ECAM

26,9

1838

Received 31 May 2018

Revised 28 December 2018
Accepted 28 May 2019

Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management Vol. 26 No. 9, 2019 pp. 1838-1854 © Emerald Publishing Limited

0969-9988
DOI 10.1108/ECAM-05-2018-0204

Critical success factors for building information modeling

(BIM) implementation in Hong Kong
Daniel W.M. Chan, Timothy O. Olawumi, and Alfred M.L. Ho
Department of Building and Real Estate,
Faculty of Construction and Environment,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Abstract
Purpose – Some initiatives have been proposed and implemented to facilitate successful project
delivery and improve coordination and collaboration in project development’s design, construction,
and management phases. Building information modeling (BIM) is one of those initiatives that,
though recent, have made a significant impact on the construction industry in some countries. The
paper aims to discuss this issue.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper aims to explore the critical success factors for BIM
implementation in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry of Hong Kong through a
mixed research method (structured empirical questionnaire survey and expert interviews).

Findings – The most influential success factor relates to the client’s acceptance of BIM projects,
proper organizational structure to support a BIM system within the company, and financial aid from
the government to set up the BIM system. The expert interviewees also stressed the need for
willingness from project staff members to learn and utilize BIM.

Practical implications – This study has contributed to establishing more valuable and effective
strategies for ensuring the full adoption of BIM in Hong Kong. Practical recommendations for
enhancing BIM adoption in the construction industry were highlighted.

Originality/value – This study has established the key drivers leading to the success of BIM
implementation in Hong Kong and the perspective of construction experts on how to enhance its
uptake in construction projects.

Keywords Technology, Construction, Building information modeling Paper type Case study
INTRODUCTION
The construction industry is highly competitive; therefore, for construction firms to make substantial
progress and success, they must be highly competitive and innovative. Ghafur and Nawi (2016)
advocated that the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry is made of many and
diverse players creating a “stiff and tough competition,” although everyone has their peculiar
qualities. Nevertheless, the advent and adoption of building information modeling (BIM) in the AEC
industry has promoted deeper collaboration and closer coordination among the diverse disciplines
and stakeholders and has helped reduce the enormous issues pervading the industry to
manageable numbers.

BIM technology has been proved in some developed countries such as the USA, the UK, Australia,
and a few others of being reaped immense benefits when applied to engineering and construction
projects, whether small or large, with remarkable results. Abanda et al. (2015) described BIM as a
tool for “facilitating collaboration and improving delivery efficiency and project quality” in the
construction industry. However, there may be several difficulties and challenges when it is not well
applied to the processes. More so, issues affecting its applicability or suitability are of two
categories – external factors and internal factors.

External factors relating to BIM suitability to a project are imposed by prevailing government
regulations and incentives, unfavorable legal requirements, lack of enforcement of BIM standards
(where it exists), issues with BIM development, and support from the software vendors, among
others. The internal factors are those related to consultants, contractors’ organizations, or,
sometimes, the client’s organizations. These internal factors primarily include the organization to
support BIM use, collaboration and coordination frameworks, training and technical competency,
top management 1839 support, and continuous investment. 1839 support, and
continuous investment.

KEY ISSUES IN BIM IMPLEMENTATION

Factors affecting the level of success of a project are categorized into technology, cash-flow
management, and quality management (Ghafur and Nawi, 2016). BIM is an innovative, dynamic,
and intriguing technology introduced into the construction industry for more than a decade. Since
then, it has contributed a lot to completing several project schedules within budget and reduced
operational costs over time. Despite these perceived benefits, its adoption and implementation level
is still low and not impressive in many countries. Only two countries to date have more than 50
percent adoption rate, i.e., the USA with more than 75 percent adoption rate and the UK with more
than 55 percent based on a desktop literature review of BIM adoption in several countries and
regions carried out by Olawumi et al. (2017).

Critical success factors (CSFs) are of different descriptions, as several authors in scholarly journals
opined. Sanvido et al. (1992) regarded them as “elements that foresee achievement instead of
simply the unadulterated survival of a construction project.” Per Rockart (1982), CSFs are objects
or agendas to be put in place for an organization or project to succeed. Meanwhile, Toor and
Ogunlana (2008) intimated to us that a CSF “denotes a certain element which significantly
contributes to and is remarkably vital for the achievement of a project.” According to Abu (2015),
CSFs are the most significant factors to prevent delays in the project, increase project performance,
and assure success for construction projects.

Several research studies have examined the CSFs for BIM’s adoption, application, or
implementation in several countries. Kim et al. (2016) considered the BIM level of acceptance in the
South Korean AEC industry, and their findings revealed a positive interest to use BIM in South
Korea and the necessity of its use, but there was no strong intent in its direction. The architects
exhibited more positive interests compared to other project stakeholders. Mutai (2009) derived 12
critical factors in the USA through data collected through surveys conducted with BIM users. The
author identified top management support, staff training, and technical IT support as crucial factors.
Davies and Harty (2013) discerned that ICT tools such as mobile tablets and personal computers,
etc., form the bedrock for implementing BIM on construction project sites. Meanwhile, Ruikar and
Emmitt (2009) discussed the emerging trends and application of ICT in construction projects.

More so, another survey by Tsai et al. (2014) identified the two most influential factors for BIM
implementation in Taiwan as top management support and functionality of BIM tools. Both findings
revealed top management support as the most crucial factor. However, a study by Kim et al. (2016)
in China puts more significance on the attitude of key stakeholders in the Chinese AEC industry to
be influential to BIM adoption than support from top management as seen in Taiwan and the US
surveys. Oo (2014) assessed the CSFs for BIM implementation in Singaporean architectural firms
using data collected via questionnaire surveys and expert interviews. His findings revealed top
management support, staff training, and client acceptance as Singapore’s three most crucial
success factors.
Ozorhon and Karahan (2016) examined the CSFs for BIM implementation in the Turkish
construction industry and determined the three most important factors as availability of qualified
staff, effective leadership, and availability of information and technology. Yaakob et al. (2016) also
carried out a holistic review of CSFs for BIM implementation in the Malaysian construction industry.
Table I lists the CSFs used in this study based on the extant literature review. To this intent, several
efforts and initiatives have been carried out 1840 to facilitate effective BIM implementation in
construction projects. Such studies include

CSFs for BIM

implementation Description References
BIM standards for Existence of a model of good the Won and Lee (2010), Morlhon et al. (2014),
industry practice and standards to serve as Enegbuma and Ali (2011), Chan (2014), Bin
a guide to the implementation of Zakaria et al. (2013), BuildingSMART (2011),
BIM in projects Abubakar et al. (2014), Rogers et al. (2015),
Yeomans et al. (2006), Peansupap and Walker
(2005), Redmond et al. (2012), Antón and Díaz
(2014)
BIM training the use of training and seminars to programs Ozorhon and Karahan (2016), Tsai et al. (2014),
equip staff with useful information Won and Lee (2010), Morlhon et al. (2014),
and skills to facilitate BIM Enegbuma and Ali (2011), Suermann and Issa
(2009), Jung and Joo (2011), Arayici et al. (2011),
Arayici and Coates (2012), Succar et al. (2013),
McGraw-Hill Construction (2014)
Financial support Existence of government-led from Tsai et al. (2014), Enegbuma and Ali (2011),
the government incentive to promote BIM to set up a Ozorhon and Karahan (2016), Bin Zakaria et al.
BIM system (2013), Abubakar et al. (2014), Suermann and Issa
(2009), Arayici and Coates (2012), Eadie et al.
(2013)
The willingness of Disposition of project personnel to be Tsai et al. (2014), Won and Lee (2010),
staff to learn new inclined to BIM learning and Morlhon et al. (2014), Enegbuma and Ali (2011)
technology knowledge
Client’s acceptance The willingness of clients to adopt Enegbuma and Ali (2011), Tsai et al. (2014), Won
with BIM projects BIM or their satisfaction level based and Lee (2010), Morlhon et al. (2014), Chan
on past/current BIM projects (2014), Rogers et al. (2015), Aibinu and Venkatesh
(2014)
Information-sharing Existence of a knowledge-sharing Ozorhon and Karahan (2016), Enegbuma and Ali
protocols and collaborative platform in the (2011), Baiden et al. (2006), Suermann and Issa
industry (2009), Harding et al. (2014), Hope and Alwan
(2012)
Organizational In-house strategy and policy to Morlhon et al. (2014), Tsai et al. (2014), Won and
structure to support the incorporate BIM management within Lee (2010), Morlhon et al. (2014), Enegbuma and
BIM system within the their structure Ali (2011), Ozorhon and Karahan (2016)
company
Competent technical Existence of necessary technology Ozorhon and Karahan (2016), Tsai et al. (2014),
support team within infrastructure and staff to augment Won and Lee (2010), Morlhon et al. (2014),
the company BIM implementation Enegbuma and Ali (2011)
 Professional BIM Existence of competent design staff Won and Lee (2010), Morlhon et al. (2014),
design team within the with previous experience in BIM Ozorhon and Karahan (2016), Kassem et al.
company implementation (2012), Chan (2014), BuildingSMART (2011),
Rogers et al. (2015)
Continuous Organization strategic policies that Tsai et al. (2014), Won and Lee (2010),
investment/upgrade favors allocation of sufficient budget Ozorhon and Karahan (2016),
for the BIM system toward BIM implementation Enegbuma and Ali (2011)
within the company
Table I. Promotion from top Existence of an organizational climate Enegbuma and Ali (2011), Ozorhon and Karahan
Summary of literature on management conducive to learning and (2016), Tsai et al. (2014), Won and Lee (2010)
the CSFs for BIM implementing and supportive of
implementation innovative technology
sharing experiences on BIM application through case studies (Eastman et al., 2008; Epstein, 2012;
Bryde et al., 2013), and its effects or suitability (Barlish and Sullivan, 2012). It also includes BIM
maturity measurement (Succar, 2009; Succar et al., 2012), and significant challenges encountered
during implementation (BIM Task Group, 2011; Eadie et al., 2013).

BIM Task Group (2011) and Eadie et al. (2013) identified issues affecting BIM implementation
as that relating to technological and legal matters, and these include
interoperability, data exchange schemas, business strategies, availability of relevant BIM 1841
standards and guides, training and education for users, and data ownership. Succar (2009)
observed the need for a standardized BIM guide, while Volk et al. (2014)
discussed standards for BIM data exchanges. More so, the need for refined strategies for BIM-
process and work procedures is quite significant (Khemlani, 2007; Arayici et al., 2011).
Furthermore, other issues affecting BIM implementation in extant literature include the technical
capability of BIM software and data exchanges (Azhar, 2011; Bryde et al., 2013; Howard and Björk,
2008); training and procurement of necessary BIM software and hardware (Gilligan and Kunz,
2007; Hartmann and Fischer, 2008); and legal issues such as data ownership and contractual
terms (Wu and Wu, 2005; Olatunji, 2011; Thompson and Miner, 2006). et al., 2013; Howard and
Björk, 2008); training and procurement of necessary BIM software and hardware (Gilligan and
Kunz, 2007; Hartmann and Fischer, 2008); and legal issues such as data ownership and
contractual terms (Wu and Wu, 2005; Olatunji, 2011; Thompson and Miner, 2006).

To improve the BIM acceptance level in Hong Kong, it is essential to evaluate the perception of
diverse and key stakeholders in the Hong Kong AEC industry. To this end, this study aims to
identify the CSFs of BIM implementation by quantitatively analyzing the correlations between the
perceptions of the major project stakeholders. As discussed in the next section, the study applied
several statistical tools to evaluate the data and opinions collected through structured questionnaire
surveys and expert interviews. This study has contributed to the establishment of more practical
and effective strategies for promoting full BIM adoption and implementation in Hong Kong.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Kim et al. (2016) noted that stakeholders’ views and perceptions have a significant impact on the
“decision whether to adopt or reject a new technology before the technology is implemented.” This
study evaluated the perceptions of main project stakeholders about the CSFs of BIM
implementation in the Hong Kong construction industry. A mixed research method was employed,
which involved structured questionnaire surveys and structured interview templates that were self-
administered to the targeted respondents within Hong Kong. The key focus of the elicitation of this
study’s data is about clients, developers, main contractors, and BIM/project consultants operating
within Hong Kong and with practical BIM experience in their construction projects. The
questionnaire items were deduced through secondary means of a desktop literature review of
academic journal papers, Hong Kong Institute of Building Information Modelling-Construction
Industry Council (HKIBIM-CIC) BIM Conference Proceedings 2014 produced by the HKIBIM and
the CIC, together with online reference materials. The survey forms the basis for assessing the
respondents’ perceptions and opinions. The respondents were obliged to identify and rank the
perceived benefits and barriers of BIM implementation in Hong Kong on a five-point Likert-type
scale, which was later used to measure their levels of agreement.

The questionnaire also solicited background information regarding the survey participants’ working
experience in the construction industry and the number of BIM projects they participated in. Other
details include the type of organization in which they are currently employed and their position
within the organization. Meanwhile, regarding the expert interviews, three respective interviewees
from client/developer, main contractor, and BIM consultant were selected from different
organizations for a face-to-face structured interview session. The interview participants were not
part of the survey respondents. They were invited to give their views on the barriers, benefits, and
CSFs of BIM implementation in Hong Kong, plus background information about their experience
working in a BIM-enabled construction project. A total of 62 blank questionnaire survey forms were
sent out with the help of colleagues to the target respondents who have been engaged in BIM
projects. The return rate of the questionnaire survey was 44 completed and valid questionnaires
after a month of survey period representing a response rate of 71 percent.

1842Summary of respondent demographics

This section describes and analyses section A othstudy’s’sthstudy’s’s’s questionnaire
surveyregardinrespondents’dents’dents’ demographics and as
depicted in Table II. Many oparticipancontractor’sthencontractor’sthe
contractor’s organizations (41 percent), wiclient’sntsining client’snts from
client’s oconsultant’s (32 consultant’s the consultant’s organizations
(respondents’ The respondents’ the respondents’ groups allows for the capture
of differing views from different perspectives. Moreover, on average, the
respondents have gained more than ten years of working experience in the
construction industry. This result explains the fact that the respondents not
only have theoretical knowledge of oAECations in the AEC industry but they
have brought such knowledge into practice.’ groups allows for the capture of
differing views from different perspectives. Moreover, on average, the
respondents have gained more than ten years of working experience in the
construction industry. This result explains the fact that the respondents not
only have theoretical knowledge of operations in the AEC industry but they
have brought such knowledge into practice.

The respondents chosen for the survey are those with at least one year of
experience in BIM-enabled projects. Many of the respondents (66 percent)
have participated in more than five BIM-enabled projects, 27 percent of them
(in three to four BIM projects), and just 7 percent of the respondents involved
in one to two BIM projects. Based on the above statistics, it can be deduced
that the survey participants have related knowledge of BIM and hands-on
experience in using it in construction projects. This gives reliability and
credibility to the data and opinions collated.

Methods and statistical tools for data analysis

This study employed five statistical tools to analyze the various responses
from the survey participants and to compare the views between different
groups of respondents. These include the Cronbach’s α reliability test, mean
score ranking method, Kendall’s concordance analysis, Spearman’s rank
correlation test, and Mann–Whitney U test.

Reliability testing. The Cronbach’s α reliability test is used to verify the internal
consistency or reliability of the construct of the questionnaire items under the
adopted Likert scale of measurement (Akinade et al., 2016; Chan et al., 2010).
The range of the Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient is from 0 to 1 (Olatunji et
al., 2017; Olawumi and Chan, 2018a).
 Respondent demographics Size
Organization set-up
Clients 14
BIM consultant 12

Contractor 18

Years of working experience (construction industry) 0−5

years 4
6−10 years 16

11−15 years 14

More than 15 years 10

Number of BIM projects involved in
Table II. Demographics 1−2 projects 3
of survey respondents 3−4 projects 12
29
5 projects or more
The larger the α-value, the higher the reliability of the generated result or scale will be. If the α-
value ⩾ 0.7, the measurement scale is reliable (Santos, 1999; Field, 2009; Akinade et al., 2016).
Cronbach’s α value for this study is 0.726, which was larger than the threshold value of 0.7.
Therefore, the five-point Likert scale used for measuring the CSFs for implementing BIM is reliable
and the collected responses are internally consistent at the 5 percent significance level.

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W). The Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) 1843 was
employed to measure the agreement of different respondents on their rankings
regarding barriers to BIM implementation based on mean values within a certain group (Olawumi et
al., 2018; Olawumi and Chan, 2018d). Kendall’s’sKendall’s’s coefficient of concordance
measures the agreement of the various respondents based on mean values within a group
(Legendre, 2005). The range of the valueKendall’sl’ss coefficient of concordance (W) is from 0 to 1.
The higher the value of W, the higher the level of consensus among the survey respondents within
the group will be (Chan et al., 2010). The value of W is as follows:Kendall’s coefficient of
concordance measures the agreement of the various respondents based on mean values within a
group (Legendre, 2005). The range of the value of Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) is from
0 to 1. The higher the value of W, the higher the level of consensus among the survey respondents
within the group will be (Chan et al., 2010). The value of W is as follows:
n2

P R
 W ¼ n n ð 1 Þ=12R ;
i ¼12 i

where n is the number of items ranked; Ri is the average of the ranks assigned to the ith item, and
R is the average of the ranks assigned to all items.

If the number of variables to be ranked is larger than 7, χ2 analysis should be applied instead. The
rule is that if the calculated χ2 value equals or is higher than the critical value from the table, it
shows a level of significance and value of degrees of freedom (Olawumi et al., 2018). The null
hypothesis (H0), which indicates the survey respondents’ sets of rankings are unrelated or
independent to each other within a study group, will be rejected. In other words, there is a
significant degree of agreement on the rankings of the items among the survey respondents within
the group. The calculated χ2 value with (N1) degrees of freedom is as follows (Siegel and Castellan,
1988):

C2 ¼ k Nð 1ÞW;
where k is the number of respondents ranking the items, N is the number of items ranked.

Spearman’s rank correlation test. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was adopted to test
the strength of a relationship amongst two sets of rankings (Chen and Popovich, 2002). The range
of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rs) is from −1 to +1 (Chan and Choi, 2015; Chan and
Hung, 2015). The higher the positive/negative value of r s, the stronger the positive/negative linear
correlation will be. If rs ¼ 0, there is no linear correlation at all (Chan et al., 2010). If r s is statistically
significant at a predetermined significance level (e.g., 5 percent), the null hypothesis (H 0) stating no
significant correlation between the two groups on rankings can be rejected. In other words, there is
no significant disagreement between the two groups on the ranking exercise. The following
equation calculates the rs:

Two 6d

rs ¼ 1 ;
2
 NN1
where d is the difference in ranks of the two groups for the same item, N is the total
number of responses regarding that item.

Mann–Whitney U test. The Mann–Whitney U test was adopted to determine any divergences in
the median values of the same item among two selected respondent groups (Olawumi and
Chan, 2018d). The Mann–Whitney U test is used to determine any statistically significant
differences or divergences in the median values of the same item between any two selected
respondent groups (Kasuya, 2001). The rule is that if the calculated p-value is less than the
allowable significance level (e.g., 1 percent), the null hypothesis (H 0), stating no significant
differences in the median values of the same item between the two survey groups, can be
rejected (Chan et al., 2010).

1844

Discussion of research findings: CSFs for

BIM implementation in Hong Kong Ranking
results
The survey results of the ranking of the CSFs for implementing BIM in the Hong Kong AEC industry
are presented in Table III. For the 11 CSFs identified, the mean (M) values range from the lowest
mean score of M ¼ 3.16 “Continuous investment/upgrade for BIM system within the company” to
the highest mean value of M ¼ 4.57 “Client’s acceptance with BIM projects.” The three most
significant CSFs are hinged to the governmental support, organizational set-up and clients’ support,
and these include – client’s acceptance with BIM projects (M ¼ 4.57), organizational structure to
support BIM system within (the) company (M ¼ 4.11) and financial support from the government to
set up BIM system (M ¼ 3.91).

Most respondents concurred that the client plays a vital role in future BIM adoption because their
decisions can drive more designers or other professionals of various disciplines to apply BIM to
their construction projects. Aibinu and Venkatesh (2014), Olawumi et al. (2018), and Olawumi and
Chan (2018a) noted that the construction industry is currently plagued with a lack of demand of
innovative technologies such as BIM by clients. Furthermore, it is believed that changing an
organizational structure to drive and support this technology for their work would help the staff to
recognize BIM development as the focus of the company and drive them to learn and utilize it in
real practice (Boktor et al., 2014). Also, they opined that the financial support from the government
could be a great incentive to set up this costly system (Abubakar et al., 2014; Olawumi and Chan,
2018b, d).

The three most significant CSFs are both included in the client group and the contractor group.
However, item 3 is not included in the top 3 rankings in the consultant group. It is reasonable
because BIM consultants have already bought their BIM software and resources to do their
business so the financial support from the government to set up a BIM system may not be too
necessary for them. Therefore, the BIM consultant group views this factor as

All ConsultantContractor
respondents Client group groupgroup
CSFs for BIM implementation Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean RankMeanRank
Client's acceptance with BIM projects 4.57 1 4.57 1 4.50 1 4.61 1
Organizational structure to support the BIM system
within the company 4.11 2 4.07 2 4.17 2 4.11 3
Financial support from the government to set up a BIM
system 3.91 3 3.79 3 3.33 9 4.39 2
BIM standards for the industry 3.86 4 3.64 4 4.00 3 3.94 6

BIM training programs 3.80 5 3.50 8 3.83 4 4.00 4

Information-sharing protocols 3.77 6 3.43 9 3.83 4 4.00 4

Competent technical support team within the company 3.73 7 3.57 6 3.58 7 3.94 6

Professional BIM design team within the company 3.50 8 3.64 4 3.75 6 3.22 10

Table III. Promotion from top management 3.50 8 3.57 6 3.50 8 3.44 9
CSFs for BIM The willingness of staff to learn new technology 3.43 10 3.07 11 3.17 10 3.89 8
implementation in Continuous investment/upgrade for BIM system within
Hong Kong the company 3.16 11 3.29 10 3.17 10 3.06 11
not too significant for their implementation of BIM. On the other side, the client group and contractor
group believe that financial support is an excellent incentive to accelerate the adoption of BIM in
Hong Kong.

Ranking agreement within each respondent group

The value of W of all respondents, client group, consultant group, and contractor group is
 0.323, 0.308, 0.475, and 0.525, respectively. The levels of significance of all
groups are 0.000,1845 which are less than the allowable le
vel of significance (5 percent), so the null hypothesis should be
rejected. The χ2 test was applied because there were 11 items involved (more than seven
variables). The calculated χ2 values of the client group, consultant group, and contractor group are
43.162, 56.970, and 94.436, all of which are higher than the critical value of 18.307, so the null
hypothesis should be rejected as well. From the adrespondent’sncetwo tests, there is
adrespondent’snce to conclude that the respondent’s sets of rankings regarding the CSFs for BIM
implementation are dependent on each other with a significant degree of agreement within each
group.

Ranking agreement between the respondent groups

The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rs) of rankings of the CSFs for
BIM implementation: between the client group and consultant group, between
the client group and contractor group, and between the consultant group and
contractor group are 0.645, 0.600, and 0.573 with the calculated significance
level of 0.032, 0.041 and 0.046, respectively, which are lower than the
allowable level of significance (5 percent).

Therefore, the null hypothesis should be rejected. In other words, there is a

significant correlation between the client group and consultant group, between
the client group and contractor group, and between the consultant group and
contractor group, on the rankings of the CSFs for BIM implementation.

The significance of the statistical data

The first pair is the client group vs the consultant group; the second pair is the
client group vs the contractor group, and the third pair is the consultant group
vs contractor group. For the first pair (client group vs consultant group), all the
actual calculated p-values are larger than 0.01; the null hypothesis should not
be rejected. Therefore, there is no discriminating item identified in the first pair.

For the second pair (client group vs contractor group), only one discriminating
item was identified which is item 4 – “Willingness of staff to learn new
technology” (Olawumi et al., 2017; Wu and Issa, 2015). Compared with the
contractors, the developers have more resources to develop or adopt the BIM
system within their companies. The staff from the developers believed that the
BIM development is a focus or trend in the industry, so they are willing to play
a proactive role to learn this technology to increase their competitiveness in
the market. However, contractors’ staff perceived that the construction projects
could be managed successfully without the adoption of BIM like in the old
days. They perceive that this concept is affecting their incentives to learn BIM,
so the contractors put more emphasis on item 4 to be a CSF for implementing
BIM. The details of the test for the second pair are provided in Table IV.

For the third pair (consultant group vs contractor group), two discriminating
items were identified including item 3 – “Financial support from the
government to set up BIM system” (Bin Zakaria et al., 2013; Olawumi and
Chan, 2018c) – and item 4 – “Willingness of staff to learn new technology.”

Regarding item 3, BIM consultants have their BIM software and resources to do their
business so the financial support from the government to set up the BIM system may
not be too

Mean rank
Mann–
Client Contractor Whitney Conclusion Item CSFs for
BIM implementation group U Z-value p-value to H0

1 BIM standards for the industry 14.43 18.11 97.000 −1.310 0.190Accept
2 BIM training programs 13.39 18.92 82.500 −2.090 0.037Accept
government to set up a BIM system 12.29 19.78 67.000 −2.447 0.01 Accept
4
4 Willingness of staff to learn

new technology 10.54 21.14 42.500 −3.481 0.000 Reject

5 Client's acceptance with BIM 16.14 16.78 121.000 −0.223 0.82 Accept
projects 3
6 Information-sharing protocols 13.36 18.94 82.000 −2.313 0.02 Accept
1
7 Organizational structure to support

BIM system within the company 17.54 15.69 111.500 −0.609 0.54 Accept
3
Table IV. 8 Competent technical support team 0.10
Results of within the company 9
Mann–Whitney 9 Professional BIM design team
U test for CSFs for within the company 0.05
10 Continuous investment/upgrade for −1.604
BIM implementation 14.32 18.19 95.500 3
BIM system within the company
(client group vs 11 −1.936
Promotion from top management 19.82 13.92 79.500 0.18 Accept
contractor group)
4
18.46 14.97 98.500 −1.328 0.54 Accept
17.50 15.72 112.000 −0.606 4 Accept
18463Financial support from the

necessary to them. Therefore, BIM consultant group perceives it as not too

critical for implementing BIM in the construction industry in Hong Kong. On the
other side, the contractor group believes that the initial cost of BIM system is
quite high so the financial support from the government is a good incentive to
accelerate the adoption of BIM within their companies.

Regarding item 4, the main reason is like the second pair which the staff from
the contractors’ side opined that this concept is affecting their incentives to
learn BIM, so the contractors place more emphasis on item 4 to be a CSF for
implementing BIM. On the other side, the staff working for BIM consultants
have already known how to use BIM, so they do not think item 4 is too critical
for them. The details of the test for the third pair are provided in Table V.

Summary of interviewees’ opinions

A total of three face-to-face structured interviews were conducted to collect
valuable opinions for this research. The interviewees belong to different
organizational setups: the developer/ client, BIM consultant and main
contractor groups, and they did not take part in the initial round of
questionnaire survey. They were invited to provide their views on the CSFs
factors influencing implementation of BIM in Hong Kong based on their direct
hands-on experience with BIM construction projects. The interviewees were
also requested to provide some practical effective recommendations for
facilitating the future BIM adoption in Hong Kong.
 Profile of the study interview participants. The first interviewee (A) is an
Assistant Manager of the Department of Cost and Quality Control in a
developer firm. She has derived more than ten years of working experience in
the construction industry and has been involved in three BIM-enabled
construction projects in Hong Kong. Her main responsibility is to take a check-
and-balance role, so she needs to ensure that all decisions made by different
project departments suit the internal policies and she also needs to balance
between project’s profit and company’s policies to make commercial decisions.
The second interviewee (B) is a Director of a BIM consultant company. He has
gained more than nine years of working experience in the construction industry
and has been participating in more than 30 BIM-enabled construction projects
in Hong Kong. He needs to manage the whole

Mean rank
Mann–
Consultant ContractorWhitneyConclusion
Item CSFs for BIM implementation group group U Z-value p-value to H0

1 BIM standards for the industry 16.00 15.17 102.000 −0.48 0.626 Accept
8
2 BIM training programs 14.08 16.44 91.000 −1.21 0.223 Accept
9
3 Financial support from the

government to set up BIM 9.00 19.83 30.000 −3.50 0.000 Reject

system 5
4 Willingness of staff to learn

new technology 9.42 19.56 35.000 −3.52 0.000 Reject

7
5 Client's acceptance with BIM

projects 14.50 16.17 96.000 −0.59 0.554 Accept

2
6 Information-sharing protocols 14.08 16.44 91.000 −1.21 0.223 Accept
9
7 Organizational structure to
support BIM system within
company 16.08 15.11 101.000 −0.35 0.721 Accept
7
8 Competent technical support
team
within company 12.25 17.67 69.000 −2.38 0.017 Accept
2
 9 Professional BIM design team

within company 19.38 12.92 61.500 −2.22 0.026 Accept

2
10 Continuous
investment/upgrade
for BIM system within company 16.42 14.89 97.000 −0.71 0.472 Accept
9
11 Promotion from top 16.25 15.00 99.000 −0.43 0.661 Accept
management 9
1847

Table V.
Results of Mann–
Whitney U test for
CSFs for BIM implementation (consultant group vs contractor group)

operation of the company and ensure that his teams provide excellent BIM services to the clients to
fulfill their requirements or needs for their construction projects. Also, he needs to supervise the
qualities of their services to see whether they are providing satisfactory added-values to their clients
during the execution of BIM construction projects.

The third interviewee (C) is a Senior BIM Manager of the Department of Visual Design and
Construction in a contractor firm. He has acquired more than 16 years of working experience in the
construction industry and has managed more than 30 construction projects with the adoption of BIM
in Hong Kong. He needs to supervise the whole operation of his department and provide
professional services such as 3D printing, visualization rendering and BIM application for the
specific projects. Also, he needs to cooperate with project managers to settle some technical issues
of the BIM application for their projects. Sometimes, his team may create cooperative tools or
software for the colleagues to facilitate their work such as i720° tool.

Cross-synthesis of interviewees’ perceptions on the CSFs for BIM implementation. Each

interviewee was requested to pick up the three most significant CSFs for implementing BIM among
the 11 items elicited on the survey questionnaire. There is one common item: item 7 –
organizational structure to support BIM system within the company (Boktor et al., 2014; Olawumi
and Chan, 2018b; Saxon, 2013) which these three interviewees have chosen (see Table VI). They
agreed that if the top management is willing to prioritize the development of BIM system within their
organizations; then the organizational structure should be changed to fit the use of BIM system,
such as establishing a separate department for BIM personnel and putting efforts to promote and
support its development.

Interviewees A and C perceived item 4 – willingness of staff to learn new technology (Olawumi and
Chan, 2019) – as important. Instances where project staff chooses to keep their traditional concepts
imply that they are not willing to accept the innovative technology. Therefore, a change in their
attitudes and willingness to spend time and efforts on learning new things will be a first step forward
to learning BIM system. It is not necessary that all employees in the company must know the
technical design operations of BIM, but, at least, it is imperative that they are aware of some
applications of BIM.

It includes how to generate useful data which can facilitate their daily work. For
example, quantity surveyors may make use of the BIM system to output the
quantities of materials used and then conduct the cost estimating or cost
control.
Interviewee A identified item 11 – promotion from top management
(Ayegun et al., 2018; Rogers et al., 2015) – as also very essential. Nowadays, innovation is one of
the principal competitive factors between companies, and BIM system is one of the recent
innovative 1848 technologies. Therefore, the BIM implementation within the company will become
smoother and more successful with the full support and promotion from the top
management. Interviewee B stated that item 3 – financial support from the government to set up
BIM system (Abubakar et al., 2014; Bin Zakaria et al., 2013) – and item 9 – professional BIM design
team within the company (Olawumi and Chan, 2018b; Tsai et al., 2014) – are also dispensable.

It is because financial aid drives the private companies to use this system.
Especially for the small-sized to middle-sized companies, financial assistance
for the initial set-up cost is a key factor in adopting this innovative tool.
Moreover, some skilled and experienced teams including design teams can
better the operation of the company, so the top management is willing to
spend money to support the BIM development in the company further.
Interviewee C considered item 5 – client’s acceptance with BIM projects
(Harding et al., 2014; Kassem et al., 2012) as also vital. For item 5, different
clients have their concerns and needs. Therefore, a client who is confident in
using BIM system to facilitate their projects and meet their requirements, they
 will be more willing to accept this innovative technology and put in more
money to develop it within the company.

Overall, the interviewees selected six out of the eleven CSFs as highly
significant to drive the implementation of BIM initiative in the construction
industry. A closer look at these six CSFs reveals the notable contributions of
key stakeholders such as construction organizations, the governments and
even the project teams in the drive to enhance BIM adoption in the Hong Kong
AEC industry. The interviewees highlighted the importance of an in-house BIM
structure and management policy toward domesticating BIM adoption in such
firms before its actual usage in construction projects (Chan, 2014; Saxon,
2013). An in-house BIM system implies that the activities (design, costing,
energy assessment, etc., of buildings) of every unit in the construction firm is
first seamlessly integrated and coordinated to ensure that the eventual
deployment of BIM initiative in a project is carried out without a hitch.

Also, the interviewees believed that if there are incentives (such as bonuses,
etc.) for staff in learning new technologies like BIM; it can increase their
willingness to hone the BIM skills. More so, the top management of firms
should consider organizing or sponsoring their staff for BIM training and
workshops to ease the learning experience and enhance the BIM
competencies of their staff. Meanwhile, the interviewees believed that the
success rate of BIM projects such as its higher productivity, projects
completed on schedule, budget and with required quality is critical in
motivating more clients to adopt the use of BIM in their projects.

Interviewees
Perceived CSF factors featuring in the top 3 for the three (3) Total number of
S/N interviewees A BC hits for each CSFs
Item 3 Financial support from the government to set up a BIM system | 1
Item 4 Willingness of staff to learn new technology || 2

Table VI. Item 5 Client’s acceptance with BIM projects | 1

Summary of the Item 7 Organizational structure to support BIM system within the company ||| 3
interview findings on the Item 9 Professional BIM design team within the company | 1
CSFs of BIM Item 11 Promotion from top management 1
implementation |
Total number of CSFs identified by each interviewee 3 33 9
Cross-synthesis of the survey respondents’ opinions and
the interviewees’ perceptions
This study explores the CSFs for implementing BIM in the Hong Kong AEC
industry. The survey participants identified client’s acceptance with BIM
projects, an organizational structure to support a BIM system within the
company and financial support from the government to set up a BIM system as
the three most significant CSFs for implementing BIM in Hong Kong. These
CSFs relates to the three key project stakeholders involved in the construction
industry, that is, the clients/government, consultants, and contractors. For most
projects, the clients seem to have 1849 the final say on the contract budget
and the method through which such projects may be
undertaken. BIM projects are costlier than the conventional ones, although the
reaped benefits are at the design, construction, and facility
management stages. at the design, construction, and facility management
stages.
A client who had an unpleasant experience with the previous adoption of BIM
in their projects may be unwilling to undertake such form of innovative
technology in future projects; an opinion shared by Kassem et al. (2012).
Therefore, it behooves the project team on BIM-enabled projects to ensure
that they delivered such projects to the highest possible standards and
satisfaction demanded by the clients to increase the clients’ acceptance level
of BIM projects. The interviewee from the contractor’s side corroborated this
assertion that project clients will become more inclined to adopt BIM in
construction projects if there are verifiable benefits of such innovative
technologies when implemented in their projects.

The need for related construction organizations (i.e., the clients’ organizations,
consultants, contractors, or developers) to have a full-fledged BIM department
as part of their organizational structure cannot be over-emphasized (Olawumi
and Chan, 2019). The three interviewees unanimously selected this factor as
quite significant to the success of BIM adoption in Hong Kong, and the same
factor also ranked as the second by the survey respondents as crucial to BIM
implementation. Although, some firms in Hong Kong have established BIM
units in their organizations, the level of independence differs from firms to firms
and some firms do not even have BIM personnel at all. The level of
independence implies that the personnel engaged in the BIM department are
solely and working in the BIM unit, and not just deployed to the BIM unit when
a project requires their urgent assistance or advisory service. The benefit of
this independence will assist such staff to be braced and equipped with the
current trend of knowledge and application of this innovative technology. It will
also enable and give them sufficient time and freedom to develop a best
practice framework and specialized techniques which would facilitate the ease
of using BIM on their projects.

BIM as a new, modern, and innovative technology comes with its attendant
high cost of implementation (Kivits and Furneaux, 2013; Olawumi et al., 2018).
These costs are associated with the BIM software, supporting hardware and
operating system, yearly licenses and even the training of staff to use it.
Therefore, any financial incentives by the governments downstream to firms
and companies with the intention of using BIM will facilitate its wider adoption
and implementation in Hong Kong or elsewhere. The financial incentives may
come in several forms like tax incentives, bonus credits, loans, access to
subsided technical BIM support, among others. The perception was also
supported by the interviewee from the consultant’s side. These financial
initiatives and more will certainly enhance BIM implementation in near future.

Conclusions
The paper investigated the key issues on BIM implementation in Hong Kong
and carried out a desktop literature review of BIM implementation in the
leading economies of the world. More so, several factors were found as CSFs
for BIM implementation in Hong Kong by a group of empirical survey
respondents from the consultant, contracting and clients’ organizations based
in Hong Kong. The five most significant CSFs included: client’s acceptance
with BIM projects, organizational structure to support BIM system within the
company, financial support from the government to set up BIM system, BIM
standards for the industry and BIM training programs for staff.

Furthermore, the views of three senior expert interviewees involved in the

Hong Kong AEC industry were gleaned, and they all agree on the factor –
 organizational structure to support BIM system within the company – being
highly instrumental to the successful implementation of BIM in Hong Kong.
Also, the willingness of staff to learn the innovative technology was

1850 perceived to be important by both the interviewees from the client’s and contractor’s 
organizations. Other factors suggested by the interviewees encompass: promotion from top
management, financial support from the government to set up a BIM system, the engagement/
availability of a professional BIM design team and client’s acceptance with BIM projects.s
acceptance with BIM projects.

Apart from the suggestions made by the interviewees, there is a need for a
change in the approach to design submission for approval. Also, more
encouragement to designers to adopt this software and the establishment of
BIM industry standards, protocols, as well as legal frameworks are conducive
to its adoption. The need for financial support from the government will be a
strong incentive for organizations to launch BIM. However, the incentive of the
first financial support may not be robust and attractive enough to drive the
company to adopt this technology. Therefore, the government may consider
whether it is feasible to develop a financial assistance scheme to support more
for the running cost such as the free license of BIM software with the limited
quota within the limited period of usage.

Areas for future studies may consider examining the CSFs from the
educational institutes and universities perspectives through a case study
approach or a holistic review of BIM curriculum development standpoint. It is
because BIM-related subjects under different institutes may be offered only
optional and so some students may not be too familiar and well-versed with
the BIM development and usage.

References
Abanda, F.H., Vidalakis, C., Oti, AH and Tah, J.H.M. (2015), “A critical analysis of building
information modelling systems used in construction projects”, Advances in Engineering
Software, Vol. 90, pp. 183-201, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.08.009
Abu, SSSB (2015), “Critical success factors influencing performance of construction projects”,
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology,
Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 3285-3292, doi: 10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0405048.
Abubakar, M., Ibrahim, Y.M., Kado, D. and Bala, K. (2014), “Contractors perception of the factors
affecting building information modelling (BIM) adoption in the Nigerian construction
 industry”, International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, pp.
23-25.
Aibinu, A. and Venkatesh, S. (2014), “Status of BIM adoption and the BIM experience of cost
consultants in Australia”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice, Vol. 140 No. 3, pp. 1-10, available at: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-
5541.0000193
Akinade, O.O., Oyedele, L.O., Ajayi, S.O., Bilal, M., Alaka, H.A., Owolabi, HA and Kadiri, K.O.
(2016), “Design for deconstruction (DfD): critical success factors for diverting end-of-life
waste from landfills”, Waste Management, Vol. 60, pp. 3-13, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.017
Antón, L.Á. and Díaz, J. (2014), “Integration of LCA and BIM for sustainable construction”,
International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 1378-1382.
Arayici, Y. and Coates, P. (2012), “A system engineering perspective to knowledge transfer: a
case study approach of BIM adoption”, in Tan, X.-X. (Ed.), Virtual Reality – Human
Computer Interaction, InTech, Rijeka, pp. 179-206.
Arayici, Y., Coates, P., Koskela, L., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C. and O’Reilly, K. (2011), “Technology
adoption in the BIM implementation for lean architectural practice”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 189-195, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.016.
Ayegun, O.A., Abiola-falemu, J.O. and Olawumi, T.O. (2018), “Assessment of clients’ perception and
satisfaction with project quality delivery in Nigeria”, Journal of Sustainable Construction
Engineering and Project Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-44, available at: https://goo.gl/f3eu7T
Azhar, S. (2011), “Building information modeling (BIM): trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for
the AEC industry”, Leadership and Management in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 241-
252, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000127.
Baiden, B., Price, A. and Dainty, A. (2006), “The extent of team integration within construction 1851 projects”,
International Journal Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 13-23. projects”, International
Journal Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Barlish, K. and Sullivan, K. (2012), “How to measure the benefits of BIM – a case study approach”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 24, pp. 149-159, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2012.02.008.
BIM Task Group (2011), “A report for the government construction client group from the BIM
industry working group”, available at:
www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/Resources/ResoucePublications/ BISBIMstrategyReport.pdf
(accessed July 6, 2018).
Bin Zakaria, Z., Mohamed Ali, N., Tarmizi Haron, A., Marshall-Ponting, A. and Abd Hamid, Z.
(2013), “Exploring the adoption of building information modelling (BIM) in the Malaysian
construction industry: a qualitative approach”, International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 8, pp. 384-395.
Boktor, J., Hanna, A. and Menassa, C.C. (2014), “State of practice of building information
modeling in the mechanical construction industry”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 78-85, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000176
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, doi: 10.1016/ j. ijproman.2012.12.001.
BuildingSMART (2011), BIM in the Middle East, BuildingSMART ME, Qatar.
Chan, C.T.W. (2014), “Barriers of implementing BIM in construction industry from the designers’
perspective: a Hong Kong experience”, Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol.
 4 No. 2, pp. 24-40.
Chan, D.W.M. and Choi, T.N.Y. (2015), “Difficulties in executing the mandatory building
inspection scheme (MBIS) for existing private buildings in Hong Kong”, Habitat
International, Vol. 48, pp. 97-105, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.015
Chan, D.W.M. and Hung, H.T.W. (2015), “An empirical survey of the perceived benefits of
implementing the mandatory building inspection scheme (MBIS) in Hong Kong”, Facilities,
Vol. 33 Nos 5/6, pp. 337-366, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/F-09-2013-0066
Chan, D.W.M., Chan, A.P.C. and Choi, T.N.Y. (2010), “An empirical survey of the benefits of
implementing pay for safety scheme (PFSS) in the Hong Kong construction industry”,
Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 433-443.
Chen, P.Y. and Popovich, P.M. (2002), Correlation: Parametric and Nonparametric Measures, Sage
Publications, CA.
Davies, R. and Harty, C. (2013), “Implementing ‘Site BIM’: a case study of ICT innovation on a
large hospital project”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 30, pp. 15-24, available at:
https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.autcon.2012.11.024
Eadie, R., Browne, M., Odeyinka, H., McKeown, C. and McNiff, S. (2013), “BIM implementation
throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: an analysis”, Automation in Construction,
Vol. 36, pp. 145-151, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2013.09.001.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K. (2008), BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building
Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Architects, Engineers, Contractors, and
Fabricators, John Wiley and Sons, NJ.
Enegbuma, W.I. and Ali, K.N. (2011), “A preliminary critical success factor (CSFs) analysis of
building information modelling (BIM) implementation in Malaysia”, Proceedings of the
Asian Conference on Real Estate (ACRE 2011): Sustainable Growth, Management
Challenges, Thistle Johor Bahru, October 3-5.
Epstein, E. (2012), Implementing Successful Building Information Modeling, Artech House,
Norwood, M.A. Field, A. (2009), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed., Sage Publications
Ltd, London.
Ghafur, A. and Nawi, M.N.M. (2016), “Critical success factors for competitiveness of construction
companies: a critical review”, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 20042, p. 7, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4960882
Gilligan, B. and Kunz, J. (2007), “VDC use in 2007: significant value, dramatic growth, and
apparent
1852 business opportunity”, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Report TR171, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA.
Harding, J., Suresh, S., Renukappa, S. and Mushatat, S. (2014), “Do building information
modelling applications benefit design teams in achieving BREEAM accreditation?”,
Journal of Construction Engineering, Vol. 1, pp 1-8, available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/390158
Hartmann, T. and Fischer, M. (2008), “Applications of BIM and hurdles for widespread adoption
of BIM; AISC-ACCL econstruction roundtable event rep”, CIFE Working Paper No.
WP105, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Hope, A. and Alwan, Z. (2012), “Building the future: integrating building information modelling and
environmental assessment methodologies”, Northumbria Research Link, First UK
Academic Conference on BIM, Northumbria University, September 5-7, available at:
https://core.ac.uk/ download/pdf/8790178.pdf
 Howard, R. and Björk, B.-C. (2008), “Building information modelling – experts’ views on
standardisation and industry deployment”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 22 No.
2, pp. 271-280, doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2007.03.001.
Jung, Y. and Joo, M. (2011), “Building information modelling (BIM) framework for practical
implementation”, Automation of Construction, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 126-133.
Kassem, M., Brogden, T. and Dawood, N. (2012), “BIM and 4D planning: a holistic study of the
barriers and drivers to widespread adoption”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Project Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Kasuya, E. (2001), “Mann-Whitney U test when variances are unequal”, Animal Behaviour, Vol.
61 No. 6, pp. 1247-1249.
Khemlani, L. (2007), “Top criteria for BIM solutions: AEC bytes survey results”, available at: www.
aecbytes.com/feature/2007/BIMSurveyReport.html
Kim, S., Park, C.H. and Chin, S. (2016), “Assessment of BIM acceptance degree of Korean AEC
participants”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 1163-1177, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0647-y
Kivits, R.A. and Furneaux, C. (2013), “BIM: enabling sustainability and asset management
through knowledge management”, The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1-14, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/983721
Legendre, P. (2005), “Species associations: the Kendall coefficient of concordance revisited”,
Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, Vol. 10 No. 2, p. 226,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1198/108571105X46642
McGraw Hill Construction (2014), The Business Value of BIM for Construction in Global Markets:
How Contractors Around the World are Driving Innovation with Building Information
Modeling, SmartMarket Report, Bedford, MA.
Morlhon, R., Pellerin, R. and Bourgault, M. (2014), “Building information modeling implementation
through maturity evaluation and critical success factors management”, Procedia
Technology, Vol. 16, pp. 1126-1134, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2014.10.12
Mutai, A.K. (2009), “Factors influencing the use of building information modeling within leading
construction firms in the United States of America”, Doctor of Philosophy, Indiana State
University, Terre Haute, IN.
Olatunji, OA (2011), “Preliminary review on the legal implications of BIM and model ownership”,
ITcon, Vol. 16, pp. 687-696.
Olatunji, S.O., Olawumi, T.O. and Aje, I.O. (2017), “Rethinking partnering among quantity-
surveying firms in Nigeria”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol.
143 No. 11, pp. 1-12, available at: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001394
Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W.M. (2018a), “Beneficial factors of integrating building information
modelling (BIM) and sustainability practices in construction projects”, Proceedings of the
Hong Kong International Conference on Engineering and Applied Science 2018
(HKICEAS 2018): Higher Education Forum, Hong Kong, January 24–26, pp. 141-152.

Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W.M. (2018b), “Critical success factors (CSFs) for amplifying
the1853

integration of BIM and sustainability principles in construction projects: a delphi study”,

Proceedings of the RICS COBRA Conference 2018: RICS (Paper No. 127 in electronic
format), London, April 23–24, available at: https://goo.gl/eBfyVW
Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W.M. (2018c), “Development of a benchmarking modelforBIM
 Implementation in developing countries”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No.
4, pp. 1210-1232, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2018-0138
Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W.M. (2018d), “Identifying and prioritizing the benefits of integrating
BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects: a Delphi survey of international
experts”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 40, pp. 16-27, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.03.033
Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W.M. (2019), “Critical success factors for implementing building
information modelling (BIM) and sustainability practices in construction projects: a Delphi
survey”, Sustainable Development, pp. 1-16, available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1925
Olawumi, T.O., Chan, D.W.M. and Wong, J.K.W. (2017), “Evolution in the intellectual structure of
BIM research: a bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol.
23 No. 8, pp. 1060-1081, available at: https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2017.1374301
Olawumi, T.O., Chan, D.W.M., Wong, J.K.W. and Chan, A.P.C. (2018), “Barriers to the
integration of BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects: a Delphi survey of
international experts”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 60-71, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jobe.2018.06.017
Oo, TZ. (2014), Critical Success Factors for Application of BIM for Singapore Architectural Firms,
School of the Built Environment, Heriott Watt University.
Ozorhon, B. and Karahan, U. (2016), “Critical success factors of building information modeling
implementation”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 1-10,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000505
Peansupap, V. and Walker, D. (2005), “Factors affecting ICT diffusion: a case study of three
large Australian construction contractors”, Engineering Construction & Architectural
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 21-37, Blackwell Publishing Limited.
Redmond, A., Hore, A., Alshawi, M. and West, R. (2012), “Exploring how information exchanges
can be enhanced through Cloud BIM”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 24, pp. 175-183,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.02.003
Rockart, J.F. (1982), “The changing role of the information systems executive: a critical success factors
perspective”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Rogers, J., Chong, H.-Y. and Preece, C. (2015), “Adoption of building information modelling
technology (BIM) perspectives from Malaysian engineering consulting services firms”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 424-445,
available at: https:// doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2014-0067
Ruikar, E.K. and Emmitt, S. (2009), “Emerging ICT trends in construction project teams: a Delphi survey”,
Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 14, March, pp. 81-97.
Santos, J.R.A. (1999), “Cronbach's alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales", Journal of Extension,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 1-5.
Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M. and Coyle, M. (1992), "Critical success factors
for construction projects", Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118
No. 1, pp. 94-111, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733- 9364(1992)118:1(94).
Saxon, R.G. (2013), Growth Through BIM, Construction Industry Council, London.
Siegel, S. and Castellan, NJ (1988), Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Succar, B. (2009), "Building information modelling framework: a research and delivery foundation
for industry stakeholders", Automation in Construction, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 357-375, doi:
10.1016/ j.autcon. 2008.10.003.
1854 Succar, B., Sher, W. and Williams, A. (2012), "Measuring BIM performance: five metrics", Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 120-142, doi: 10.1080/
Engineering
17452007.2012.659506.
and Design Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 120-142, doi: 10.1080/
 Succar, B., Sher, W. and Williams, A. (2013), "An integrated approach to BIM competency
assessment, acquisition and application", Automation in Construction, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp.
174-189.
Suermann, P. and Issa, R. (2009), "Evaluating industry perceptions of building information
modeling (BIM) impact on construction", ITcon, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 574-594.
Thompson, D.B. and Miner, R.G. (2006), "Building information modeling-BIM: contractual risks
are changing with technology", available at: http://bit.ly/2xaWDx7 (accessed October
2018).
Toor, S.-R. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2008), "Critical COMs of success in large-scale construction
projects:
evidence from Thailand construction industry", International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 420-430, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.003.
Tsai, M.-H., Mom, M. and Hsieh, S.-H. (2014), "Developing critical success factors for the
assessment of BIM technology adoption: part I: methodology and survey", Journal of the
Chinese Institute of
Engineers, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 845-858, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2014.888811
Volk, R., Stengel, J. and Schultmann, F. (2014), "Building information modeling (BIM) for existing
buildings-literature review and future needs", Automation in Construction, Vol. 38, pp.
109-127, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2013.10.023.
Won, J. and Lee, G. (2010), "Identifying the consideration factors for successful BIM projects",
Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building
Engineering, 72, pp. 143-148.
Wu, I.L. and Wu, K.W. (2005), "A hybrid technology acceptance approach for exploring e-CRM
adoption in organizations", Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 303-
316, doi: 10.1080/0144929042000320027.
Wu, W. and Issa, R.R.A. (2015), "BIM execution planning in green building projects: LEED as a
use case", Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-18, available at:
https:// doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000314
Yaakob, M., Athirah, W.N., Ali, W., Radzuan, K., Nur, W. and Ali, A.W. (2016), "Identifying critical
success factors (CSFs) of implementing building information modeling (BIM) in Malaysian
construction industry", International Conference on Applied Science and Technology 2016
(ICAST), Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 20105-15095, available at: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3452236
Yeomans, S.G., Bouchlaghem, N.M. and El-Hamalawi, A. (2006), "An evaluation of current
collaborative prototyping practices within the AEC industry", Automation in Construction,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-149.

Corresponding author
Timothy O. Olawumi can be contacted at: timothy.o.olawumi@connect.polyu.hk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or
contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com