................................................................................8

Review of National and International BIM Reports ............................................................8

Sample Benchmark ............................................................................................................11

2.3.1 BIM Awareness .....................................................................................................11

2.3.2 BIM Workflow Perception ....................................................................................12

2.3.3 BIM Adoption Hindsight .......................................................................................13

First Annual BIM Survey in GTA .....................................................................................14

Survey Results and Sample Benchmarks ...........................................................................16

2.5.1 Main Discipline and Organization .........................................................................16

2.5.2 BIM Experience .....................................................................................................17

2.5.3 BIM User vs Non-Users.........................................................................................18

Conclusion and Future Work .............................................................................................19

The Adoption of Building Information Modelling in Canada ..................................................21

Abstract ..............................................................................................................................21

v

Introduction ........................................................................................................................21

Second Annual BIM Survey ..............................................................................................22

Results of the Second Annual BIM Survey .......................................................................24

3.4.1 Participation by Province .......................................................................................25

3.4.2 BIM Awareness and Usage ....................................................................................25

3.4.3 Confidence in BIM Knowledge and Skills ............................................................26

3.4.4 BIM Applications...................................................................................................27

3.4.5 BIM Beliefs ............................................................................................................29

Conclusion and Future Work .............................................................................................31

A Critical Review on the Evolution of Virtual and Augmented Realities in Construction ......32

Abstract ..............................................................................................................................32

Introduction ........................................................................................................................32

Methodology ......................................................................................................................34

4.3.1 Overview of Publications .......................................................................................35

VAR-Enabled Applications in Construction .....................................................................36

4.4.1 Coordination ..........................................................................................................37

4.4.2 Site Logistics and Planning ....................................................................................38

4.4.3 Communication ......................................................................................................40

4.4.4 Quality Control ......................................................................................................41

4.4.5 Training ..................................................................................................................42

4.4.6 Hazard Identification .............................................................................................44

4.4.7 Progress Tracking ..................................................................................................45

4.4.8 Education ...............................................................................................................47

Discussions ........................................................................................................................49

4.5.1 Limitations and Future Research ...........................................................................52

vi

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................56

Discussion of Other Contributions ............................................................................................57

First Annual BIM Report 2018 ..........................................................................................57

Second Annual BIM Report 2018......................................................................................58

...........................................................................59

Closing Chapter .........................................................................................................................63

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................63

Future Work .......................................................................................................................64

References ......................................................................................................................................66

Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................79

Appendix B ....................................................................................................................................89

Appendix C ..................................................................................................................................116

Appendix D ..................................................................................................................................126

vii

List of Tables

Table 1-1: Research contributions .................................................................................................. 4

Table 1-2: Thesis organization ........................................................................................................ 6

Table 2-1: BIM reports by countries ............................................................................................... 9

Table 2-2: Main survey questions ................................................................................................. 15

Table 3-1: Survey questions.......................................................................................................... 23

Table 4-1: Collection of journal articles for review ...................................................................... 35

Table 4-2: Summary of VAR applications in construction .......................................................... 50

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: The policy, process and technology fields of BIM (source: [4]) ................................. 1

Figure 1-2: Current timeline for the BIM project ........................................................................... 5

Figure 2-1: Example graph from the New Zealand 2015 BIM Report (source: [40]) .................. 10

Figure 2-2: Trends in BIM awareness and usage across countries and time ................................ 11

Figure 2-3: Agreement with question - Adopting BIM requires changes in our workflow, practices,

and procedure ................................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 2-4: Agreement with the question – I’d rather not/wish we hadn’t adopted BIM ............ 13

Figure 2-5: Participants’ discipline and organization ................................................................... 17

Figure 2-6: Agree or disagree with statement ............................................................................... 18

Figure 2-7: Perspectives from BIM users and non-users .............................................................. 19

Figure 3-1: Project timeline .......................................................................................................... 22

Figure 3-2: Sub-questions for Q12 ............................................................................................... 24

Figure 3-3: Participation from each province ............................................................................... 25

Figure 3-4: Population by provinces (source: [45]) ...................................................................... 25

Figure 3-5: BIM awareness and usage .......................................................................................... 26

Figure 3-6: BIM awareness and usage amongst the G4P ............................................................. 26

Figure 3-7: User and non-user’s confidence in BIM knowledge and skills ................................. 27

Figure 3-8: Top four BIM applications ......................................................................................... 28

Figure 3-9: Bottom four BIM applications ................................................................................... 29

ix

Figure 3-10: Cross examination of BIM beliefs for the G4P ........................................................ 30

Figure 3-11: Comparison of BIM beliefs in GTA ........................................................................ 31

Figure 4-1: Reality-virtuality continuum (adapted from [50, 51]) ............................................... 33

Figure 4-2: Number of articles from 2000 to 2018 ....................................................................... 36

Figure 4-3: Construction applications with respect to VAR technologies from 2000 to 2018..... 37

Figure 5-1: Project types ............................................................................................................... 60

Figure 5-2: Main tools .................................................................................................................. 61

Figure 5-3: Information sources.................................................................................................... 62

1

INTRODUCTION

Building information modelling (BIM) is a process of developing and managing a digital

representation of a built asset whose physical and functional characteristics are used as reliable

basis for decision making [1, 2]. As shown in Figure 1-1, BIM can be categorized into three

interacting fields: policy, process and technology. The combination and interaction of the three

fields provides a methodology to manage the building design and project data in digital format

throughout the building’s lifecycle [3, 4].

Figure 1-1: The policy, process and technology fields of BIM (source: [4])

The context of policies refers to the roles of regulatory bodies, educational institutions, and

research centres in the development of guidelines, regulations, and building standards for the

architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry. The policy field has been attracting

academic and industry interests to identify the benefits of BIM adoption and establish BIM

execution plans and frameworks [5–10]. For instance, Construction and Real Estate Network

(CORENET) is a national program that was established in Singapore to facilitate the submission

of BIM models for building code compliance [11, 12]. The Building and Construction Authority,

a primary partner in the development of CORENET, established the comprehensive BIM Essential

2

Guide Series for stakeholder groups (architects, structural consultants, MEP consultants, and

contractors) to effectively contribute and participate in a BIM-enabled construction project [13].

The process field includes the main stakeholders of a construction project involved in the

procurement, design, construction, management, and deconstruction of a built asset. Research in

the process field has focused on knowledge management, ontology models for BIM-based

applications, and BIM-enabled facility management [3, 14–16]. However, the concept of BIM as

“a single source of truth” for the development and management for a built asset represents an

idealistic notion in the AEC industry [17, 18]. The adoption of new technology in the AEC industry

is slow and companies are gradually realizing the benefits of BIM. The literature identified

numerous challenges and barriers that exist in the industry and within organizations, including a

lack of BIM knowledge, lack of demand, and initial investment costs [19–21].

The technology field includes stakeholders who develop software, hardware, network systems, and

equipment for the AEC industry to maximize value, increase productivity, and reduce redundancy

[10, 22]. Research in the technology field has focused on the issues of interoperability between

BIM platforms, the use of IFC (Industry Foundation Classes) format, and the development of BIM-

based analysis software [23–25]. The development of new technologies drives innovative solutions

for the design, construction, and management of the physical asset.

Recognizing the potential value of BIM technology and processes, several countries established

guidelines, mandates and initiatives for the adoption of BIM in public construction projects. For

instance, the General Services Administration (GSA) in the United Stated established a national

3D-4D-BIM program in 2003 and mandated the use of BIM for spatial program validation for all

government-granted projects in 2007 [26]. The United Kingdom (UK) government mandated a

level 2 BIM requirement in all public-sector projects by 2016. The level 2 requirement represents

the exchange of common source data files (not necessary the same file) between project

stakeholders [27]. The ultimate goal of BIM adoption in the UK is to reach the concept of “Open

BIM” (also known as Level 3 BIM) [27], which represents the full collaboration between industry

professionals using a single, shared BIM file in a centralized repository.

To gauge the adoption of BIM in the AEC industry, several countries (e.g., UK) and organizations

(e.g., National Building Specifications (NBS)) published National and International BIM Reports.

3

Canada, by comparison, lacks these sort of initiatives – i.e., there is no national BIM mandate and

limited engagement on the AEC professionals to understand the adoption and implementation for

BIM across Canada. The most relevant Canadian BIM survey data were found in two international

reports published by NBS in 2013 and 2016 with 78 and 127 responses, respectively [28, 29].

The limited participation rates provided an opportunity for the team at the Building Tall Research

Centre to fill the knowledge gap. The individual contributions of this research are expounded in

the next sub-section. Annual BIM surveys were established to raise the awareness of the BIM

initiative and gather insights and perspectives from the AEC professionals in the Greater Toronto

Area (GTA) and across Canada.

Objectives

The research objectives of this thesis are to:

1. Assess and quantify the adoption of BIM in the Canadian AEC industry

2. Identify relevant visualization technologies that facilitate the adoption of BIM in the

construction industry

The research undertaken in this thesis is part of a larger project in the Building Tall Research

Centre. The specific contributions of the thesis author in the larger project outcome are detailed in

Table 1-1. The presentation of each publication is outlined in section 1.3 – Thesis Overview.

4

Table 1-1: Research contributions

Code Publication Reference Type

[C.1] Zhang L. H., McCabe B. Y., Shahi A., Cozzitorto C., and De Berardis P.

“Benchmarking Building Information Modelling in the Greater Toronto

Area”. Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual

Conference, Fredericton, New Brunswick, June 13-16, 2018.

Conference

paper

[C.2] Zhang L. H., Cao Y., McCabe B. Y., Shahi A. “The Adoption of Building

Information Modelling in Canada” – accepted by the Canadian Society for

Civil Engineering Annual Conference, Laval, Quebec, June 12-15, 2019

Conference

paper

[C.3] Cao Y., Zhang L. H., McCabe B. Y., Shahi A. “The Benefits and Barriers

for BIM Adoption in Canada” – accepted by the 36th International

Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Banff, Alberta,

2019

Conference

paper

[R.1] McCabe B. Y., Shahi A., and Zhang L. H. “First Annual BIM Report for

the Greater Toronto Area,” Toronto, ON, Canada, Building Tall Research

Centre, University of Toronto, 2018. Available:

www.buildingtall.utoronto.ca.

Technical

report

[R.2] McCabe B. Y., Shahi A., and Zhang L. H., Cao Y., and Whitell M.

“Second Annual BIM Report – Canada” – in the process of publication by

the Building Tall Research Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2019.

Available: www.buildingtall.utoronto.ca.

Technical

report

[J.1] Zhang L. H., McCabe B. Y., Shahi A. “A Critical Review on the

Evolution of Virtual and Augmented Realities in Construction” – under

preparation for submission.

Journal

paper

1.1.1 Thesis Timeline

The research timeline is shown in Figure 1-2. The first phase of the research was established as a

pilot project to gain perspectives from the AEC professionals in the GTA. The project was

launched in a seminar event hosted by the Toronto BIM Community (tBIMc) in October 2017.

The first BIM survey was open for four months (i.e., October 2018 to February 2019) and received

252 responses, which almost doubled the previous international BIM survey by the NBS in 2016.

Sample results of the first BIM survey were presented in the 2018 Canadian Society for Civil

Engineering (CSCE) conference in Fredericton, New Brunswick [C.1]. The presentation drew

significant interest from the audience as the usual five-minute question and answer period became

a 30-minute round-table discussion.

http://www.buildingtall.utoronto.ca/http://www.buildingtall.utoronto.ca/

5

Figure 1-2: Current timeline for the BIM project

The full results of the first survey were published in a technical report [R.1] by the Building Tall

Research Centre. The thesis author was responsible for the categorization of questions, production

of graphs, technical analyses, and interview transcriptions, which are discussed in Chapter 5.

Shortly after the publication of the technical report, two national organizations – Canada BIM

Council (CanBIM) and buildingSMART Canada – reached out to the research group and

collaborated on the next iteration of the survey.

With the help of the two nation BIM organizations, the second survey engaged AEC professionals

across Canada. Following a similar timeline, the second survey was launched in October of 2018

and received 398 responses, which represents a 50% increase from the previous year. Sample

results of the second survey were analyzed and submitted to the 2019 CSCE [C.2] and ISARC

[C.3] conferences. The technical report [R.2] of the second survey is expected to be published by

the summer of 2019.

In addition to the BIM survey, a literature review was conducted on related visualization

technologies – virtual and augmented realities (VR/AR) – in the construction industry. A journal

paper will be submitted based on this work [J.1]. VR and AR are two of the most promising

technologies that offer opportunities in construction. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no

literature review has been published that specifically focuses on the current and emerging

application areas enabled by VR/AR technologies in construction.

Methodology

Because this research involved human participation, approval was sought and gained (Protocol #:

00035628) from the University of Toronto research ethics board. The protocols were strictly

followed. This protocol was extended for the second survey.

6

For the BIM survey, the two instruments for data collection were surveys and interviews. The

survey was based on existing BIM reports and identifying questions that were relevant to the

Canadian industry. A questionnaire was developed on SurveyMonkey and circulated as a test

within the Building Tall research group, board committee of the tBIMc, and directors of the

Residential Construction Council of Ontario (RESCON). Feedback and suggestions were

incorporated into the survey and the link was distributed via online media, including LinkedIn,

Building Tall website, and email invitations.

The process for developing the second annual BIM survey was similar to the first survey, with the

additional support from the two national BIM organizations – CanBIM and buildingSMART

Canada. Both surveys allowed respondents to volunteer to participate in an interview, thereby

providing additional insight based on their professional experience. Over 40 in-person interviews

were conducted in the past two years.

The methodology for the review article is unique to that chapter and as such, is outlined in Chapter

4. A content-based review was conducted to identify current and emerging applications enabled

by VR/AR technologies. Eight applications were identified, including coordination, site logistics

and planning, communication, quality control, training, hazard identification, progress tracking,

and education.

Thesis Overview

The thesis is organized into five chapters as shown in Table 1-2. Chapter 2 presents the first

conference paper – Benchmarking Building Information Modelling in the Greater Toronto Area –

which was published in the 2018 CSCE Conference in Fredericton, New Brunswick. Sample

results of the first survey were presented, along with benchmarking analyses against the recent UK

national BIM surveys.

Table 1-2: Thesis organization

Chapter 2 3 4 5* 5* 5*

Code [C.1] [C.2] [J.1] [C.3] [R.1] [R.2] *Discussed in the thesis but not included in its entirety

Chapter 3 presents the second conference paper – Adoption of Building Information Modelling in

Canada – which has been accepted by the 2019 CSCE Conference. The paper focuses on the

7

adoption of BIM on a national level and presents cross-examinations of participants’ response in

different provinces. Three questions (i.e., BIM awareness, applications, and beliefs) were cross-

examined and presented in Chapter 3.

Chapter 4 presents a review article that is currently under the preparation for submission to a well-

known journal (e.g., Automation in Construction). The review examines 126 articles whose

journals represent significant contributions in the current literature in the field of construction

engineering. The review identifies eight application areas enabled by VR/AR technologies and

presents ongoing themes of research which could be critical to the development of VR/AR in

construction.

Chapter 5 presents other contributions by the author, including the 2019 ISARC conference paper,

First Annual BIM Report, and Second Annual BIM Report. The purpose of this section is to

highlight the significance of each work, and not to replicate the work done already. The ISARC

conference paper is led by a colleague in the research group, and the thesis author will highlight

the contribution from his end. The First Annual BIM Report is included in Appendix A, where the

entirety of the technical analyses was conducted by the thesis author. Chapter 5 will also present a

portion of the Second Annual BIM Report, which includes additional content that was not

presented in the 2019 CSCE conference paper.

Chapter 6 summarizes the research of the master’s study and provides recommendations for the

development of the BIM project. This section paints the bigger picture of the research conducted

in the two-year span and indicates limitations of the research that can be overcome for the years to

come.

8

BENCHMARKING BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING IN THE GREATER TORONTO AREA

This chapter was published as a conference paper in the Proceedings of the 2018 CSCE Annual

Conference. The first and second sections of the conference paper – introduction and background

– were presented in Chapter 1. References are summarized at the end of the thesis. The remaining

sections are presented here in Chapter 2.

Zhang L. H., McCabe B. Y., Shahi A., Cozzitorto C., and De Berardis P. “Benchmarking Building

Information Modelling in the Greater Toronto Area”. Proceedings of the Canadian Society for

Civil Engineering Annual Conference, Fredericton, New Brunswick, June 13-16, 2018.

Abstract

Building information modelling (BIM) has gained increasing popularity in the global architecture,

engineering, and construction (AEC) industries. National and international BIM reports have been

published to gauge the level of BIM adoption in several countries. In this study, a review of the

existing BIM reports was conducted, and similar indicators (BIM awareness, workflow perception,

and adoption hindsight) were identified and analyzed. While the aggregate results at the national

and international levels are important, the local adoption of BIM (i.e., city-level) is not captured

in existing surveys and therefore is not well understood. Following a similar approach presented

in the national and international reports, the First Annual BIM Survey was designed to analyze the

local BIM adoption in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). A total of 252 respondents participated in

this survey and they shared interesting perspectives about BIM adoption in the local AEC industry.

While this paper presents sample survey results and benchmark analyses, the complete report of

the First Annual BIM Survey was published in April of 2018 and can be found online

(buildingtall.utoronto.ca or tbimc.ca). As the first of its kind, this study will investigate the local

level of BIM adoption in the GTA region on an annual basis. Future works include engagement of

other major cities and establish annual assessment of BIM adoption at the national level.

Review of National and International BIM Reports

Table 2-1 shows countries that have published BIM reports as standalone initiative or as part of a

collective international effort. United Kingdom (UK) published annual BIM reports since 2011

http://buildingtall.utoronto.ca/https://tbimc.ca/

9

and is currently in the process of collecting responses for their 2018 survey. The National Building

Specification (NBS), in collaboration with Royal Institute of British Architects and UK BIM Tasks

Force, has been on the forefront of collecting, researching and publishing the survey data to their

membership and the public audience. The design of the UK National BIM Reports changed

gradually as new efforts were introduced (e.g., national BIM mandate) and survey questions were

adjusted accordingly. The 2011 and 2012 UK BIM reports presented a comprehensive list of

questions and short analyses of corresponding graphs [30, 31]. Onwards from 2013, the NBS

categorized the survey questions into sections (e.g., BIM Experience, BIM and Governance, and

Attitude towards BIM), and provided more in-depth analyses and outlook on the survey questions

and corresponding graphs [32–35]. Simple benchmarks were presented in the 2014, 2015, and

2016 National BIM Reports, as trends and patterns were identified in these surveys from year to

year. In 2017, the focus of the BIM report was to examine the organizational engagement level for

BIM adoption and implementation [36], specifically if the organization has met the demand of

national mandate to use BIM in public-sector projects. It is expected that the report design and

structure will continue change overtime because of the increase in BIM adoption and

implementation within the AEC industry. However reoccurring common themes, such as BIM

experience, can be used to benchmark against those from previous year or other National BIM

Surveys. The level of BIM adoption in the AEC industry is influenced by many factors (e.g.,

political, organizational, and technological), and so publishing annual report is an effective

measure to identify the status quo, challenges, and trends in the industry.

Table 2-1: BIM reports by countries

Year of Report

Countries 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

United Kingdom ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

New Zealand ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Canada ✓* ✓*

Finland ✓*

Japan ✓*

Denmark ✓*

Czech Republic ✓* Note: the asterisk notation (*) indicates participation in the international NBS survey and publication in the UK

report of that year.

New Zealand (NZ) has also been active; their first BIM Annual BIM Report was published in 2012

by Masterspec. The design and format of the 2012 and 2013 NZ BIM reports were similar to the

10

2011 and 2012 UK BIM reports [37, 38]. In 2014, the BIM Acceleration Committee (BAC) was

established to drive the adoption of BIM and increase the awareness of BIM benefits in the

industry, and they have been responsible for overseeing the publication of NZ Annual BIM

Reports. The style and structure of the NZ reports from 2014 to 2017 are different than those

published by the NBS in the UK. The NZ reports categorized the participants into industry and

client groups, and perspectives from these two groups were compared against one another [39–

42]. In addition, the reports have included an interesting predicative component in their graphs as

shown in Figure 2-1. For example, the 2015 BIM report presented the percentage of projects that

use BIM in 2014 (solid green line) and 2015 (solid light green line), while indicated the prediction

for 2015 (dotted light green line) and 2016 (blue dotted line). The estimation and actual percentage

for 2015 were significantly different from each other and do not show a good predicative pattern;

however, this component shows an innovative approach to estimating the trend of the industry.

Perhaps as the NZ industry gathers more data over the years, a better predicative model can be

established to determine the trends.

Figure 2-1: Example graph from the New Zealand 2015 BIM Report (source: [40])

International BIM Reports were published by the NBS in 2013 and 2016, in which Canada took

part. New Zealand and Finland participated in the 2013 International BIM Report and Japan,

Denmark, and Czech Republic were part of the 2016 International BIM Report. While the structure

and design of the International BIM Reports were similar to the UK Annual BIM Reports, there

were significantly fewer questions in the international reports.

2014 actual 2015 predicted

2015 actual

2016 predicted

11

Sample Benchmark

Common questions were identified in the National and International BIM Reports. The

benchmarking analyses, discussed in the following sub-sections, provide insights into the national

BIM adoption amongst different countries. Similar benchmarking technique will be used for

analyzing the survey results for the local BIM adoption in the GTA to available data in the National

and International Surveys.

2.3.1 BIM Awareness

A common question in the national and international surveys referred to the respondents’

awareness and use of BIM. Identifying participants’ perception in this area indicates the adoption

status at the national level. Figure 2-2 shows the awareness level in seven countries.

Figure 2-2: Trends in BIM awareness and usage across countries and time

While the increase in awareness and use of BIM in Canada from 2013 and 2016 is rather small,

the results are not continuous – lacking responses from 2014 and 2015 unlike the UK surveys.

12

Interestingly, the awareness level in 2013 for Canada (64%) is significantly higher than that for

UK (39%), even though the Canadian government had not established any regulation for the use

of BIM in public-sector projects, and national or local guidelines have not been established in

2013. This might be due to bias in the sampling methods.

The trend in BIM awareness for UK has been generally consistent; participants indicated an

increase in BIM use and the number of people who are not using BIM is decreasing. There was a

dramatic increase in awareness and use of BIM from 2011 to 2013. This was largely due to the

introduction of a government mandate in 2011 to enforce the implementation of 3D BIM by 2016

[31]. From 2014 to 2017, the New Zealand National BIM Report changed the survey format and

did not include an awareness section. However, a significant increase of awareness was shown

between 2012 and 2013. Other countries showed varying degrees of BIM awareness and use.

Denmark showed the highest rate of BIM awareness and adoption in 2016. Generally, European

countries show a high rate of BIM adoption because they have existing mandates and guidelines

that facilitate the use of BIM in their AEC industry. Similarly, Finland had a significant BIM

awareness and use rate in 2013. Japan is gradually adopting BIM into the industry and Czech

Republic is in the early stages of adoption, as only a quarter of the respondents are aware and

currently using BIM.

2.3.2 BIM Workflow Perception

Defined as a series of processes in which a piece of work passes from initiation to completion [43],

the workflow of a BIM-driven project requires fundamental changes in the project delivery

methods and the organizational structure to facilitate the integration of BIM in project planning,

design, procurement, construction, and facility management. As a reoccurring question in the

National and International Surveys, participants were asked about their perception in project

workflow if BIM were to be, or had been, adopted in their practices. The participants were

categorized into users and non-users of BIM: users are defined as those who have used, or are

currently using BIM on projects, and non-users are those who have a basic understanding about

BIM but do not use BIM on a regular basis. As shown in Figure 2-3, at least 70% of the

participants, regardless of users or non-users, agreed that adopting BIM requires changes. The

perspectives of non-users may differ slightly from the users; however, both parties showed strong

13

belief that integrating BIM in practice requires changes in existing project and organizational

workflow.

Figure 2-3: Agreement with question - Adopting BIM requires changes in our workflow,

practices, and procedure

2.3.3 BIM Adoption Hindsight

Understanding that BIM workflow facilitates the transition from the 2D-based design to BIM-

driven projects, participants were asked if they regret adopting BIM for their projects (Figure 2-4).

BIM users generally agree that they do not regret adopting BIM in their projects or incorporating

BIM in the workflow, practices or procedure, and fewer than 10% of BIM users indicated that they

regret using BIM. By comparison, non-users indicated stronger responses that they regret using

BIM, and the degrees of discrepancy vary across different countries.

Figure 2-4: Agreement with the question – I’d rather not/wish we hadn’t adopted BIM

14

The lowest degree discrepancy between user and non-user was shown in Denmark 2016, where

both groups have less than 5% of their respondents that regret adopting BIM in projects. This may

be attributed to the advanced BIM guidelines and awareness in Denmark [29]. A decrease in regret

is also shown from Canada 2013 to 2016, where both user and non-user groups showed an 8%

decrease in this belief. This indicates a growth in the understanding and adoption of BIM from

users’ and non-users’ perspectives that the Canadian AEC industry is gradually adopting BIM into

construction projects.

First Annual BIM Survey in GTA

The First Annual BIM Survey was designed by the author in collaboration with the Building Tall

Research Centre at University of Toronto and the Toronto BIM Community (tBIMc) – a local

chapter of the buildingSMART Canada – to assess the level of BIM adoption within the local AEC

industry in the GTA region.

Survey questions from the NBS National and International Surveys were adopted selectively to

design the First Annual BIM Survey. While the complete online survey can be found in Appendix

A, the survey outline is shown in Table 2-2. The questionnaire was structured into three sections:

General Information, BIM Experience, and Future of Construction Industry. Basic information,

such as demographics, discipline, and organization were first gathered in the General Information

section. Then, participants proceeded to share their BIM experience, whether they have used the

technology, and provided their insight into the current AEC industry with regards to BIM adoption

in the GTA. Finally, participants were asked to share their perspective about the Future of

Construction Industry. Although the number of main questions is 25, several questions (e.g., Q9)

comprised of sub-questions. As well, some questions (e.g., Q5) ask participants to choose from

more than one options. These “options” questions were categorized as sub-questions because each

option represents a question (either “yes” or “no” response will be triggered). Thus, the total

number of sub-questions was over 100.

The First Annual BIM Survey was launched online on October 18th, 2017 at a tBIMc event; it

closed in early February of 2018. Realizing the limited participation rate in the previous Canadian

National BIM Surveys of 78 and 127 responses in 2013 and 2016, respectively, the survey in this

research was shared and promoted via online platforms, including LinkedIn posts and websites

15

(buildingtall.utoronto.ca and tbimc.ca), to promote the participation of the questionnaire. Quick

Response (QR) cards were printed with the appropriate background information about the survey

and research team. These cards were shared with local AEC companies in the GTA to further

encourage participation in the survey.

Table 2-2: Main survey questions

Section No. Description

General

Information

Q1 What is your gender?

Q2 What is your age?

Q3 What is your main discipline?

Q4 Years of professional experience?

Q5 Which of the following best describes your organization's type? (9 options)

Q6 Number of people in your organization?

Q7 Where is your organization located?

Q8 Where is your organization currently doing most of their work?

BIM

Experience

Q9 Thinking about the projects you were involved with over the last 12 months

(with or without BIM), did you ever…? (7 sub-questions)

Q10 How familiar are you with BIM?

Q11 Confidence level in BIM knowledge and skills?

Q12 Do you agree, neither agree or disagree, or disagree with the following

statements? (10 sub-questions)

Q13 Within your organization, have you ever adopted BIM for projects you have

been involved with?

Q14 How many parties (outside of your organization) do you share the BIM with?

Q15 In your organization, what are the main barriers to using BIM? (8 options)

Q16 What do you think the industry-wide barriers are to implementing BIM? (7

options)

Q17 In your opinion, how much would each phase of the project benefit from BIM?

(4 options)

Q18 When producing drawings or models over the last 12 months, which of the

following tools did you mainly use? (7 options)

Q19 Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (11 sub-questions)

Future of

Construction

Industry

Q20 Approximately in what percentage of projects have you used BIM in the last 12

months?

Q21 Which of these statements better describes your organization?

Q22 How likely are you to turn to the following sources of information about BIM?

(9 sub-questions)

Q23 Which of the following Canadian BIM resources are you currently aware of? (6

options)

Q24 In your opinion, which of the following applications could be useful in the

future of the construction industry? (3 sub-questions)

Q25 In your opinion, how likely are the following technologies to have a significant

influence on the construction industry over the next 10 years? (9 sub-questions)

Overall, the survey was well-received in the GTA; 252 people from the AEC communities

participated. The response rate was a significant improvement over the 2016 NBS Survey and the

http://buildingtall.utoronto.ca/https://tbimc.ca/

16

survey results captured intriguing perspectives from the AEC professionals. The U of T Research

Team also met with professionals who wanted to share more about BIM adoption in the local AEC

industry. A technical report was published online in April 2018, and can be found on the Building

Tall Research Group (buildingtall.utoronto.ca) and tBIMc (tbimc.ca) websites.

Survey Results and Sample Benchmarks

Sample survey results are shown in the following sections, including in-depth benchmark analyses

for the GTA Survey results against data primarily available in the UK National BIM Surveys.

2.5.1 Main Discipline and Organization

As shown in Figure 2-5, participants represented various disciplines and organization types. The

distribution of the main disciplines for the GTA 2018 Survey is similar to that of the UK 2016

Survey. The recent UK 2017 Survey did not include participant’s main discipline for the technical

report; however, the UK 2012 Survey showed a similar participant distribution pattern compared

to the one presented in the UK 2016 Survey. Figure 2-5a shows that the majority of the GTA

respondents (40%) have architecture backgrounds, which is similar to the UK 2016 Survey. A

small portion of the respondents also come from “other” disciplines, which include real estate,

development, software development, VDC (virtual design and construction) specialist, education,

and interior designer. There is a greater percentage of BIM specialists and civil engineers in the

GTA Survey than the UK Survey. By comparison, the UK had a greater percentage of contractors

and estimators than the GTA Survey. The GTA Survey reached out to the engineering

professionals as the UK Survey collected more results from construction industry.

Figure 2-5b shows that the majority (62%) of the respondents work in the architecture industry.

However, the construction industry is surprising well represented at 35% when construction

management, construction and general contractors are combined. Benchmarking this variable

against other countries was not possible as they did not include participants’ organization type.

The adoption of BIM may be attracting talents from the architecture industry to expedite the

technological advancement in the construction industry as new positions such as VDC coordinator,

specialist, and manager are being introduced in the AEC industry. This shows the development of

BIM skills and expertise are transferrable amongst various disciplines. The engineering industry

has 21% contribution as professionals are gradually adopting BIM and BIM-based analytical tools

http://buildingtall.utoronto.ca/https://tbimc.ca/

17

in their field of work. The survey did not receive a significant number of responses from owners

and facility management, as the primary focus was on stakeholders within the AEC industry.

a) Main discipline b) Organization type

Figure 2-5: Participants’ discipline and organization

2.5.2 BIM Experience

Participations were asked to share their experience in BIM, whether they had completed previous

project that required BIM, or have good understanding about BIM but are not currently using BIM.

This section presented a series of questions and sample perspectives of the participants are shown

in Figure 2-6.

While respondents understand that BIM can bring benefits to all phases of a project, including

operation and maintenance, they also indicated that clients or owners do not understand the

benefits of BIM, as shown in Figure 2-6a. Compared to the UK 2017 National Survey, a large

portion of respondents (39%) in the GTA survey remains neutral about the question. Not every

project requires BIM from the owners’ perspectives, but they may be influenced by the BIM-

generated designs and thus exposed to new technology in the construction industry as they seek

ways to reduce cost and improve efficiency for a construction project. The possible reason for

18

participants to be neutral about this question is that owners may understand the benefits of BIM if

the concept and benefits of BIM are properly explained; however, the owners will not request BIM

in the proposals if professionals do not instill the belief and or benefits of BIM.

a) Clients don’t understand the benefits of BIM b) I trust what I hear about BIM

Figure 2-6: Agree or disagree with statement

Figure 2-6b indicates that respondents have mix feelings about what they hear about BIM. The

respondents in the GTA survey have 4% disagreement with this statement, whereas a quarter of

the UK 2017 participants disagree with this statement. Whilst BIM is commonly used as a 3D

rendering tool, the holistic perspective about the concept of BIM, such as information

management, is not well understood by the AEC communities. There needs to be a change in

company structure, workflow, and project delivery methods in order to maximize the benefit that

BIM can bring to a project. It is understandable that respondents have neutral feelings about BIM

because some participants may understand the technological aspect of BIM, but they are lacking

the overall perspective of the adoption process for the industry. Similar to the UK 2017 survey, a

significant portion of respondents remain neutral about this question. Some participants may also

understand the process of building design and realize the benefits that new technology can bring

to the project. However, they are hesitant to include such tool because of the difficulties in

utilization of the technology.

2.5.3 BIM User vs Non-Users

Figure 2-7 shows two perspectives from BIM users and non-users in the GTA 2018 and UK 2017

National Surveys. The discrepancy between GTA and UK respondent is significant for the notion

that adopting BIM facilitate international working relationship. This was confirmed through in-

person interviews that followed the GTA survey, as users indicated that being proficient in BIM

gives them a significant competitive advantage when bidding for international projects. There is a

consensus between user and non-user for the UK survey that only one-third of participants agree

with this idea. The concept of Open-BIM in the UK may present a challenge to the industry because

19

of the interoperability issue that arises for sharing BIM across different platforms. The North

American industry is largely dominated by Autodesk, specifically Revit is the most common BIM

platform. The use of common platforms will sprout international opportunities for firms because

of the minimum issues with interoperability, while reduced competition poses other challenges.

Regardless, parties have to ensure that they collaborate amongst stakeholders, meet local code

standards, and establish frequent communication to facilitate international working relationships.

Figure 2-7: Perspectives from BIM users and non-users

Figure 2-7 also shows that BIM users and non-users disagree over the clients’ demand for BIM in

future projects. The belief is consistent for the GTA 2018 and UK 2017 National Surveys, where

BIM users agree much more strongly than non-users that there will be an increase in demand for

BIM in request for proposals. Non-users are not using the technology and thus may be biased in

what the client is demanding, whereas BIM users are using the technology to generate models in

part to fulfil the requirements stipulated by the clients. The discrepancy between user and non-user

is expected, but the difference in belief will continuously examined as new technologies are

adopted in construction projects.

Conclusion and Future Work

This paper investigated various BIM adoption strategies and identified a gap in research for the

adoption of BIM at a local level through literature review. In addition, this research provides a

summary of the National and International BIM Surveys, which were utilized to design the First

Annual BIM Survey for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The goal was to capture the adoption

status in the local AEC industry. Results show attitudes relative to participants’ job discipline,

types of organization, general experiences with BIM, and perspectives on the current Canadian

20

AEC industry. The distribution of disciplines in the GTA survey was similar to that of the UK

survey, whilst benchmarking participants’ organization type was not possible due to the lack of

available data in either National or International Reports. Participants have mix feelings about the

general experiences with BIM, as the concept of BIM needs to be well informed to the

professionals and owners. Across the GTA and UK survey for BIM users versus non-users, BIM

users have more positive perspectives about owners requesting BIM in the near future. However,

GTA respondents have stronger belief that BIM will facilitate international working relationships

comparing to UK respondents. The similarity and difference in belief across the GTA and UK

survey presents interesting perspectives about the AEC industry in the respective region. The

complete survey result and analysis for the First Annual BIM Survey are published online at the

Building Tall Research Centre (buildingtall.utoronto.ca) and tBIMc (tbimc.ca) website. This

initiative will be repeated on an annual basis to establish the trends and pattern for the local

adoption in the AEC industry.

http://buildingtall.utoronto.ca/https://tbimc.ca/

21

THE ADOPTION OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING IN CANADA

Chapter 3 is a conference paper submitted to the 2019 CSCE Annual Conference. The references

section has been combined at the end of the thesis.

Zhang L. H., Cao Y., McCabe B. Y., Shahi A. “The Adoption of Building Information Modelling

in Canada”. Submitted to the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual Conference, Laval,

Quebec, June 12-15, 2019.

Abstract

The First Annual BIM Survey was published in 2018 to understand the local adoption of Building

Information Modelling (BIM) in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industries

in the Greater Toronto Area. Technical analyses for the survey were also presented in the 2018

CSCE Conference in New Brunswick. Subsequently, the Second Annual BIM Survey was

conducted in collaboration with the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, Canada BIM

Council, BuildingSMART Canada, and local BIM chapters to engage AEC professionals in

Canada. In this paper, sample results of the second survey are presented and benchmarked against

those in the first survey. Cross-examinations of provinces and perspectives of BIM users and non-

users are also discussed. This study serves as one of the milestones for BIM transition in Canada

and aims to present a holistic view of the role that BIM plays in the future of the AEC industry.

Introduction

In 2018, the Building Tall Research Centre (BTRC) at the University of Toronto reported the First

Annual BIM Survey to gauge the adoption and implementation of Building Information Models

(BIM) in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industries in the Greater Toronto

Area (GTA). The pilot project was developed because of the limited knowledge in BIM adoption

in the local AEC community. The 2018 survey garnered 252 participants from the GTA region

and positive feedback were received during interviews [44]. Technical analyses of the survey were

presented in the 2018 Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (CSCE) conference in New

Brunswick [4]. After the publication of the 2018 survey and CSCE conference paper, two national

BIM organizations – Canada BIM Council (CanBIM) and buildingSMART Canada – reached out

22

to researchers at the BTRC and proposed to launch a national BIM survey. Similar to the First, the

Second Annual BIM Survey was announced and opened in October 2018 at a Toronto BIM

Community event and closed the following February. Collaborating with Residential Construction

Council of Ontario, CanBIM, buildingSMART Canada, and local BIM chapters, the 2019 survey

was disseminated across Canada. The timeline of the First and Second Annual BIM Surveys is

shown in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1: Project timeline

In this paper, sample results from the Second Annual BIM Survey are presented, along with

benchmark analyses for the first survey. The aggregate results will be published as a technical

report in June of 2019, which can be found on the Building Tall Research Centre

(www.buildingtall.ca). Cross-examinations for different provinces and perspectives of BIM users

and non-users are also discussed. The contribution of this study is to provide a holistic perspective

of the adoption and implementation of BIM in the Canadian AEC industry.

Second Annual BIM Survey

A BIM task force based in the United Kingdom (UK) – National Building Specifications (NBS) –

has been publishing annual reports that summarize the adoption of BIM for the UK nation. Their

survey questions were partially adapted in the 2018 survey. The 2019 survey follows a similar

format to that of the 2018 survey, with some adjustments to fit the scope of capturing the nation-

wide perspectives. Table 3-1 shows the major 2019 survey questions; the full questionnaire can

be found in English in Appendix C and in French in Appendix D.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=VtC_2Fj9zD3HxJ_2F_2Fss0XtIrBUFSNuRwMdd19NuvdM_2FOHIOZBxwDztfKpzSBpIy2VRU&state=invite_modalhttps://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=J_2BxrV_2BFqM1KnvjeqlmfM_2Fdeh53WQfzEAND9Z_2FWMue8EhcO6IDP2uSAQgRiHUNz48&state=invite_modal

23

Table 3-1: Survey questions

Section No. Description

1. General

Information

Q1 Which of these better explains your main role?

Q2 How many years have you been working as a professional in your discipline?

Q3 What is your age?

Q4 In what province/territory is the office in which you primarily work?

Q5 In what city are you currently working?

Q6 How would you describe your organization type? (14 options)

Q7 How many people are employed in your organization (including yourself)?

Q8 Where is your organization currently doing most of their work?

Q9 Which of the following project types have you participated in the past 12

months? (10 options)

Q10 How familiar are you with BIM?

Q11 Which statements best describes your organization?

2. BIM

Experience

Q12 Thinking about the projects you were involved within the last 12 months, did

you ever…? (7 options)

Q13 How confident are you in your knowledge and skills in BIM? (2 sub-questions)

Q14 Do you agree or disagree with the following BIM beliefs? (10 sub-questions)

Q15 Within your firm, have you ever adopted BIM for projects you have been

involved with?

Q16 Approximately in what percentage of projects have you used BIM in the last 12

months?

Q17 How many stakeholders and/or organizations (outside of your own) do you

typically share BIM with on a project?

Q18 What are your thoughts on Open BIM? (5 sub-questions)

Q19 Over the last 12 months, which of the following tools did you mainly use? (19

options)

Q20 What do you use BIM for? (18 options)

Q21 What are the main barriers to using BIM? (18 options)

Q22 Do you agree or disagree with the following BIM benefits? (15 sub-questions)

3. BIM

Resources and

Future of the

Industry

Q23 Which of the following sources of information about BIM are you most likely

to use? (11 options)

Q24 Which of the following Canadian BIM resources are you currently aware of? (6

options)

Q25 In your opinion, how likely are the following technologies to have a

significant influence on the industry over the next 10 years? (10 sub-questions)

The survey consisted of three sections: General Information, BIM Experience, and BIM Resources

and Future of the Industry. Respondents’ demographics, background, and company information

were collected in the first section. Then, participants were asked to share their BIM experience,

such as the level of familiarity with BIM technology, the functionality of BIM, and perceived

benefits and barriers for adopting BIM in projects. Finally, insights on BIM resources and the

future trend of the construction industry were gathered in the last section. Many questions

24

contained sub-questions. For example, Question 12 (Figure 3-2) focused on BIM experience by

asking participants about common BIM activities. In addition, “option” questions (e.g., Q21 – BIM

barriers) were presented throughout the survey. These questions prompted a “yes” or “no”

response, and so they were also categorized as sub-questions. As a result, the entire survey

contained over 100 sub-questions. The typical completion time was approximately 12 minutes.

Figure 3-2: Sub-questions for Q12

Results of the Second Annual BIM Survey

The second survey received 398 responses from the Canadian AEC professionals. The response

rate was a significant improvement compared to 2018 survey of 252 participants and to the

previous two externally-driven efforts for BIM Surveys for Canada, which garnered 78 and 127

responses in 2013 and 2016 [28, 29], respectively.

The following sections provide sample results of the 2019 survey, including participants’

demographics, BIM awareness and usage, confidence in BIM knowledge and skills, BIM

applications, and BIM beliefs. Benchmarking analyses of the 2019 survey against the 2018 survey

for the GTA region are also presented.

25

3.4.1 Participation by Province

Figure 3-3 shows the participation of each province for the 2019 BIM survey. Of the 398 responses

received, more than half (65%) are from Ontario. After all, the 2019 survey was first released and

promoted in Ontario, and the local BIM community in the GTA region is very active compared to

other metropolitan centres in Canada. Response rates from Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec

are indicated at 17%, 9%, and 6%, respectively. Few industry professionals from Nova Scotia,

Manitoba and Saskatchewan participated in the survey, which together accounted for 4% of the

total number of participants. No responses were collected from the remaining three provinces and

territories. In proportion to the province population (Figure 3-4), Quebec is significantly under

represented by 18% and Ontario is overly represented by 25%. Future efforts should focus on

actively engaging provinces outside of Ontario to better represent the AEC community in other

provinces and understand the adoption and implementation of BIM in Canada.

Figure 3-3: Participation from each province

Figure 3-4: Population by provinces

(source: [45])

3.4.2 BIM Awareness and Usage

Figure 3-5 summarizes participants’ BIM awareness and usage. A slight increase (8%) in

participants’ awareness and usage was indicated when comparing the 2019 and 2018 survey for

the GTA region. The responses across the rest of Canada were consistent with the GTA results in

the 2019 survey. However, the distribution of participants, as indicated in Figure 3-3, is strongly

represented by the Ontario province, and so the awareness and usage levels were further

investigated for the province of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec.

26

Figure 3-5: BIM awareness and usage

Figure 3-6 indicates that over 80% of participants are aware of and are currently using BIM

amongst the group of four provinces (G4P). In particular, Quebec shows a 94% active user rate

amongst the participants. Because the 2018 survey is a Canada-wide effort and no previous data

were available for benchmarking, it will be interesting to compare the results of the 2019 survey

to those of the 2020 survey.

Based on a similar approach adopted in the 2018 survey and the UK BIM reports, participants

were categorized into two groups: BIM users and non-users. Users are those aware and currently

using BIM; non-users are the others [4]. These two groups will be used in the subsequent sections.

Figure 3-6: BIM awareness and usage amongst the G4P

3.4.3 Confidence in BIM Knowledge and Skills

Figure 3-7 shows participants’ confidence in BIM knowledge and skills. Over 74% of BIM users

responded “Confident” or “Quite Confident” in BIM knowledge and skills. Of the non-users, only

39% were “Quite Confident” in their BIM knowledge and 22% were “Confident” or “Quite

Confident” in their BIM skills. For those who are “Quite Confident” in their BIM knowledge, users

27

and non-users have almost the same response rate, but non-users are less confident in their skills.

Since non-users do not use BIM on a regular basis, a gap in confidence is expected. However, with

adequate education and proper technical training, the gap can be reduced.

Figure 3-7: User and non-user’s confidence in BIM knowledge and skills

3.4.4 BIM Applications

The “information” aspect in BIM is often overlooked by industry professionals who primarily use

the technology for modelling and providing 3D visualization of a physical asset [9]. However, the

information is valuable to project stakeholders because they make informed decisions based on the

different applications offered in a BIM database. The applications of BIM extend to many areas,

such as coordination, communication, visualization, design, and scheduling. Question 20 was

designed to understand BIM applications in the Canadian AEC industry. It is noted that the 2018

survey and UK BIM reports did not inquired about the application of BIM in construction projects.

So, this question provides new insight to the adoption and implementation of BIM in the industry.

Arranged in descending order for the overall responses, Figure 3-8 shows the top four BIM

applications selected by the participants: coordination, visualization, collaboration, and clash

detection. The responses of the G4P are included to show differences between the participants

from each province. Quebec shows a significantly higher rate of application compared to the other

three provinces – almost 90% for all four BIM applications. Possible reasons for the higher rates

in Quebec may be the small number of participants from Quebec, the progressive attitudes of the

28

Quebec participants, or the greater use of these BIM applications. By comparison, Ontario has

lowest response rate for three of the four applications, which indicates a more conservative

perspective on the uses of BIM in the province.

Figure 3-8: Top four BIM applications

A more interesting perspective is to identify applications that are not commonly implemented in

projects, which are shown in Figure 3-9. The overall responses show that the lowest ranked four

BIM applications are estimating, structural analysis, inspection, and facility management. Again,

Quebec shows significantly greater use of these applications compared to other provinces, which

may be an effect of the lower number of respondents. The other three provinces showed similar

response rates. Although estimating is listed as one of the bottom four BIM-enabled applications,

it is quite different than quantity take-off (QTO), which is actually ranked at 7th overall of the 18

listed applications for Question 20. QTO provides a mean to reduce the onerous process for tallying

construction materials; however, estimating accounts for labour, equipment, and other contingency

costs, which is currently difficult to implement in BIM. The other three applications are possible

in the BIM environment; however, barriers such as software compatibility, lack of training, or

29

resistance to change, have made the process difficult for the industry professionals to realize the

potential applications of BIM.

Figure 3-9: Bottom four BIM applications

3.4.5 BIM Beliefs

The following sections provide discussions on the cross-examination of the G4P and comparison

of the first and second surveys for the GTA region.

3.4.5.1 BIM Beliefs across the G4P

Four BIM beliefs are shown in Figure 3-10. These beliefs were selected to understand the

paradigm shift behind the process of BIM adoption. Again, Ontario shows the lowest response rate

for the four beliefs. A significant portion of participants believe that clients do not understand the

benefits of BIM; however, similar response rates indicated that they think the clients, owners, and

government will increasingly ask them to adopt BIM. Clearly, the industry is transitioning to a

BIM-enabled culture. Otherwise, their companies may not be as competitive and will be outpaced

by other companies who embrace the BIM technology.

30

Figure 3-10: Cross examination of BIM beliefs for the G4P

3.4.5.2 BIM Beliefs in GTA

In addition to the cross-examination of the G4P, comparison analysis of the 2018 and 2019 GTA

data was conducted. Figure 3-11 shows three BIM beliefs from the first and second survey. The

statement – “if we don’t adopt BIM, we’ll get left behind” – is an addition to the second survey,

hence no comparison could be made. Slight changes are shown for government’s and client’s

demand for BIM (3% decrease and 6% increase, respectively). This may indicate an increase in

demand for adopting BIM in the private sector rather than the public sector.

As for the third statement, a 10% increase was indicated by participants. Although clients do not

fully understand the benefits of BIM, GTA professionals are starting to see the demand for BIM

and tailoring their workflow to accommodate the BIM process. This shows a promising sign in the

local industry. By providing information sessions and educational opportunities, clients would

have better understanding for adopting BIM in their projects.

31

Figure 3-11: Comparison of BIM beliefs in GTA

Conclusion and Future Work

In conclusion, this paper introduced the 2018 and 2019 BIM surveys. Sample results and in-depth

discussions on major aspects, including BIM awareness and usage, confidence in BIM knowledge

and skills, BIM applications and BIM beliefs are presented. Cross-examinations for British

Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec were conducted, and BIM user and non-user groups were

identified and justified. In addition, benchmark analyses between 2018 and 2019 GTA data were

performed. The complete results and analyses for the Second Annual BIM Survey will be

published online in April. This BIM initiative will be carried out on an annual basis and serve as

invaluable documentation of the BIM transition process in Canada.

32

A CRITICAL REVIEW ON THE EVOLUTION OF VIRTUAL AND AUGMENTED REALITIES IN CONSTRUCTION

This chapter examines other visualization tools in the construction industry and exists as a review

paper. Chapter 4 is currently being prepared and formatted for submission to a journal.

Abstract

Virtual and Augmented Reality (VAR) technologies have been explored extensively by

researchers in the construction domain over the last two decades. In this paper, a thorough and

systematic content-based literature review was conducted to establish a state-of-the-art analysis on

VAR-enabled applications in the construction industry. One hundred and twenty-six journal papers

from 2000 to 2018 were reviewed and eight VAR-enabled applications for construction were

identified, namely Coordination, Site Logistics and Planning, Communication, Quality Control,

Training, Hazard Identification, Progress Tracking, and Education. This paper is envisioned as a

benchmark for research achievements, limitations, and potential research opportunities in the eight

VAR-enabled application domains.

Introduction

The visualization benefits of virtual and augmented reality (VAR) technologies have enabled the

implementation of VAR for applications in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC)

industries in recent years. Since the early 2000s, scholars have explored the interdisciplinary nature

of VAR, including knowledge domains in computer science [46], graphics [47], ergonomics [48],

and cognitive science [49]. The concepts behind VAR-based technologies were first introduced in

the early 1990s. A classic reality-virtuality continuum (RVC) [50] is shown in Figure 4-1. At one

end of the spectrum, the real environment (RE) consists solely of real objects with physical

existence. At the other end, the virtual environment (VE) is entirely simulated in the digital space

[51]. Everything between the RE and VE can be grouped into the mixed reality spectrum, which

includes but is not limited to augmented reality (AR) and augmented virtuality (AV). AR refers to

the display and superimposition of virtual objects in the real-world environment, and AV refers to

merging real world objects or people into the virtual world. The concept of virtual reality (VR)

lies on the right end of the RVC and is used analogously when referring to virtual objects simulated

33

and displayed in the VE. In construction, the application of VR can allow users to simulate

situations that are otherwise too dangerous or expensive to implement in the RE [52].

Figure 4-1: Reality-virtuality continuum (adapted from [50, 51])

Several attempts have been made to identify general trends and directions for future research on

VAR in construction over the last decade. A review was conducted on the topic of AR for 120

journal articles and conference proceedings that were related to fields of architecture, engineering,

construction, and facility management (AEC/FM) from 2005 to 2011 [53]. The review

summarized the achievements, limitations, and research trends of AR in the AEC/FM fields.

However, only 55 papers (46% of the identified publications) were related to the construction

industry. In addition, the current body of knowledge needs an update on the adoption and

implementation of VAR technologies in the construction industry since that review was conducted

in 2011. A recent study investigated the information flow enabled by various information

communication technologies (ICT) in the AEC research fields [54]. The use of VAR was identified

in 56% of studies that facilitated non-automated bidirectional coordination. The review

emphasized on the flow of information in the construction environment and provided significant

insight into the adoption of VAR for communication. Another review identified technologies that

achieved significant advances in the construction industry, including VAR [55]. It concluded that

the combination of data acquisition technologies and VAR provides significant research

opportunities in the construction field.

Several review articles have been published to study the adoption of VAR for specific applications

in construction. In the area of safety management, VAR-based reviews have emphasized on worker

safety, construction environment, and hazard identification and management; and provided

insightful analyses on safety management practices in construction environments [56–58].

Scholars have also investigated the use of VAR technologies for other applications during

34

construction such as communication [54], quality control [59], progress tracking [60], and site

logistics [61]. However, there is a lack of a recent comprehensive review on all applications for

VAR-based systems in the construction industry.

This paper provides a timely update to the current literature by thoroughly and systematically

reviewing the-state-of-the-art VAR-enabled applications in the construction domain. The review

outlines the achievements, limitations, and future directions of research for each VAR-enabled

application. The next section provides an overview of the research methodology, followed by a

detailed discussion and review of the literature for each VAR application.

Methodology

Recent published reviews have adopted either a qualitative or quantitative approach to study a

specific subject (e.g., BIM) in the field of engineering, construction, and management. Unlike

quantitative approaches (e.g., bibliometric analysis) that use statistical methods to identify the

general themes, trends, and patterns associated with the specific subject [24, 62, 63], this study

adopts the qualitative approach to engage in-depth discussions about the progression of VAR-

enabled applications specifically in the construction industry. The content-based methodology has

been used by previous literature reviews such as [57, 58].

The Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus search engines, which enlist a significant portion of

engineering, construction, and management publications [24, 57, 58, 62, 63], were used to collect

relevant articles. Keywords, including “augmented reality”, “virtual reality”, “virtual model”, “3D

model”, “on-site”, “management”, and “construction”, were used as filters to identify relevant

journal articles from 2000 to 2018 inclusive. The review included reputable journals whose Impact

Factor (adopted by WoS) and CiteScore (adopted by Scopus) values are greater than 1 to indicate

articles of significant influence in the current body of published literature [57, 58].

The filtering process may not cover the entire literature, as some articles may be excluded based

on search engine and review criteria. For instance, an article may discuss the use of VAR in

education and training; however, the article was published in a journal that is not related to the

construction field. Thus, articles of this nature were effectively filtered out. Conference papers

were not included in this review because most conference papers are work in progress and

35

eventually published as journal articles. Therefore, only journal articles of significant contribution

to the current literature in the construction field were included.

A review of abstracts was conducted to identify articles that did not fit in the scope of this study.

Non-English literature was also excluded from the collection, as well as those that were not

available due to limited accessibility issues. The selected articles represent a significant portion of

the state-of-the-art knowledge of VAR-enabled applications in the construction domain. As a

result, 126 journals remained and were deemed relevant to the scope of this review.

4.3.1 Overview of Publications

Table 4-1 shows the number of articles collected for each journal including the corresponding

Impact Factor and CiteScore. The top contributor by far was Automation in Construction with 70

articles (56%) in the collection. The next four contributors were Electronic Journal of Information

Technology in Construction, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management, and Construction Management and Economics, with 14 (11%), 12

(10%), 9 (7%), and 4 (3%) articles, respectively. The top five contributors together represent 87%

of the articles collected through the filtering process.

Table 4-1: Collection of journal articles for review

Journal Number Impact

Factor CiteScore

Automation in Construction 70 4.03 5.36

Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction 14 1.08 1.73

Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 12 1.80 2.07

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 9 2.20 2.36

Construction Management and Economics 4 1.21 1.66

Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 3 5.48 4.97

Construction Innovation 3 1.36 2.12

Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and

Practice 3 1.31 1.41

Safety Science 3 2.84 3.22

Advances in Engineering Software 2 3.20 4.06

Computer Applications in Engineering Education 1 1.15 1.10

Indoor and Built Environment 1 1.16 1.21

Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 1 1.66 1.86

Total 126

VAR gained momentum in the construction research community in the early 2000s (Figure 4-2),

especially in 2003 where seven articles were published. The advancements of VR technology

36

propelled researchers to investigate a range of topics such as virtual construction, simulation, and

operations [64–70]. Ninety-seven, or 77% of the papers reviewed were published in the past ten

years (2009 – 2018), indicating an emphasis on recent developments. The high number of

publications in 2011 and 2013 are due to several special issue journals published in those years,

such as “Augmented Reality in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction” and “Information

Technologies in Safety Management” special issues in Automation in Construction. Even though

the number of articles varies year-to-year, the trend line indicates a steady increase of VAR

publications in the construction research community.

Figure 4-2: Number of articles from 2000 to 2018

VAR-Enabled Applications in Construction

The paper contents were reviewed for their corresponding areas of application with respect to VAR

technologies, as shown in Figure 4-3. Eight categories of construction application areas were

identified as Coordination (55), Site Logistics and Planning (43), Communicat