Sei sulla pagina 1di 56

Research

June 2015

Building Information
Modelling and the
Value Dimension

rics.org/research

Building Information Modelling and the


Value Dimension

RICS Research 2015

rics.org/research

Report for Royal Institution


of Chartered Surveyors
Report written by:
Associate Professor Sara J Wilkinson BSc MA MPhil PhD FRICS AAPI
School of the Built Environment, University of Technology,
Sydney, Australia
sara.wilkinson@uts.edu.au
Associate Professor Julie Jupp BA BSc PhD
School of the Built Environment, University of Technology,
Sydney, Australia

RICS Research team


Dr. Clare Eriksson FRICS
Director of Global Research & Policy
ceriksson@rics.org
Amanprit Johal
Global Research and Policy Manager
ajohal@rics.org
Pratichi Chatterjee
Global Research & Policy Officer
pchatterjee@rics.org
Published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)
RICS, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD

www.rics.org
The views expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of RICS nor any body
connected with RICS. Neither the authors, nor RICS accept any liability arising from
the use of this publication.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Copyright RICS 2015

RICS Research 2015

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Contents
Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 7
1.0 Introduction and scope of research ...............................................10



1.1
Rationale for the research ...............................................................10
1.2
Research question, aims and objectives.......................................10
1.3 Limitations...........................................................................................11
1.4
Structure of the report......................................................................11

2.0 BIM and the Value Dimension...............................................................12








2.1
2.2
2.2.1
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3

Property Life Cycle ............................................................................13


Data Types and Needs........................................................................14
Property Information Requirements .............................................14
Education Issues ................................................................................16
BIM within AEC Education (project-level lifecycle).....................16
BIM within Property Education (property-level lifecycle).........17
Developing New Knowledge Competencies in RICS....................17

3.0 Research design and methodology..................................................19



3.1
3.2

Stage 1 Workshops ............................................................................19


Stage 2 Online Questionnaire Survey ............................................21

4.0 Workshop Analysis and Discussion ................................................22



4.1

4.2

4.2.1

4.2.2

4.3

Workshop 1 Identifying Data Types and Needs............................22


Workshop 2 Identifying the Challenges ........................................25
Technology-based Challenges.........................................................27
Socio-technical Challenges..............................................................27
Workshop 2 and 3 Identifying Timelines & Mapping
Data Needs Through Life ..................................................................29

5.0 Survey Data Analysis and Discussion.............................................31





5.1 Part 1 Respondent Profiles, Current Awareness and


Usage of BIM........................................................................................31
5.2
Part 2 Experience Working with Information Technologies...33
5.3
Part 3 Information Frequency and Need of Use........................35
5.4
Part 4 Challenges & Benefits of BIM............................................40

6.0 Overall conclusions and further research ..................................43





6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4

Data through-life................................................................................43
Challenges & Benefits of BIM...........................................................43
Integration of BIM in Property Education......................................44
Recommendations and further research......................................44

7.0 References.....................................................................................................45
Appendices ................................................................................................................47



Appendix 1 Property professionals data types and needs....................48


Appendix 2 Key to symbols used in figures 5 and 6 and Appendix 3......49
Appendix 3 Managing data through the property lifecycle
(Workshop 2 output). .......................................................................................50

Special Thanks .........................................................................................................52

RICS Research 2015

rics.org/research

List of Tables
Table 1
Information Categories Developed for Workshops and Survey......15
Table 2 Descending relative importance of data types for
Stakeholder Groups (highest to lowest)..............................................23
Table 3
Relative Importance of Five Main Information Types

& Stakeholder Groups...............................................................................23
Table 4 Challenges to through-life information management and
corresponding RII......................................................................................25
Table 5 Comparison between Australian and UK participants perspectives
regarding the key drivers and challenges when sourcing,
integrating and generating data through-life....................................28
Table 6
Frequency of use of data types by area of practice / discipline.....36
Table 7
Data need score by data type / area of practice................................37
Table 8
Tests of Professional Differences in Information Importance.......39

List of Figures
Figure 1 Property Development and Management processes compared
with Single Facility Project Processes (Source: Authors) ...............13
Figure 2 Selection of sort cards showing data types adapted from
Lutzendorf & Lorenz, 2011 ....................................................................20
Figure 3 Importance of Main Information Types according to
Stakeholders and Activities across CPDM/ Project
Lifecycle Phases........................................................................................24
Figure 4 Relative Importance of Challenges to Through-life
Information Management .......................................................................26
Figure 5 Data needs for a Buildings Surveyor Technical Due
Diligence survey ........................................................................................29
Figure 6 Data needs for Portfolio Management Surveyors through
the lifecycle ................................................................................................30
Figure 7 RICS region respondent work in ............................................................31
Figure 8 Respondents area of current practice ...............................................32
Figure 9 Land use types and sectors of property respondents work on ......32
Figure 10 Use of Information Technologies in the workplace ...........................33
Figure 11 Understanding of BIM ..............................................................................34
Figure 12 Experience of BIM .....................................................................................34
Figure 13 Source of BIM training .............................................................................34
Figure 14 Information Type Need versus Frequency ..........................................38
Figure 15 Key Challenges in information management through life ...............41
Figure 16 Key benefits of digital information through life ................................42

RICS Research 2015

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Glossary of Terms

RICS Research 2015

AEC

Architecture, engineering, construction

AECO

Architecture, engineering, construction and operation

BIM

Building Information Modelling

BMS

Building Management Systems

PDM

Property Development and Management

O&FM

Operations and Facilities Management

PLM

Product Lifecycle Management

RICS

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

ROI

Return on investment

VBM

Virtual Building Model

TM

Transaction Management

3D

Third Dimension in BIM 3D geometry.

4D

Fourth Dimension in BIM the time perspective

5D

Fifth Dimension in BIM the cost perspective

rics.org/research

Executive Summary
Building Information Modelling (BIM) offers rich
opportunities for RICS property professionals to use
information throughout the property lifecycle. However, the
potential benefits of BIM for property professionals have
been largely untapped to-date. BIM tools and processes
were originally developed by the architecture, engineering
and construction (AEC) sector to assist in managing
design and construction data. As these technologies and
processes mature and evolve, so too does the opportunity
for other professional groups to utilise various types of data
contained within, or linked to, BIM models.
This report outlines the findings from a research project
investigating the potential for RICS property professionals to
utilise BIM data. Workshops were carried out in Sydney and
London with property professionals, and a global online
survey was conducted. From these, data types and needs
were identified and then mapped across the property
lifecycle. Alignment with BIM data was undertaken.
Following on from this, issues around training and
education for existing and future members were reviewed
along with the ways in which BIM can be integrated into
property education on RICS accredited courses.

Research question and aims


The research question investigated was: what is the role
of the value dimension in BIM? This question is examined
relative to the activities and professional services performed
by RICS property professionals. For example, could BIM
help increase property income yields, by providing better
quality data on: minimising risk on investment returns;
increasing capital growth; and managing and optimising
deprecation? As a scoping study, this project aimed;
a) to identify the specific types of data that various
property professionals use throughout the property
lifecycle,
b) to evaluate the importance or need for these data types
to property professionals,
c) how information requirements compare with those of
AEC project level processes and the extent to which
this data is generated in AEC focused BIM deliverables,

Methods
This research adopted a two-stage research design.
The research had the characteristics of qualitative
research, in that it sought to investigate the potential
for property professionals to use BIM data. To do
this, it was necessary to ascertain and gain a deeper
understanding of their information / data needs and the
type of data required. The first stage of the research
employed a Delphi approach, which seeks to aggregate
the opinions of a panel of experts through successive
rounds of questionnaires and interviews. The results
from each round were collated and fed back to the panel
anonymously and then the panel was asked to provide
further comment. Two groups of diverse and experienced
property professionals were invited to share their
knowledge and experiences in real time, in Sydney and
London, over the course of three workshops. The scope
of each workshop was as follows;
Workshop 1 Objectives: Identify the types of data that
each of the professional groups use in daily activities
and, the associated challenges of through-life information
management,
Workshop 2 Objective: Identify upstream and
downstream data requirements related to professional
property service tasks,
Workshop 3 Objective: Analyse upstream and
downstream data requirements relative to data
characteristics, such as; quality and accessibility.
Following analysis of the data generated by the
workshops, an online survey of RICS members globally
was undertaken. This stage of the research adopted a
quantitative approach to validate the earlier qualitative
data collected in the workshops. The survey comprised
four parts to ascertain members knowledge and
understanding and discover how best BIM data can be
used most effectively within the property professions.
The survey allowed us to;
1. Map the property information/data that members use
currently,

d) to explore the potential to expand education about BIM


into property education, and;

2. Understand the value and significance of those data


needs; and,

e) to identify steps that RICS can take to increase


knowledge, skills and competency of BIM within the
membership of the property disciplines.

3. Reveal what opportunities exist within BIM to enhance


professional practice.

RICS Research 2015

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Key findings
The key findings are that there is potential for BIM in the
Value Dimension; that is for the property profession. In
respect of the five research objectives this research finds;
1) The specific data types that are used by a number of
property professionals through the property lifecycle
were identified in the workshops. Property professionals
undertake a very diverse range of professional tasks
through the building lifecycle and participants use
a total of 24 data types listed below (see table 2 also).
1) Building Description
2) Health & User Comfort
3) Tenant & occupier Situation
4) Functional Quality
5) Payments In
6) Construction Quality
7) Land Features
8) FM Quality
9) Surrounding Characteristics
10) Technical Quality
11) National Market
12) Design/Aesthetic Quality
13) Payments Out
14) Market & Letting Vacancy Situation
15)
Design Process Quality
16) Site Features
17) Planning Quality
18) Macro-Location
19) Environmental Quality
20)
Micro-Location
21)
Cultural/Image Value
22) Operational Quality
23) Environmental Context
24) Urban Design Quality

RICS Research 2015

2) When different property professionals ranked the


importance or need for these data types for property
different profiles emerged. Different data types were
required at different stages of the property lifecycle.
Some professionals, such as Portfolio Management
Surveyors (see figure 6) have repeated data needs over
longer periods of the lifecycle, whereas others, such
as Building Surveyors (see figure 5), had a need for a
more limited range of data types at specific points in the
lifecycle.
3) When information requirements are compared with
those of AEC project level processes and the extent
this data is generated in AEC focused BIM deliverables,
we found the AEC projects focus on design and
construction phases, though this is being extended
into the operational phase and this falls within the
field of Facilities Management. Property professionals
who require data relating to building performance and
maintenance costs will find BIM data useful, where
it is available, in their professional practice. The number
of existing buildings with BIM, as a proportion of the
total stock is small, however BIM enabled stock is
more highly represented in higher quality new
commercial property.
4) It was found that there is great potential to expand
education about BIM into property education at
undergraduate and post-graduate level across all
RICS regions. This potential will increase over time as
the rate of uptake of BIM technology increases in the
built environment. Property management students
and subjects will initially benefit most from increased
awareness and knowledge of BIM and Building
Management Systems (BMS) technology. Valuation
subjects can also start the process of awareness
raising though most of their data needs currently lie
outside of BIM, this may change over time.
5) There are several steps identified that RICS can take
to increase knowledge, skills and competency of BIM
within the existing membership base of the property
disciplines. These measures are outlined in the
recommendations below.

rics.org/research

Conclusions and
recommendations

3. Develop a set of CPD events to raise


awareness among property professionals
of BIM

This research has shown that there is a place for BIM


and the value dimension and that this will grow over time.
There is great potential to expand the current use of BIM
data for property professionals. There is also potential
to expand the range of data linked to BIM for use by
property professionals.

As a priority RICS should develop some online education


resources for members to raise awareness and knowledge
in respect of BIM and how property professionals could
use data within the models.

1. Map data needs and types across all


RICS disciplines
One of the key priorities is to undertake a comprehensive
mapping of data needs and types across all RICS
disciplines to identify (a) what is currently within BIM that
could be used by property professionals, and (b) data
needs and types currently in a digital format but found
in databases outside of BIM that could be easily made
compatible to BIM. Additionally this review would identify
those data needs and types that are outside of BIM that
could be digitised and incorporated due to the extent
of potential usage within the property profession.
The full list should be categorised and prioritised, and
where necessary negotiations with third parties should
be initiated. In particular details on data source, format,
quality (with respect to reliability and accuracy) are needed.

2. Introduce BIM professional competency


into RICS APC for property professionals

4. Develop RICS training courses for existing


members of the property disciplines in BIM
Concurrent with the roll out of CPD events for members
and the development of online education resources, RICS
should develop a series of training courses for existing
members globally to realise the potential of using BIM data
in their professional practices.

5. RICS BIM & Property Education Task Force


With regards to the integration of BIM into property
education, RICS should form an Education Task Force
to champion the roll out of BIM across RICS accredited
property courses globally to ensure new members have
the requisite awareness, knowledge and skill with respect
to BIM and property or; the value dimension. Some
other professional bodies are also establishing education
task forces and there may be some opportunities for,
and benefits in collaboration. After all BIM is about
collaboration between various stakeholders to share
information for optimum outcomes.

The RICS APC group should develop appropriate property


discipline BIM competencies with the APC structure
so that property professionals can obtain recognition
for knowledge, skill and capability with the application
of this knowledge in their professional practice. It is
acknowledged that RICS have established the first
BIM certification BIM Managers, for members in the
construction sector. There may be some aspects that
may be transferable to a property focussed certification.

RICS Research 2015

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

1.0 Introduction and scope of research


1.1 Rationale for the research
Building Information Modelling (BIM) is shaping the way
that architecture, engineering, construction and operation
(AECO) professionals will work in the future (Macdonald,
2012) and is integral to real-time coordination across the
disciplines within RICS. Whilst advocates for BIM claim
numerous client-side benefits such as quicker approvals
due to clearer design intent, the broader scope for
client-side stakeholders such as property developers,
property managers, investors, and valuers has been largely
overlooked to date. Commercial property professionals
require good quality through-life information about
buildings, the surrounding environment and the market.
Professional property activities require robust and reliable
data from many sources to deliver a complete view of
performance and value during the building lifecycle or
through life. Effective information management across
various sectors of property encompasses the sourcing,
organisation and reuse of a variety of built environment
data and data sources.
BIM is defined as a modelling technology and associated
set of processes to produce, communicate and analyse
building models (Eastman et al, 2008), where intelligent
3D models allow data to be shared. Over time the 3D
model has developed to incorporate 4D (time, or workflow,
scheduling) 5D (cost) data. As such, BIM can be viewed
as a series of interlinked databases (typically represented
graphically using models) that can be shared and updated
for design and construction tasks. Each iteration of BIM is
referred to as a D, a dimension; hence the value dimension.
Value can be characterised by three principal
characteristics of property, namely risk, growth and
depreciation (Millington, 2014). The value dimension
of BIM is therefore defined by the information or data
required during the assessment of the risk, growth
and depreciation status of a property and provides
a description of its performance through life. This
lifecycle perspective includes its original commissioning,
project execution, operations and maintenance, and
recommissioning / disposal. Whilst value has been
addressed partly in the research literature relative to
BIMs return on investment (ROI), this research has been
typically at the level of the AEC project and has sought
to understand value relative to participating project
stakeholder organisations. To date, these studies have
largely neglected the broader processes of client-side
stakeholders and the activities that lie upstream and
downstream of design and construction. This report
is aimed primarily at property professionals, who are
less familiar with BIM, the technology and its associated
jargon. It is written in a style to avoid the overuse of jargon
to make it accessible to this new audience within the
RICS professional membership.

10

RICS Research 2015

Today, information technology is readily employed across


different lifecycle stages of building and infrastructure
facilities. Sourcing data from BIM technologies and
building management systems (BMS) is becoming
more common in the delivery and operational stages
of commercial, multi-residential, health, and education
buildings (McGraw Hill 2014). The use of semantic web
technologies for operations and facilities management
(O&FM) offers a means of structuring different built
environment data sources for more effective and
efficient through-life information management (BecerikGerber et al, 2011). For those who are unfamiliar with
the term semantic web, it is the next major evolution
in connecting information. It enables data to be linked
from a source to any other source and to be understood
by computers so that they can perform increasingly
sophisticated tasks on our behalf (Cambridge Semantics,
2015). This research is predicated on the premise that
some of the same information management capabilities
derived from a BIM-enabled approach that benefit AECO
stakeholders can serve property professionals and add
value to their professional services. This research explores
the potential to expand BIM beyond the AECO disciplines
and project stages, as well as beyond current approaches
to project and organisational notions of the value of BIM.

1.2 Research question, aims and


objectives
On this basis, the research question posed is: what is
the role of the value dimension in BIM? This question
is examined relative to the activities and professional
services performed by RICS property professionals.
For example, could BIM help increase property income
yields, by providing better quality data on: minimising risk
on investment returns; increasing capital growth; and
managing and optimising deprecation? As a scoping
study, this project aimed;
1) to identify the specific data types various property
professionals use throughout the property lifecycle,
2) to evaluate the importance or need for these data types
for property professionals,
3) how information requirements compare with those of
AEC project level processes and the extent this data is
generated in AEC focused BIM deliverables,
4) to explore the potential to expand education about BIM
into property education and;
5) to identify steps that RICS can take to increase
knowledge, skills and competency of BIM within the
membership of the property disciplines.

rics.org/research

1.3 Limitations
The research is limited to the investigation of these
considerations from a property development,
management and valuation perspective. This perspective
encompasses a large range of professional property
service tasks surrounding property development,
property and portfolio management, property investment,
property transactions and real estate, property valuation,
property and facilities management, and building
surveying. Whilst the research study and methodology
sought representation across these different property
professionals, the researchers encountered some
difficulties in obtaining equal representation across
those dealing with commercial, retail, multi-residential,
health, and education properties. This research limitation
surrounding stakeholder representation was encountered
in the workshops, where commercial property interests
were more widely represented.

1.4 Structure of the report


Section two analyses the literature around BIM and
the value dimension, through an examination of the
property lifecycle and data types and needs. It reviews
the educational aspect of BIM in respect of the project
and property lifecycles and discusses the integration of
BIM into property education. The research design and
methods are outlined in section three. Section four reports
on the data analysis and findings of focus groups held in
Sydney and London. In section five, the data analysis and
findings of the online survey are presented. The report
closes with a discussion of the main findings and BIMs
ability to support client-side decision-making relative to
risk, growth and depreciation variables as well as outlining
areas for further research.

RICS Research 2015

11

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

2.0 BIM and the Value Dimension

The lifecycles of complex, long-lived buildings mean that


it is important for property professionals to have robust
and reliable through-life information about a buildings
performance and value. Property professionals considered
here include property and facilities managers, development
and asset managers, investment and valuation surveyors,
building surveyors. However, whilst the value of BIM has
been addressed in the research literature relative to its return
on investment (ROI), these studies most often centre on the
project lifecycle and define value relative to AECO interests.
In the past five years more than 250 articles have
investigated the impacts of BIM relative to project
performance and its impact on business value (e.g. Carroll
2009, Becerik-Gerber & Kensek 2010, Rowlinson et al.
2010, Sebastian & van Berlo 2010). However they are
limited in terms of their definition of value, which focuses on
project and/or an AEC business level outcomes. Research
studies on the value of BIM relative to client-side and wider
property interests are lacking. Most studies include client
perspectives on the perceived benefits, costs and risks of
new technological, process and organisational change.
For example, industry surveys undertaken in Australia,
the UK and US (McGraw Hill 2014) have shown that most
clients perceive a positive ROI when BIM is adopted.
However, these studies are limited to the project lifecycle,
and consider only single facility project processes
neglecting the broader property perspective.
A number of studies undertaken across the U.K., Europe,
the US and Australian/New Zealand AEC industries show
that BIM uptake has in recent years been accelerating and
is likely to accelerate over the next few years (McGraw Hill,
2014). In the US in 2009, it was reported (Young et al., 2009)

12

RICS Research 2015

that 50% of the industry was using BIM, representing


a 75% increase in a two year period. A McGraw-Hill
Construction report, titled, The Business Value of BIM
in Europe (McGraw-Hill 2010), shows construction
professionals in France, Germany and U.K. have been
using BIM longer, but overall BIM adoption is greater in
North America. The study shows that a little over a third
(36%) of Western European construction professionals are
using BIM, where in a previous report McGraw-Hill found
that 49% of contractors, architects and engineers reported
BIM usage, (McGraw-Hill 2009). However, there is no clear
and consistent demand for adoption by clients. Currently
BIM adoption is largely in the larger AEC companies and
within larger construction projects, buildings and estates.
Furthermore given that typically only 1-2% is added to the
total stock of buildings annually (Wilkinson, 2015), it will be
many years before a majority of stock has BIM.
El-Gohary (2010) argued that potentially, BIM can add value
when assessing sustainability in a property development
feasibility study, where the costs and the potential of
different options can be assessed in respect of likely
sustainability rating levels say, under BREEAM or Green
Star. Studies by Fuerst and McAllister (2012) and Newell
et al, (2011) have indicated that there is a value premium
in sustainable commercial property in the UK, US and
Australia. Using BIM data and simulations, clients can be
advised of the social, environmental and economic costs
and benefits of various options allowing them to make
more informed decisions that optimise, or at least consider
the impact on property value. However it is not known
whether the information specified in AEC BIM models
currently meets the needs of the property professionals.

rics.org/research

2.1 Property life cycle


Property development and management activities
encompass more than the combination of single or
multiple AEC projects and the application of BIM in this
wider scope of property services is not well understood.
Typically, at the level of an AEC project, the general
lifecycle process of the design and construction project
is defined as:
1) Pre-design (PD) in which the decision maker from the
client side evaluates project feasibility;
2) Schematic Design (SD);
3) Detailed Design (DD);
4) Construction Documentation (CD);
5) Construction (CO); and
6) Operation/Maintenance (OM).
Only the client is involved in the entire process and
other professionals join and depart from the project as
required. When taking the wider property development
and management activities that surround the AEC project
into consideration, a more extensive lifecycle process
becomes evident. This property perspective of lifecycle
includes not only the AEC phases described above, but
also activities that encompass property such as;

When the two different levels of lifecycle are compared, the


requirements of information management is more complex
and the opportunities to maintain and leverage the data
contained within, or linked to, a BIM model is apparent.
However there is a lack of literature reporting studies
of well-defined property based or client-side strategy
surrounding the business case for deploying BIM either
on single facility projects or relative to property portfolios.
The recent increase in digital information generated
during AEC projects and throughout a propertys
operation and maintenance creates potential for a
new approach to information management within
property. The development of new approaches must
consider the lengthy time periods that information must
be managed over and complexities surrounding the
different consumers and generators of information, where
information must be able to be accessed and used by
numerous property professionals. The established role for
BIM in managing information within AEC professions can
be extended to property professionals. Questions arise
such as; what are the information needs, at what periods
during the lifecycle is information needed and; what is
the frequency of which such information is required? In
seeking to provide answers to these questions the first
step was to identify and then make an assessment of
relevant property data.

1) Conception;
2) Planning and Feasibility;
3) Preparation;
4) Execution;
5) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and
6) Recommissioning (see figure 1).

Figure 1

Property Development and Management processes compared with Single Facility


Project Processes
Single Facility Project
Lifecycle Phases

Commercial Property
Development
& Management
Lifecycle Phases

Conception
(C)

(PD)

Planning &
Feasibility
(SD)

(SD)

(DD)

Preparation
(P)

(CD&CO)

Execution
(E)

(OM)

Operation
Maintenance
(OM)

Recommissioning
(R)

Source: Authors

RICS Research 2015

13

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

2.2 Data Types & Needs


The data sources that are required to provide a description
and assessment of a propertys performance and value
are disparate, extensive, and correspond to the type
and variety of professional AECO and property activities
that span the building lifecycle. The data collected
encompasses market, property, building, financial, project,
operations and maintenance data. Together in various
combinations and at different lifecycle stages, this data
is reused by a variety of property professionals to inform
performance and valuation tasks.

2.2.1 Property Information Requirements


Currently a range of separate and distinct sources are
used to access property, development and management
information. Distinct data types may coexist in isolation and
the quality, completeness and accuracy of this information
is often unknown and sometimes unchecked (by those who
generated the information or who may consume it), making
information management in property disciplines complex.
Ltzendorf and Lorenz (2011) identified a comprehensive
list of descriptors to represent information types used by
property valuation and related professions. A list of 22
descriptor categories shown in the first column of Table
1, identified by Ltzendorf and Lorenz (2011) according to
information traditionally gathered and used for property
valuation and risk assessment purposes. Their sources
included The European Group of Valuers Associations
(TEGoVA 2003), RICS (2009) as well as a cross-section
of sustainability assessment schemes such as the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP 2009), and the
Green Property Alliance (GPA 2010). These studies were
examined to ascertain whether BIM might offer for the
broader scope of property development and management
activities; in other words, the value dimension.
The researchers analysed each information requirement
relative to the scope and processes identified in Figure 1
and developed an information requirements framework
consisting of five main types of property, development and
management descriptors, 25 sub-types and 90 individual
attributes. The five main categories of information include
descriptors relevant to property development and
management of;
1) Market and Location Data,
2) Property Data describing Plot of Land,
3) Property Data describing Economic information,
4) Building Information, and;
5) Process Qualities.

14

RICS Research 2015

These information types are shown in the second column


of Table 1. The classification developed in Table 1 was
compiled on the basis of information traditionally sourced,
organised and (re)used by property developers, property
and portfolio managers, property investment surveyors,
valuers, property and facility manager, building surveyors
and in property transactions. This data can be sourced
from building documentation, consultants reports, industry
databases, building inspections, facility managers, a
variety of building reports, and documentation of the
design and planning process typically created during the
design and planning stage for verification of conformity
with regulations. Each information type was identified
based on its mapping with property development and
management activities and its classification as either an
economic, environmental or social indicator of value.
These attributes and characteristics formed the basis
of workshop discussions. Based on outcomes and
learning from the workshops, the main categories and
sub-categories were modified to cover a wider range of
property activities and were re-structured according to
information and data formats that are readily available
throughout the property lifecycle, and also re-worded into
language more familiar to property professionals. The final
categories developed for the survey are shown in the third
column of Table 1.
Sourcing data from BIM technologies and building
management systems (BMS) is becoming more common
in the delivery and operational stages of commercial
buildings (McGraw Hill 2014). This research is based
on the premise that the same information management
capabilities that are being derived from a BIM-enabled
approach to benefit AECO stakeholders can be extended
to serve property professionals and thereby add value to
their services.
With the volume of data generated, it is necessary to
evaluate the relevance and importance of each data
type. The authors developed a method for identifying
and determining the importance of information types.
The first step was to prioritise information based on the
need for the information, the frequency of use, the effort
of reacquisition, and finally, duration of reacquisition.
Modifications of this method were used to analyse the
workshop and survey findings.

rics.org/research

Table 1

Information Categories Developed for Workshops and Survey

Property descriptor types


(Lutzendorf & Lorenz 2011)

Information types identified for


workshops (Adapted from
Lutzendorf & Lorenz 2011)

Categories of data defined for


RICS survey (Based on Workshop
Outcomes & Learning)

1. 
L ocation National Market Descriptors 1. Location Information Types, including:
National Market Data
Macro Location Data
Micro Location Data

1. Market Data including;


National Market Data
S tate, Regional and Neighbourhood
Market Data
Listings, Recent Sales, and Auctions
Data
Property Transfers Data
Property Marketing Statistics

2. 
L ocation Macro Location Descriptors

2. Property Location Data;


Macro Location Data
Micro Location Data

3. 
L ocation Micro Location Descriptors
4. 
Plot of land characteristics and
configuration descriptors
5. 
Plot of Land Surrounding Context
Descriptors

6. 
Mechanisms / Instruments
7. Economic Quality Payments In
Descriptors
8. Economic Quality Payments Out
Descriptors
9. Economic Quality Vacancy /
Letting Descriptors

2. Property Information Types, describing


Plot of Land, including:
Characteristics and Configuration,
Surrounding Contextual Data)

Property Site Data including;


Property Lot Attributes
Utilities
Environmental Attributes
Surrounding Building Context
Property Development Details

3. Property Information Types, describing


Economic and Financial Data, including::
Payments In,
Payments Out,
Vacancy/Letting and
Tenancy/Occupier Information

4. Financial Data including;


Payments In,
Payments Out,
Vacancy / Letting and
Tenancy Occupier Data

4. Building Information Types, including:


Building design information
Technical and building systems
information
Functional information,
Environmental design information,
Design/ Aesthetics information
Contribution to urban quality
User comfort & Post-occupancy
evaluation information
Cultural value information
Image and reputation value
information

5. Building Data, including:


Spatial attributes
3D model objects (elements) and
properties (parameters)
Building Documentation and Images

5. Process Information Types, including:


Planning process information
Design process information
Construction process information
Operations and Facilities
Management information

7. Project Data, including:


Planning and Feasibility Data,
Design Management Data
Construction Process and
Management Data

10. Economic Quality / Cash Flow


Tenancy/Occupier Descriptors
11. Building Basic Building Quality
Descriptors
12. Building Technical Quality
Descriptors
13. Building Functional Quality
Descriptors
14. Building Environmental Quality
Descriptors
15. Building Design / Aesthetics Quality
Descriptors
16. Building Urban Quality Descriptors
17. Building User Health / Comfort
Quality Descriptors
18. Building Cultural Value Descriptors
19. Building Brand Value Descriptors
20. Process Quality Planning
Descriptors
21. Process Quality Construction
Descriptors

22. Process Quality Management


Descriptors

6. Real Estate Data (Added to incorporate


data typically collected that describes
intangible value descriptors), including:
Property Value Attributes
Property Imagery
Property Activity
Property Insurance Attributes
Property Insurance Rate Variables

8. Operations and Maintenance Data,


including;
Maintenance, Alteration and Repair,
Asset Monitoring and Tracking,
Space Management

RICS Research 2015

15

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

2.3 Education Issues


This section examines some key issues around
the education of property students and existing
property professionals with respect to BIM knowledge
competencies. An overview of the integration of BIM
within the AEC disciplines is provided and the potential
to leverage off this experience is discussed. This section
considers; firstly, BIM models or virtual building models
(VBMs) as an integrated source of information for teaching
and learning and the re-usability of building information
generated to meet AEC deliverables for property education
purposes. Secondly it considers, a potential roadmap for
the adoption of BIM for teaching and learning, and; finally
the needs of existing practitioners and the role of continuing
professional development (CPD) and short courses.
Broadly, BIM provides an appropriate and potentially
beneficial suite of technologies for the development of
new teaching and learning approaches that can enable
the incorporation of valuable property related data that is
used through the property lifecycle for property investment,
property maintenance and property management purposes.

2.3.1 BIM within AEC Education (projectlevel lifecycle)


The adoption of BIM technologies and processes offers
many benefits to educational programmes offered by
universities. In particular where faculties, departments
or schools have Quantity Surveying, Construction and
Project Management and Property undergraduate
and post-graduate provision; there is the potential for
cross-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary projects (e.g.
Macdonald, 2012). The benefits to students studying
the AEC disciplines that BIM offers include increases
in knowledge and understandings of:
1) More effective workflows for improved information
sharing between disciplines;
2) Digital methodologies for time and costs savings
that translate into productivity gains;
3) Digital methodologies to improve product and
process quality.
4) Sustainability for the built environment; and
5) Greater transparency and accountability in
decision-making
A key benefit of BIM in education is the virtual building
models as a visual tool for learning. Due to its geometrical
representation of the parts of a building in an integrated data
environment, virtual building models can allow students to
understand design and construction technology with ease
and speed. Virtual building models, as visual teaching aids,
provide AEC subjects with a means of visually simulating
design and construction details, component relationships,
construction materials and activities. Geometric modelling
and virtual reality techniques can be used in the visualisation
of typical and be-spoke AEC methods, allowing students to
access information in the classroom (Jupp and Awad 2012).

16

RICS Research 2015

Teaching with virtual building models, and related BIM


technologies, has the potential to increase student
understanding, not only of design and construction
processes, but also (perhaps most importantly) of how to
collaborate and share information with other professionals
across the property lifecycle (e.g. Macdonald & Mills, 2012;
Macdonald & Granroth 2013). Buildings can be analysed
rigorously, simulations performed and design performance
benchmarked, moving AEC students from abstract
concepts to applied knowledge. Model-based building data
can be shared, value-added and re-purposed according
to subject content and requirements. Other educational
advantages are the engagement and exploration of building
products and process via simulation and, of particular
import to property focused subjects, the simulation
of integrated planning, feasibility and implementation
processes. From this perspective, utilising virtual building
models within AEC and property programmes provides a
vehicle to introduce principles of teamwork, collaboration
and continuity across multiple lifecycle stages, including
1. BIM and preconstruction planning a BIM project,
defining responsibility and ownership, information
exchange, model coordination planning, digital
information transfer standards.
2. BIM and design management design coordination,
integration, inter-disciplinarity, inter-operability, clash
detection and reporting, model coordination and
management.
3. BIM and construction scheduling, constructability,
trade coordination.
4. BIM and Assembly and Manufacture because
digital product data can be exploited for downstream
processes, students can engage with (automated)
assembly and manufacturing problems.
5. BIM and updates pre-bid, estimate updates, model
updates, clash detection updates, budget management.
6. Cost and lifecycle analysis target cost modelling,
simulated construction timelines, requirements, design,
construction and operational information can be utilised
in Facility Management subjects.
7. Production quality documentation output is flexible
and exploits automation, enabling students to quickly
and more easily analyse building solutions and propose
alternate construction technologies and methods.
8. Customer focus often the customer or client is
left out of the equation in the teaching environment.
As virtual building models can be understood through
accurate visualisation, students are able to gain
a clients perspective.
Given the benefits highlighted by researchers in AEC
education (e.g. Macdonald, 2012), the next section explores
the potential and issues for the integration of BIM within
Property education. With the property lifecycle extending
far beyond the project lifecycle, the property lifecycle forces
a broader more enterprise level view of BIM for information
management than the (AEC-based) project lifecycle.

rics.org/research

2.3.2 BIM within Property Education


(property-level lifecycle)
One approach to deliver education that could be adopted
in undergraduate and fast track post-graduate conversion
courses, is to set up introductory BIM subjects to provide
initial understanding of the concepts of BIM, including
its processes, technologies, protocols and jargon, which
could, where possible, possibly be co-taught with AEC
students. Thereafter the specialised application of BIM in
the various property knowledge fields, such as valuation,
property management, property funds investment would
see BIM-enabled teaching and learning embedded within
those subjects. Further opportunities lie in multi and
cross-disciplinary subjects, as described in the framework
proposed by Macdonald (2012).
RICS may be able to learn from the integration of
Product Lifecycle Management in engineering systems
education. With the increasing uptake of BIM, some
AEC professionals are experiencing significant changes
to their professional working practices (Jupp & Nepal,
2014), which may be experienced in due course by
some property professionals. BIM reflects many of the
changes, challenges and opportunities prompted by the
introduction of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)
in the automotive and aerospace industries during the
1990s. During the implementation of Product Lifecycle
Management, changes to professional practices relating
to new activities, roles/responsibilities, knowledge
competencies, and relationships was required; and many
characteristics reported on the adoption and deployment
of BIM and Product Lifecycle Management information
systems are shared (Jupp & Nepal, 2014) and may be
applicable to the expansion of BIM into property.
BIM and Product Lifecycle Management differ mostly
around the capacity for technical and organisational
integration, leading to differences in approach to data
governance and information management (Ford et al,
2013). The key differences lie in the information system
and tools utilised by their different application domains,
which are underpinned by vastly different BIM/ Product
Lifecycle Management platform specifications and data
requirements. BIM and PLM, share similarities such as
the approach to data sharing, project management,
organisation of teams around deliverables and timelines,
and object-based visualisation activities. The challenges
that follow from these shared characteristics provide fertile
grounds for sharing lessons learned. Issues surrounding
changes to professional practice and cultural change
affect the practical deployment of BIM and Product
Lifecycle Management concepts within their respective
sectors. These challenges stem from various new
activities that change the nature of professional roles and
responsibilities at practice and project level. The changes
are predicated on the development of new technical skills,
new knowledge fields and stakeholder relationships (Jupp
& Nepal, 2014). To some degree, this would be the case
also for property professionals.

The experiences of the BIM and Product Lifecycle


Management communities can be used to understand the
practice-based issues. The construction industry is in the
early phases of BIM adoption and stands to benefit most
in learning from PLM experiences of professional practice
and cultural change. Moreover property professionals
within RICS can benefit from this experience also in the
development of CPD courses that focus on the changes
to roles and responsibilities.
Product Lifecycle Management focuses on the whole
lifecycle of a product and is not the responsibility of
one unit or department; but a whole organisation. At a
general level Product Lifecycle Management deployment
requires greater levels of collaboration and communication
between professionals. This approach to information
management requires the implementation team works
closely with business teams; for example, people from
purchasing, order management, sales and marketing, and
inventory management (Hewitt, 2009). Product Lifecycle
Management implementation requirements dictate that
in manufacturing based industries, a broader lifecycle
approach to information management is desirable.
Similarly across some property service tasks there
would be a requirement for close integration of products,
data, applications, processes, people, work methods,
and equipment from across the supply chain. PLM
deployment in supply chains raises significant changes
to roles and responsibilities and it is vital that the roles
and responsibilities are determined at the outset (Stark,
2011). Likewise responsibilities in relation to partnering
companies and their role in the process must be carefully
considered (Hewitt, 2009). Jupp and Nepal (2014)
identified a number of new responsibilities within existing
traditional roles in the Product Lifecycle Management
literature as well as how these roles are shared between
administration executives (typically with an engineering
background) and project engineers. Over time it is
possible new responsibilities and roles will emerge within
some of the RICS property professions as a result of
a BIM-enabled approach to information management
through the life of property assets.

2.3.3 Developing New Knowledge


Competencies in RICS
Hewitts study (2009) showed that the shift of perspective
from product delivery to a lifecycle approach represented
a knowledge gap for many manufacturing companies;
RICS can learn from this by adopting a proactive lead in
the implementation of BIM in property education. Hewitt
(2009) found educational establishments and professional
bodies needed to align curriculums, assessments and
accreditation relative to PLM and manufacturing; and
RICS should consider starting this process with respect
to targeted areas of property education and professional
competencies. RICS members need to be versatile, crossfunctional professionals who are up-to-date with emerging
technologies; able to perform new professional services
associated with through-life requirements and activities.

RICS Research 2015

17

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Hutchins (2004) noted that US manufacturing


professionals were asked to perform tasks not traditionally
included in their professional scope of works and that they
lacked the capability to undertake the tasks successfully;
RICS needs to ensure new entrants to the property
profession, as well as, existing members are equipped
with the necessary, and appropriate level, knowledge
and skills in BIM. RICS has taken the lead in developing
the BIM Managers Certification (RICS, 2015) route to
membership and some aspects may be transferable to
the property disciplines.
The Society of Manufacturing Engineers researched
competency gaps and developed a Manufacturing
Education Plan (Fillman et al, 2010) and RICS could
consider a similar approach in respect of BIM and
property. Likewise, academia responded to the needs of
the changing workforce from one that was task oriented
to one that is competency based through the development
of innovative curricula, such as Purdue Universitys
initiative to develop a PLM-literate workforce (Fillman et al,
2010). RICS could constitute an Education Task Force to
champion the rollout of a global initiative to develop a BIM
literate property profession.
For existing members, RICS should consider a series
of BIM & the Value Dimension training programmes
that will provide members with an understanding of
BIM technology and applications in respect of their
professional practice and services.

18

RICS Research 2015

rics.org/research

3.0 Research Design and methodology

3.1 Stage 1 Workshops


To identify the main information types used by the different
property stakeholders the research design was based on
the Delphi method (Dalkey and Helmer 1963). The value
of Delphi is demonstrated in a wide range of applications
on complex, interdisciplinary and technology based issues
using a method for structuring group communication
processes (Linstone and Turoff, 1975). The research design
employed a series of workshops with industry experts
followed by feedback reporting and surveys. As such the
research used an inductive approach to qualitative data
analysis (Silverman, 2013).
To address the objectives, property and AEC professionals
working for different companies in Australia and the UK
were invited to participate. Practitioners had a minimum
five years post qualification experience as the findings
should reflect business practice as closely as possible.
The company types of invited participants included:
Development and Asset Management, Property
Management and Valuation, Design and Construction,
and Transactions Management. The participants were
industry experts who were content matter experts on their
respective fields and regularly engaged in the sourcing,
organisation and reuse of disparate data sources during
their work tasks. The same participants attended each
of the three workshops to ensure consistency. In Sydney
13 participants attended the workshop and researchers,
representing the property and construction disciplines from
the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), facilitated. In
London six participants attended the workshops facilitated
by a Chartered Building Surveyor and academic.

Workshop one objectives were to:


a) Identify the types of data that each of the professional
groups use in their daily activities, and;
b) The associated challenges of through-life information
management.
Workshop one was convened over a half-day period.
The workshop was divided into two sessions with four
groups, with each session including a presentation by the
facilitators to frame and introduce the exercises, followed
by individual brainstorming tasks, group break-out
sessions, and finally a full workshop discussion. Results
were reported to participants via email for feedback and
this data was then used as the basis for the subsequent
workshops. The first exercise (1A) comprised a clustered
list of 24 relevant information requirements elicited from
the literature as being important to property professions.
The information requirements were presented on 24
cards and participants asked to sort them on the basis
of the information types they perceived as essential,
nice to know or irrelevant to their work tasks (see
figure 2). The aim was to establish the main information
types and identify correlations between stakeholder
data requirements.

RICS Research 2015

19

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Figure 2

20

Selection of sort cards showing data types adapted from Lutzendorf & Lorenz, 2011

RICS Research 2015

rics.org/research

Workshop two had the objective to:


a) Identify upstream and downstream data requirements
related to professional property service tasks
The same respondents participated in the second
exercise, cards classified as essential and nice to know
by participants were used as the basis for identifying
challenges to the sourcing, organisation and reusing of
information throughout the building lifecycle. Participants
were asked to identify challenges on the basis of their
cards so as to pinpoint individually problems in relation
to a BIM-enabled approach to information management,
before then discussing their findings within each group.
Participants were then asked to rank challenges deemed
most to least significant. As a result of the second
workshop a timeline for managing data through the
property lifecycle was produced for each participant to
explore in the final workshop (see Appendix 2 and 3 for
typical examples).

The objective of workshop three was to:


a) Analyse upstream and downstream data requirements
relative to data characteristics, such as format, source,
quality, accessibility.
In this workshop, participants reviewed their timeline chart
for managing data through the property lifecycle and
commented on any changes that were required. In some
cases property practitioners required identical data at
various points in the property lifecycle for a task and had
complex data needs (see figure 5 and 6 and Appendices
2 and 3), whereas others had data needs at a single point
only during the life cycle.

3.2 Stage 2 Online Questionnaire


Survey
Having ascertained the data types and data needs of
property professionals in the Stage 1 workshops, a
questionnaire was designed to allow the researchers
to determine whether the workshop data types and
needs identified by the participants matched those of
the profession more broadly. This part of the research
embodied the characteristics of quantitative research
(Silverman, 2013) whereby a statistical analysis of data
reveals the characteristics and needs of a larger group
of practitioners.
An online survey was designed adopting best practice
in survey design (Silverman, 2013) comprising four parts
and launched in April 2015. Part one asked respondents
about their area of practice across the RICS regions,
their area of expertise, the stage of the property lifecycle
during which their expertise was required, their level
of expertise, knowledge and usage of BIM in their
professional services. Part two focussed on the value
of data contained in BIM, and asked respondents about
the importance of different types of BIM data to their
professional services. The next section of the survey
asked questions about non BIM enabled data and
respondents data needs in order to prioritise the data
type property professionals would find most useful to
access in a BIM. Part three focussed on the status of
information technologies in professional property tasks
and which land use types had the most requirements for
BIM enabled data according to respondents. Finally part
four examined the value of data sources and potential BIM
enabled information. Having identified the key challenges
from Workshops 2 and 3 in respect of data, respondents
were asked to rank the significance of different challenges
be they technical challenges or data quality and fidelity
challenges and so on. The survey was designed for
completion within a 10-minute period, and remained open
for a four-week period. The survey was distributed through
RICS channels and reminder emails were sent weekly to
encourage as good a response rate as possible.

RICS Research 2015

21

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

4.0 Workshop Data Analysis and Discussion


4.1 Workshop 1 Identifying Data
Types and Needs
Participants used workbooks and Post- it notepads to
record responses. Group discussions were recorded and
facilitators and scribes took notes. All data captured from
the workshop was analysed using thematic analysis. To
confirm agreement between workshop participants on the
significance of the information types identified according
to each professional group, a three-point Likert scale was
used, where 1 equals least important (irrelevant) and 3
equals most important (essential) and were analysed by
calculating the Relative Importance Index:

RII = W

A N
where W = weight given to response, A = highest weight,
and N = number of respondents.
The relative importance index (RII) for all 22 information
types were calculated for all participants, and then
calculated according to each professional group. The
22 information types were arranged in descending order
of relative importance according to all participants and
ranked. The highest RII indicates the most important
information types with rank 1, the next indicating the next
most important with rank 2 and so on. The rankings of
each professional group were compared to the overall RII
rankings shown in Table 2.
The highest ranked attributes that fall within the top 5
information types according to All Responses (in Table
2), i.e., calculated across four groups: Development and
Asset Managers, AEC Professionals, Valuation and Cost
Managers, and Transaction Managers and are discussed
below. The All Response column (in Table 2) shows the
five most important information types were;
1. Building Description (RII 0.92),
2. Functional Quality (RII 0.87),
3. Land Features (RII 0.85),
4. Technical Quality (RII 0.85), and
5. Payments Out (RII 0.85).

22

RICS Research 2015

Examining the ranking of the importance of information


sub-types according to the four stakeholder groups,
as anticipated variation was identified. For example the
Development and Asset Management group returned
Payments Out and Surrounding Characteristics as the
two most important information types, whereas the AEC
group selected Site Features, Land Features, Surrounding
Characteristics, Building Description, Technical Quality,
Functional Quality and Micro-Location as being of
most and equal importance. A summary of the variation
in importance between stakeholder groups is shown
in Table 3.
The most consistent information types were those
belonging to the Building Descriptors category, with six
of the nine information sub-types being important across
all stakeholder groups. The importance of these building
descriptors to all stakeholders confirms the potential of
BIMs application within the property profession.
The mapping in Figure 3 reveals those significant
information types relative to their stakeholder activities
and involvement throughout CPDM and Project timelines.
Using these insights together with a specification of BIM
deliverables (Succar et al. 2013) a framework is proposed
of the way in which client-side stakeholders can leverage
data to support the CPDM lifecycle and start to identify the
gaps relative to when and what information can be derived
from the project lifecycle. The importance of the five main
information categories was then compared according to
where each stakeholder groups activities occurred within
the CPDM and Project lifecycles as shown in Figure 3.

rics.org/research

Table 2

Descending relative importance of data types for Stakeholder Groups (highest to lowest)

Information Types
1 Building Description

Development
AEC
& Asset
Value & Cost
All Responses Professionals Managers
Managers

Transaction
Managers

RII

Rank

RII

Rank

RII

Rank

RII

Rank

RII

Rank

0.92

1.00

0.92

1.00

1.00

2 Functional Quality

0.87

1.00

0.83

0.92

1.00

3 Land Features

0.85

1.00

0.83

0.92

0.75

20

4 Technical Quality

0.85

1.00

0.92

0.83

12

0.75

20

5 Payments Out

0.85

21

0.44

1.00

0.92

1.00

6 Site Features

0.82

1.00

0.83

0.92

1.00

7 Environmental Quality

0.82

0.89

0.83

0.83

12

1.00

8 Operational Quality

0.79

0.89

0.83

0.75

17

1.00

9 Health & User Comfort

0.79

0.89

0.83

0.83

12

0.75

20

0.79

22

0.33

0.92

0.92

1.00

10 Payments In
11 FM Quality

0.77

19

0.67

11

0.83

0.88

1.00

12 National Market

0.74

19

0.67

12

0.83

0.75

17

1.00

13 Market & Letting Vacancy Situation

0.74

22

0.33

12

0.83

0.83

12

1.00

14 Planning Quality

0.74

14

0.78

12

0.75

18

0.75

17

1.00

15 Micro-Location

0.72

1.00

15

0.75

18

0.75

17

1.00

16 Environmental Context

0.72

14

0.78

15

0.88

0.83

12

1.00

17 Tenant & occupier Situation

0.72

22

0.33

15

0.92

0.67

23

1.00

18 Construction Quality

0.72

0.89

15

0.75

18

0.88

1.00

19 Surrounding Characteristics

0.67

1.00

19

1.00

0.88

1.00

20 Design/Aesthetic Quality

0.67

0.89

19

0.75

18

0.75

17

0.75

20

21 Design Process Quality

0.67

14

0.78

19

0.83

0.75

17

0.75

20

22 Macro-Location

0.62

14

0.78

22

0.75

18

1.00

0.83

19

23 Cultural/Image Value

0.59

0.89

23

0.63

23

0.88

0.75

20

24 Urban Design Quality

0.51

14

0.78

24

0.63

23

0.63

24

0.75

20

Table 3

Relative Importance of Five Main Information Types & Stakeholder Groups

RII According to
Stakeholder Groups
Development &
Asset Managers

Location

Plot of Land

Building
Descriptors

Process Quality

Economic Quality

Med. to High
Significance

Low Significance

Med. to High
Significance

Med. to High
Significance

High Significance

AEC Stakeholders

Low Significance

Med. to High
Significance

High Significance

Med. to High
Significance

Low Significance

Valuation & Cost


Managers

Medium
Significance

High Significance

Med. to High
Significance

Low Significance

Med. to High
Significance

High Significance Low Significance

Medium
Significance

Medium
Significance

High Significance

Transaction
Managers

RICS Research 2015

23

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Importance of Main Information Types according to Stakeholders and Activities across


CPDM/Project Lifecycle Phases

Figure 3

Single Facility Project


Lifecycle Phases

Commercial Property
Development
& Management
Lifecycle Phases

Conception
(C)

(PD)

Planning &
Feasibility
(SD)

(SD)

(DD)

Preparation
(P)

(CD&CO)

Execution
(E)

(OM)

Operation
Maintenance
(OM)

Location
Descriptors
Plot of land
Descriptors
Building
Descriptors
Process Quality
Descriptors
Economic Quality
Descriptors

Development
& Asset Mgmt.
Stakeholders

Valuation
& Cost Mgmt.
Stakeholders

Low significance
Low-Medium significance
Medium significance

Medium-High significance

High significance

Scope of professional practices

24

RICS Research 2015

AEC
Stakeholders

Transaction Mgmt.
Stakeholders

Recommissioning
(R)

rics.org/research

4.2 Workshop 2 Identifying


the Challenges
Participants brainstormed the challenges relating to through
life information management and then ranked them in
the same way as exercise 1. A total of 23 challenges
were identified, that are divided in technology based and
socio-technology challenges as shown in Table 4.
The challenges identified by each group were then
discussed. Five categories (Table 4) identified by the
facilitators and reported back to participants include
issues surrounding:
1) Inter-operability and data standards,
2) Data quality and fidelity,

Post workshop analysis further classified these five


categories in terms of Technology based Challenges
(category 1) and Socio-technical Challenges (categories
2-5). Far more socio-technical challenges (20 in total)
were identified as being significant by participants.
Participants were then asked to rank the importance of
each of the 23 challenges. Figure 4 illustrates the results
of RII analysis.
A number of issues will need addressing if the vast
amounts of property data are to be a useful resource
over a building lifecycle. Whilst three technology-based
challenges identified by workshop participants as having
a high level of agreed significance, the number and
significance of socio-technical challenges identified were
greater overall.

3) Context,
4) Security and privacy, and;
5) Digital skills and knowledge competencies.

Table 4

Challenges to through-life information management and corresponding RII

Type

Sub Type

Challenges Identified

Technology
based
Challenges

1. Ensuring data to be compatible and interoperable over long timescales (RII 0.90)
Interoperability &
2. Ensuring data can be sustained and updated over long timescales (RII 0.85)
Data Standards
3. Ensuring data can be organised such that it can be discovered and exploited (RII 0.92)
4. Human error, information overload and cognitive limitations (RII 0.77)
Data Quality
& Fidelity

5. Data consistency, accuracy and reliability (RII 0.92)


6. Data granularity and its consistent specification (RII 0.81)
7.

Data verification and validation (GIGO Garbage in, Garbage out) (RII 0.85)

8. Degree of interpretation and human manipulation (RII 0.85)


9. Communication differences and difficulties between domain specific languages (RII 0.74)
Context-based
Issues

10. Number of disparate data sources and disjointed nature of information flow (RII 0.87)
11. Differences in levels of availability of data between stakeholders through-life (RII 0.54)
12. Compressed timeframes for data generation, sourcing and analysis (RII 0.56)

SocioTechnical
Challenges

13. Conflict in interests relative to data transparency and business interests (RII 0.74)
14. Confidence in IT infrastructure security in distributed networks & data stores (RII 0.81)
Security &
Privacy

15. Privacy preserving analytics and granular access control (RII 0.82)
16. Secure data storage and data provenance (RII 0.81)
17. Intellectual property and information ownership (RII 0.90)
18. End-point validation and filtering (RII 0.82)
19. Lack of digital skill sets and domain knowledge (RII 0.85)

Digital Skills
& Knowledge
Competencies

20. Complexity of incorporating operational simulations (RII 0.62)


21. Perceived black box and risk in loss of knowledge due to dynamic workforce (RII 0.54)
22. Need for cultural change amid feelings of fear & loss of control (RII 0.73)
23. Continual reporting and justification of business case for on-going data collection (RII 0.72)

RICS Research 2015

25

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Figure 4

Relative Importance of Challenges to Through-life Information Management


Importance
0.0
Ensuring data to be compatible and
interoperable over long timescales

Interoperability
and Data
Standards

Ensuring data can be sustained and


updated over long timescales
Ensuring data can be organised such
that it can be discovered and exploited
Human error, information overload
and cognitive limitations

Data quality
and fidelity

Data consistency, accuracy and


reliability
Data granularity and its consistent
specification
Data verification and validation
(GIGO Garbage in, Garbage out)
Degree of interpretation and human
manipulation
Communication differences and
difficulties between domain specific
languages

Impact of
context

Number of disparate data sources


and disjointed nature of current
information flow
Differences in levels of availability
of data between stakeholders
through-life
Compressed timeframes for data
generation, sourcing and analysis
Conflict in interests relative to data
transparency and business interests
Confidence in IT infrastructure security
in distributed networks and data stores

Privacy and
Security

Privacy preserving analytics and


granular access control
Secure data storage and data
provenance
Intellectual property and information
ownership
End-point validation and filtering
Lack of domain knowledge and digital
skill sets, lack of education and training
programs
Complexity of incorporating
operational simulations

Digital Skills
and Knowledge
Competencies

Perceived black box systems and loss


of corporate knowledge due to dynamic
workforce
Need for cultural change amid feelings
of fear & loss of control
Continual reporting and justification
of business case for ongoing data
collection

26

RICS Research 2015

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

rics.org/research

4.2.1 Technology-based Challenges

Context based issues

Workshop attendees identified three key technologybased challenges. These are:

Key challenges identified included the degree of


interpretation and human manipulation of data, the
number of disparate data sources and the disjointed
nature of information flow. Managing property related data
is a challenge due to its diversity in terms of the number
of different aspects of the building, its development,
operations, surrounding environment and market. It is a
challenge because to understand and exploit the data;
the context in which it has been generated, and the
relationships between data types and lifecycle phases
need to be known and understood. In research aimed
at supporting data re-use, Ball et al. (2012) proposed
that, in addition to primary data records, the information
generated or collected should include data describing the
context in which it was generated or collected.

1. Information generated over a propertys lifecycle


potentially needs to be accessed over many
generations of computer hardware and software.
2. Multiple changes to the building and the local
environment occurs over the lifecycle, and strategies
are needed for updating, reporting and merging these
changes at different levels.
3. Information needs to be organised so that it can
be discovered and used by different property
professionals.

4.2.2 Socio-technical Challenges


Participants noted that, no matter how good their IT
systems are; if the socio-technical challenges are not
addressed then the benefits of BIM for information
management for property professionals may not be
delivered. These issues surround change management
and compliance in the implementation of information
systems. Such barriers are documented in the literature,
and numerous AEC based case studies on the barriers
to BIM adoption have discussed their impact. During
discussions, workshop participants mostly focused their
attention on these people issues.

Data quality and fidelity


Participants felt there were many opportunities for the
accidental or deliberate entry of erroneous data with a
challenge to make data consistent, accurate and reliable.
An appropriate level of detail and consistent specification
was important, as were problems with data verification
and validation. Previous studies observed accidental
misspelling of words in service records, the use of slang
and abbreviations (Ball et al, 2011). Modern information
systems can overcome these issues to some extent,
but it is more difficult to address the deliberate falsification
of data/records.

Security and privacy


Six challenges were identified that relate to security and
privacy. Of these, five were ranked highly, including:
1) Confidence in IT infrastructure security,
2) Privacy preserving analytics,
3) Secure data storage and data provenance,
4) Intellectual property and information ownership, and;
5) End-point validation.
Limited attention has been paid in the BIM literature
to these issues; security in data access and issues
surrounding privacy of project data are most commonly
discussed (Redman et al. 2012, Singh et al. 2011).
However this is changing; a British Standard, in PAS
form, is up for consultation at the moment on this area
(PAS 1192-5: Specification for security-minded building
information modelling, digital built environments and
smart asset management) (BS 2015). Less attention is
paid to issues of information ownership and intellectual
property in situations of dynamic relationships between
AECO companies involved in the lifecycle of a property
(for example, where one company constructs a high-rise
commercial office, another owns it, another maintains it
and others lease it). Concerns about intellectual property
rights were seen as limiting the possibilities to learn from
the aggregation of property data.

RICS Research 2015

27

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Need for New Digital Skill Sets and


Knowledge Competencies
There is a need for education and training in new
information systems and to develop new knowledge
competencies. Five challenges were identified and, of
these, the lack of digital skill sets combined with an
inadequate level of domain knowledge was identified as
the most significant. Participants highlighted the difficulty
in making sense of large amounts of data without a
good deal of intelligent processing and the knowledge/
experience to interpret and drive this processing. For
example, participants stated that an experienced
property professional currently aggregates and interprets
many sources of data when making an assessment of
the state or value of an asset. Participants expressed

Data consistency,
accuracy & reliability
across all lifecycle
phases
Data format and
interoperability

Data granularity & level


of details (LoD)

Data quantity Vs
quality

Objective Vs. subjective


data, information
&knowledge
Data verification
and validation:
GIGO (Garbage in
Garbage out)
Complexity of
incorporating
operational
simulation

RICS Research 2015

Disjointed nature of
information flow

Lack of combined
domain-specific
knowledge & digital
skill sets

Conflicts in interest
relative to data
transparency &
business interest

UK

Security and Privacy

Aus

UK

Human Error

Aus

UK

Process and
Workflow

Aus

UK

Data Quality and


Fidelity

28

A similar process was undertaken in respect of the


London workshop and table 5 shows the similarities
and differences in perceptions of participants about the
drivers and challenges faced with information needs and
data management through the property lifecycle. Overall
Australia based practitioners perceived a greater range of
issues than their UK counterparts and this may reflect the
different cultures predominating within the two markets,
as well as the different areas of property represented in
both groups of workshops.

Comparison between Australian and UK participants perspectives regarding the key


drivers and challenges when sourcing, integrating and generating data through-life
Aus

Table 5

their concern as to whether BIM, as an information


management tool could replicate this level of real-life
experience, and what training would be required to use
BIM effectively for this purpose.

Differences in level of
availability of data to
all users through-life

Lack of education
and training- both
institutional &
organisational

IT infrastructure
security in distributed
networks & data stores

Lack of automation &


integration between
information systems

Black box systems


& loss of corporate
knowledge due to
dynamic workforce

Privacy preserving
analytic & granular
access control

Compressed
timeframes for data
generation & analysis

Need for cultural


change admit feelings
for fear & loss of
control

Communication
difficulties &
differences in domain
specific language

Uncertainty
surrounding value of
data & its ongoing use
through-life

Lack of standards &


protocols for data use,
entry, verification and
validation

Continual reporting/
justification of
business case for
data collection and
upgrading

Human error,
cognitive limitations &
information overload

Secure data storage &


data provenance

End-point validation
and filtering

Security of property
and building metadata
tags through-life

rics.org/research

4.3 Workshop 2 and 3 Identifying


Timelines & Mapping Data Needs
Through Life.
Having identified the extensive range of data types in
Workshop 1, the second part of workshop 2 asked
participants to plot a timeline for managing data through
the property lifecycle. Each participant focussed on
a particular task they executed in their professional
capacity. Figures 5 and 6 show two typical examples
of the property data needs through life. It is clear that
some tasks are far more detailed and complex than
others. In figure 5, a Chartered Building Surveyors data
needs, when undertaking a Technical Due Diligence
(TDD) survey are shown. This task takes place during the
lifecycle and typically requires relatively few data types.
In comparison the Portfolio Management surveyor (figure
6) has requirements to access a far greater range of data
types over a much greater range of the building lifecycle
from planning and feasibility through to the end of life cycle
when redevelopment or demolition is a consideration.
Two further examples of the mapping of data needs and
types over the property lifecycle is shown for a Transaction
Manager and a Portfolio Management Surveyor in appendix
2 and 3. Although the data needs occur at different phases,
and involve different type of data, it is apparent that some
of their data needs are to be found within BIM. Equally it is
apparent that other data needs / types are not yet included
within BIM, but are in other digital databases, such as BMS.
Note that due to time restrictions for the London workshop,
these participants did not complete the tasks for workshop
2 and 3.
Workshop 3 involved a review of the timelines plotted in
workshop 2 and a review of the data types and needs.
In some cases amendments were made. Discussions
between participants revealed the diverse nature of
data types and needs required by the various property
professionals for specific tasks.
Technically, there is potential to link these databases,
however different sectors of the property and construction
industry own and manage some of these databases and
some negotiation is required to make these databases talk
to each other for property professionals.

Figure 5

Data needs for a Building Surveyor


Technical Due Diligence survey

MAJOR COSTS

Visual
Inspections

MINOR COSTS

Health
and User
Comfort

Basic
Building
description

Discussion
with F.M.

Environmental
Quality

Site
features

Access to
Maintenance
Data

Functional
quality

Report
to Client

Land
features

Discussion
with Semas
/Structural
Engineers

Operational
Quality

Environmental
Context

Technical
Quality

Use,
maintenance
and repairs

Redevelopment,
sale, demolition

Redevelopment/ strategic
optioneering

RICS Research 2015

29

30

RICS Research 2015

Planning and Feasibility

Titles and
Easements

Site Plan

Topography

Flooding
Maps

GEO
Report

Conceptual
Design

ESD
Modelling

Design
Reports

SPESC

Environmental
Quality

Conceptual
ESD Report

Brief

Design
Report

Indicative
Costs
Health
and User
Comfort

SSPECS

Detailed
Design

Operational
Quality

Technical
Quality

Costs

Conceptual
Report

Facilities
Management
Quality

Pre-construction
and site
establishment

FM Score

Construction
and defects

OH&S
Audits

Tenant
Survey

Asset Plan

Accountant
Receivable

Asset Plan

General
Ledger

Tenancy
Schedule

Design
Report

Concept
Diagram

Hazmat
Report

Land
Features

Design
Report

Handover and
operations
start-up

Asset
Plans

Health
and User
Comfort

Payments
In

Investment
Model

Payments
Out

Investment
Model

Tenant and
Occupier
Situation

Environmental
Quality

Asset management

Planning
Report

Design

MAJOR COSTS

Use,
maintenance
and repairs

BIM

Facilities
Management
Quality

Agreements

Maintenance
Schedule

Technical
Quality

Building
Audits

Redevelopment,
sale, demolition

Tenant and
Occupier
Situation

Tenancy
Schedule

Asset Building
Documents

Basic
Building
Description

Maintenance
Reports

Redevelopment/ strategic
optioneering

Tenant and
Occupier
Situation

Tenancy
Schedule

Asset planning/Repositioning/H&BU

MINOR COSTS

Figure 6

Titles and
Easements

Planning

MINOR COSTS

Mapping Property Professional Tasks with Information Inputs and Outputs

Managing Property Data Through Life

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Data needs for Portfolio Management Surveyors through the lifecycle

rics.org/research

5.0 Survey Data


Analysis and
Discussion

Figure 7

Which region are you currently working in?


Middle East and Africa

Latin
America

5.1 Part 1 Respondent Profiles,


Current Awareness and Usage
of BIM
The respondents profile information, including region,
property discipline and sector, involvement in stages of
the property lifecycle, years of experience and size of
organisation, were collected in the first part of the survey
to provide context for the answers. The survey had a total
of 59 respondents, each of which completed the survey
to varying degrees. Given the low response rate of the
membership base of RICS, care must be taken when
drawing conclusions from the results.

RICS region respondents work in

Europe

19

Asia Pacific

21

North America

14

Overall, most respondents (88%) are very experienced


with 11 or more years working in the built environment
sector. The respondents are employed by either very large
organisations of more than 1000 employees (37%) or very
small ones with less than 51 employees (42%). Those
working in large organisations are likely to have access to
latest innovations in technology including BIM.
Figure 7 shows the distribution of respondents by RICS
regions. Survey comparisons by region were not possible
due to under or over-representation of construction and
design professionals within each region.
When the responses from the regions were analysed
all North American responses were from property
professionals, the Europe responses were slightly biased
to construction, whilst the Asia Pacific respondents were
slightly biased to property professionals. The small group
of respondents from the Middle East and Africa region were
mostly construction professionals
Figure 8 shows that respondents areas of current
professional practice was primarily valuation and
property development, which is the group we wanted to
target in respect of knowledge and awareness of BIM.
Respondents working in construction and design were
also well represented in the sample. Areas of practice less
represented were property portfolio management, property
investment and FM. Respondents were also asked to
identify which sectors and land use types they worked on.

Figure 9 shows that most worked in the commercial office


sector, where larger new buildings are most likely to have
some elements of BIM adopted in the construction phase.
The retail sector was also well represented though it is
not clear the type of retail buildings covered, with newer
larger retail centres being likely to use BIM technology
compared to smaller scale retail. Many worked in the
residential sector, which again is less likely to use BIM
unless the projects are large scale or high-rise. The Health
sector is reasonably well covered but again can range
from small and simple buildings to very complex largescale stock again with varying levels of BIM adoption.
Similar comments apply in respect of education buildings.
Less well represented are those working on industrial
buildings, transport and infrastructure.

RICS Research 2015

31

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Figure 8

Respondents area of current practice

Which area(s) of property do you currently practice in?


(Select all that apply)
Percentage (%)
5.0

0.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Property Valuation
Property Development
Construction
Design (AEC)
Real Estate & Transactions
Property and/or Portfolio Management
Property Investment
Other
FM

Figure 9

Land use types and sectors of property respondents work on

What sectors of property do your work activities surround?


(Select all that apply)
Percentage (%)
0.0

Commercial Offices
Retail buildings
Residential buildings
Health buildings
Other commercial
Education buildings
Industrial
Transport
Infrastructure
Other

32

RICS Research 2015

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

rics.org/research

5.2 Part 2 Experience Working


with Information Technologies

be partly a result of the seniority and years of experience


of the respondents. Figure 10 summarises responses
in respect of use of technologies in the workplace.

Not surprisingly, high usage of intranets was reported


in the survey. Also, given the high numbers working
in the property sector there is a high use of online
property databases, such as RP data in Australia.
Likewise, valuation systems and extranets have fair levels
of usage. Less well used are 3D modelling systems,
finance systems and 2D CAD systems. The lowest used
technologies by the respondents were building simulation
and analysis, 4D and 5D modelling, virtual data room
and BMS. Overall, the group is reasonably used to using
IT, however the advanced and newest iterations of BIM
technologies are less familiar to the sample. This may

When asked about their understanding of BIM, 12.1%


have no understanding and 48.3% report having limited
understanding, which shows a need to educate and upskill over 60% of respondents (see Figure 11). Conversely
just under a quarter (24.1%) felt that they have a good
understanding whilst just 15.5% felt they have excellent
understanding of BIM.

Figure 10

Having said this when asked about experience of BIM


(Figure 12) 67% record no experience which confirms
the need to educate and up-skill RICS members. Only
12% have experience of BIM exceeding 5 years. Nine of
the 19 that had experience in BIM reported using it on a
daily basis in their current work activities.

Use of information technologies in the workplace

Of the following information technologies, which do you use in your current work activities?
Percentage (%)
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Intranets
Online Property Databases
Extranets
Valuation Systems
3D Modelling Systems
Finance Systems
2D CAD Systems
Building Management Systems
Virtual Data Rooms
4D or 5D Modelling Systems
Building Simulation and Analysis
Other

RICS Research 2015

33

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Figure 11

Figure 12

Understanding of BIM

What is your level of understanding of


Building Information Modelling (BIM)?

Experience of BIM

Do you have any practical hands-on


experience with BIM?

No
understanding

12.1%

Less than
1 year

Excellent
understanding

9%

12.1%

13 years

Good
understanding

9%

No experience

Limited understanding

67%

48.3%

5+ years

12.1%

12%

45 years

3%

Of the 19 respondents that have had hands-on


experience, Figure 13 shows where they received their
training. Most received training on the job, followed by
industry training courses, in-house training programmes
and finally tertiary education. Clearly where training is
delivered on the job, in house and via training courses
individuals are exposed to a limited range of systems and
technologies already selected or adopted by their employers.

Figure 13

This approach is understandable where there is a need to


up-skill existing members of a workforce. However, there
is a greater potential in the education system for people,
future RICS members, to be exposed to the theories
underlying the technologies and to be exposed to a greater
range of systems. On this basis we strongly encourage
RICS to promote the adoption of BIM education into its
accredited global property education provision.

Source of BIM training

Where did you receive your training in BIM? (select all that apply)
Percentage (%)
0

Tertiary institution

10

20

30

40

On the job

34

RICS Research 2015

60

3
8

Industry training courses


In-house training programs

50

7
11

70

rics.org/research

5.3 Part 3 Information


Frequency and Need of Use
Part 3 of the survey, entitled Understanding Information
Value, asked respondents to rank different types
of information on the frequency of use and why the
information is needed in the context of their current work
activities. The answers were scored, with higher scores
given to higher frequency of use and to more urgent need
of use.
The options and scoring for frequency of use were:
Frequently used in daily business,
SCORE = 3
Cyclically used at regular intervals,
SCORE = 2
Infrequently one or only in certain scenarios,
SCORE = 1
Never
SCORE = 0
The options and scoring for need of use were:
Required by law
SCORE = 3
Necessary to carry out my business processes
SCORE = 2
Not needed by me
SCORE = 1

Frequency of Information Use


For each information type, an average score was calculated
for the respondents. Given the low participation rate, we
will not look at individual information types, but rather the
categories of information and their relative scores.
In Table 6, the items within Real Estate Data are very highly
rated, indicating survey respondents use this category of
information frequently. Conversely the 3D model objects
and properties rated lowest in the frequency of use of
data types. Documentation (specifications) and images
(drawings) also rated highly and are used frequently by
respondents. Other data types used most frequently were
Spatial (area data) and Project data (construction and
planning/feasibility attributes). The most frequently used
Market Data is state, regional and neighbourhood market
data. This is closely followed by the most frequently used
Property Location Data which is micro-location information
such as transport connections or reputation/image of the
area, quality of local facilities/amenities such as shops,
schools and so on.

Information Need
When looking at information or data need a different range
of attributes score highly. The highest need for data falls
in the area of maintenance where information needs are
space management, asset monitoring and tracking and
information about alterations and repairs to buildings.
This data is of use to Facilities Management, Property
Management and Building Surveyors. The next highest
ranked need is for project data regarding feasibility and
planning attributes, which has a high frequency use in
Table 6. Similarly needs with regards to Documentation
and Images (specifications and 2D drawings) ranked highly.
This is a long served traditional method of representing
data in specifications and 2D drawings in the property and
construction industry and this confirms the limited take-up
and usage of BIM amongst many RICS members to date.

RICS Research 2015

35

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Table 6

Frequency of use of data types

Property Insurance Claims


Variables Affecting Property Insurance Rates
Property Imagery
Property Activity
Property Value Attributes
Specifications
2D Documentation (plans, elevations, sections, etc.)
Area
Construction Attributes
Planning & Feasibility Attributes
State, Regional and Neighbourhood Market
Micro-location
Property development
Design management attributes
Certifications (Permits, Ratings, etc.)
2D geometry
National Market
Maintenance, Alteration and Repair
Macro-location
Property Lot Attributes
Tenant and Occupier Situation
Listings, Recent Sales and Auction
Vacancy and Letting Situation
Environmental Attributes
Surrounding Building Context
Marketing Statistics
Property transfers
3D rendered perspectives
Utilities
Asset Monitoring & Tracking
Volume
Orientation
Operations and Maintenance Manuals
Architectural Components
3D geometry
Space management
Structural components
Heating, ventilation & air conditioning components
Electrical and lighting components
Mechanical & plant components
Internal fittings, furnishings and fixtures
External fittings, furnishings & fixtures
Hard & soft landscaping components
Payments Out
Payments In

36

RICS Research 2015

3.61
3.52
2.74
2.67
2.55
1.90
1.90
1.88
1.87
1.75
1.73
1.63
1.59
1.59
1.55
1.54
1.53
1.51
1.46
1.46
1.45
1.45
1.44
1.42
1.40
1.38
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.27
1.23
1.23
1.21
1.21
1.20
1.03
1.00
0.98
0.95
0.95
0.92
0.88
0.87

Project Data

Documentation &
Images

3D Model Objects
& Properties

Spatial Attributes

Operation &
Maintenance Data

Financial Data

Property Site Data

Real Estate Data

Property Location
Data

Survey item

Frequency
of Use
Average
Score

Market Data

Information Category

rics.org/research

Table 7

Data need score by data type / area of practice

Space Management
Asset Monitoring & Tracking
Maintenance, alteration & repair
Planning & feasibility attributes
Specifications
2D Documentation (plans, elevations, sections, etc.)
Environmental Attributes
National Market
Area
Design management attributes
Utilities
Certifications (Permits, Ratings, etc.)
Property Lot Attributes
Property development
Micro-location
State, regional and neighbourhood market
Surrounding Building Context
2D geometry
Architectural Components
Operation and Maintenance Manuals
Macro-Location
Property Value Attributes
3D Rendered Perspectives
Orientation
Tenant and Occupier Situation
Volume
Structural Components
Property Activity
Listings, Recent Sales and Auction
Vacancy and Letting Situation
Property Transfers
Property Imagery
Marketing Statistics
3D geometry
Mechanical & Plant Components
External Fittings, Furnishings & FIxtures
Hard & Soft Landscaping Components
Internal Fittings, Furnishings & Fixtures
Electrical and lighting components
Heating, ventilation & air conditioning components
Payments In
Payments Out
Variables Affecting Property Insurance Rates
Property Insurance Claims
Construction Attributes

Project Data

Documentation &
Images

3D Model Objects
& Properties

Spatial Attributes

Operation &
Maintenance Data

Financial Data

Property Site Data

Real Estate Data

Property Location
Data

Survey item

Need
Average
Score

Market Data

Information Category

2.38
2.32
2.26
1.97
1.90
1.85
1.84
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.78
1.78
1.76
1.76
1.76
1.74
1.73
1.70
1.70
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.68
1.66
1.64
1.63
1.63
1.60
1.60
1.58
1.57
1.57
1.56
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.54
1.54
1.53
1.43
1.40
1.22
1.22
1.93

RICS Research 2015

37

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Specifications Documentation & Images

Figure 14 shows information types plotted by their ranking


on need and frequency of use. Of particular note, is the
disparity between the frequency and need rankings of the
real estate data. Although the real estate information types
were amongst the highest in ranking for frequency, they
have relatively low rankings for need. This suggests that
these are used with great frequency by a small proportion
of the respondents for non-legal reasons, but that a large
proportion of the respondents do not use them. The
specific information types that rank as highest in terms of
frequency and need (top right quadrant) are:

Property Marketing Statistics Market Data


Maintenance, Alteration & Repair Operations
& Maintenance Data
Construction Attributes Project Data
Design Management Attributes Project Data
Planning & Feasibility Attributes Project Data
Micro-Location Property location Data
Property Development Property Site Data

2D Documentation (plans, elevations, sections, etc.)


Documentation & Images

Property Lot Attributes Property Site Data


2D geometry Spatial Attributes

Certifications (Permits, Ratings, etc.) Documentation


& Images

Information Type Need Ranking versus Frequency Ranking

Information Need Ranking

Figure 14

Area Spatial Attributes.

Information Frequency Ranking


3D Model Objects & Properties
Property Location Data

38

RICS Research 2015

Documentation & Images

Property Site Data

Market Data

Real Estate Data

Operations & Maintenance Data

Spatial Attributes

Financial Data

Project Data

rics.org/research

Although the response rate to the survey was not


high enough to make a lot of cross-tabs or subgroup
comparisons, the responses of the property professionals
were compared to those of the construction professionals.
A number of statistically significant differences were
found between the two groups when it came to ranking
information types. Table 8 shows the information types for
which there was a statistically significant difference in the
median scores between the two professional groups.
These survey results are consistent with the differences
found in the workshops. The workshop Location
category was found to be less important to AEC
stakeholders (refer to Table 3), which is equivalent
to the above result that Market and Property
Location categories are less important to construction

Table 8

professionals than to property professionals. Building


descriptors were found to be more important to AEC
stakeholders (construction and design professionals) in
both the workshops and survey. Financial data is of more
importance to property professionals.
Several of the information types that were identified as
being more important to property professionals also
ranked in the highest quadrant of information types (Figure
14), including micro-location, property development,
property lot attributes and property marketing statistics.
These items might be indicative of a gap for property
professionals where these items have been relatively less
important to AEC stakeholders but are of high frequency
and need for work activities.

Tests of Professional Differences in Information Importance

Independent-Samples Median Test


Category of Data

Market Data

Property Location Data


Financial Data

Property Site Data

Real Estate Data


Building Data Spatial
Attributes

Building Data 3D Model


Objects & Properties

Building Data
Documentation & Images

Information Type

Frequency Statistical
Property
Construction
or Need
Significance Professionals Professionals

State, Regional and Neighbourhood


Market

Frequency

0.002

Listings, Recent Sales


and Auction

Frequency

0.002

Property Transfers

Frequency

0.003

Property Marketing Statistics

Frequency

0.004

Micro-Location

Frequency

0.011

Tenant and Occupier Situation

Frequency

0.001

Vacancy and Letting Situation

Frequency

0.001

Property Lot Attributes

Frequency

0.001

Utilities

Frequency

0.004

Environmental Attributes

Frequency

0.001

Surrounding Building Context

Frequency

0.004

Property Development

Frequency

0.004

Property Value Attributes

Frequency

0.000

Property Imagery

Frequency

0.002

Property Activity

Frequency

0.000

3D geometry

Frequency

0.046

Electrical & Lighting Components

Frequency

0.011

Heating, Ventilation & Air


Conditioning Components

Frequency

0.027

Mechanical & Plant Components

Frequency

0.011

Heating, Ventilation & Air


Conditioning Components

Need

0.043

Operations and Maintenance Manuals Frequency

More
Important

Less
Important

Less
Important

More
Important

0.029

RICS Research 2015

39

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

5.4 Part 4 Challenges


& Benefits of BIM
In this part of the survey, respondents were asked to
rank how significant they saw challenges and benefits
of an integrated approach to information management
throughout the life of the property. Options were:
Not significant
Slightly significant
Moderately significant
Significant
Very significant
Figure 15 shows the percentage of respondents that
ranked each challenge as Very significant. The top
three challenges, indicated by dark bars, are (1) Data
accuracy, consistency and reliability issues (36%) (2)
Lack of protocols to verify and validate data (33%)
and (3) Secure data authorship and storage (32%).
These responses echo the concerns of the workshop
participants, particularly with respect to data accuracy,
consistency and reliability, which was the top challenge in
both the workshop and the survey. Of note is that the top
two challenges fall within the category of Data Quality and
Protocols. Human Factors seem to be less of a concern,
with several items of the lowest concern falling in this
category, including lack of training at an organisational
level and communication difficulties.
Finally the significance of the perceived key benefits of an
integrated approach to information management through
the life of property are considered. Of highest significance

40

RICS Research 2015

are the industry benefits of potential for performance


improvements and increased transparency and open data
sharing across sectors. Of equal highest significance
is the benefit of having data that can be re-used and
re-purposed, which again can save time and costs and
enable good design and construction to be replicated.
Other notable significant benefits are improvements
to the assessment of building performance which is
potentially very significant in terms of buildings rated under
sustainability rating tools, which aim to measure in-use
performance. Respondents also ranked new abilities to
provide value added services which reflects members
desires to maintain the highest standards possible in highly
competitive markets. However when we examine the
lowest ranked benefits, there appear to be contradictions
evident as improvements to information availability and
completeness ranked the lowest of all whereas earlier
in the survey respondents had said data accuracy and
reliability was a concern. There seems to be little point in
having an increased availability of data available to industry,
which may be incomplete and thus unreliable and out of
date. Second lowest ranked benefit is the potential for
greater levels of innovation in industry practice and third
lowest ranked item was improvements to the assessment
of property value. It appears that members currently
do not perceive a great level of benefit to valuers and
the valuation process from data contained in BIM. More
benefit may lie in the benefits to portfolio managers and
investment management surveyors to assess the ongoing
value of properties within their portfolios based on building
performance and property maintenance costs over time.
Building Surveyors and Facilities Managers will benefit from
access to data related to building performance in delivering
some of their professional services.

rics.org/research

Figure 15

Key challenges in information management through life


Percentage (%)
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

Lack of protocols to verify and validate data

Data
Quality &
Protocols

Trade offs between data quality and


data quantity
Data granularity
Data accuracy, consistency and reliability
issues
Scale and complexity issues surrounding
large datasets

Technical

Lack of industry standards to control


consistent data reuse
Interoperability issues in structuring
disparate data sources
Security of property and building metadata
Secure data authorship and storage

Security
& Privacy
Concerns

Need for privacy preserving analytics and


granular access control
Increased IT infrastructure security across
distributed networks and data stores
Conflicts in interest relative to data
transparency & business interests
Cost surrounding new information
management infrastructures
Justification of business case for sourcing,
organising and maintaining data
Increased and continued reporting

Process &
Workflow

Uncertainty surrounding value of data and


its ongoing relevance
Compressed timeframes for sourcing,
organising and reusing data
Differences in level of availability of data to
all users
Disjointed nature of information flow
between organisations / sectors
Human error
Communication difficulties and differences
in domain specific language
Need for cultural change amidst feelings of
fear and loss of control

Human
Factors

Ineffective implementation due high staff


turnover
Lack of education and training at
organisational level
Lack of education and training at
institutional level
Lack of interdisciplinary knowledge
Lack of digital skill sets

RICS Research 2015

41

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Figure 16

Key benefits of digital information through life


Percentage (%)
0.0
Improvements to industry performance

Industry
Benefits

Increased transparency and open data


sharing across industry sectors
Potential for greater levels of
innovation in industry practice
Improvements to data quality and
accuracy
Potential for greater levels of
innovation
Faster assessment and reporting
processes

Organisational
Benefits

Reduction in data sourcing and


co-ordination efforts
New abilities to provide value added
services
Provision of a centralised point of
control
Improvements to organisational
performance and operational efficiency
Improvements to personal productivity
Improvements to levels of acceptable
risk
Improvements to information
availability & completeness

PracticeBased
Benefits

Increased levels of transparency


Increased decision support
Greater accuracy and efficiency in
property evaluations and assessments
More effective control of resources
and costs
Improvements to the assessment of
property value
Improvements to the assessment of
building performance

Information
Quality

Information can be checked and


validated
Information, once captured, can be
reused and repurposed

42

RICS Research 2015

5 .0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

rics.org/research

6.0 Overall conclusions


The research question posed was: what is the role of
the value dimension in BIM? Through a comprehensive
review and analysis of data types and needs in respect
of professional property tasks and services, this research
finds that there is potentially a significant role for the
adoption of property data into BIM and, also other
digitised building systems not initially considered within
the remit of this research, such as BMS. This potential role
can be classified into those areas where data relevant to
property professionals exists and can be used, providing
access to data is provided. Other areas are identified
where data, is not within the BIM and further consideration
of whether to incorporate such data is required, as well as
the mechanisms for incorporating such data. Who would,
and should, provide that data; as well as the steps to
ensure such data is accurate and updated as necessary,
used in context, tackles issues of security and privacy also
require addressing.

6.1 Data through-life

The experience of property professionals using BIM was


found in the workshops and the survey to be minimal.
Furthermore understanding of BIM within the property group
is also limited in breadth and depth. We should bear in
mind that currently BIM is largely restricted to larger newer
buildings and that the majority of RICS members will be
performing professional services on existing stock where
information is not available in BIM format. This is likely to
change over time, however currently there is a need to raise
awareness, increase the knowledge base and to develop
skills within the profession.

6.2 Challenges & Benefits of BIM


As with all data needs, it is critical that the data is reliable
and accurate and as up to date as possible. The workshops
revealed 23 challenges, which were largely endorsed in the
survey. Technology based challenges were ensuring data
can be;
1. Compatible and interoperable over long timescales.
2. Sustained and updated over long timescales, and:

Property professionals were found to have a very broad


range of data needs and used 24 different types of data
in their professional services. These needs were identified
in the literature, ratified in the workshops and confirmed
in the survey. Currently sources are often separate and
distinct and are at times unchecked with issues around
accuracy of some data. The five main categories of
property information were;

Not surprisingly the socio-technical challenges identified


often reflect those of professions whether using technology
systems or not and include aspects such as reliability,
fidelity and quality. Socio-technical challenges summarised
in Table 4, were grouped as;

1. Market and location data.

1. Data Quality & Fidelity.

2. Property data (describing the plot of land)

2. Context-based Issues.

3. Property data (describing economic information)

3. Security & Privacy.

4. Building information; and,

4. Digital Skills & Knowledge Competencies.

5. Process qualities (planning information, construction


information and FM information).

Largely, the survey responses echoed concerns raised by


the workshop participants. There is a danger that in some
cases there will be Building Information Models which are
not well maintained and have inaccurate data entry that will,
if relied upon by those unable to interrogate and understand
the data, lead to poor decision making and professional
judgements. This is a major challenge and the property
profession need reassurance that the data they do access
and use to base their professional judgements on is sound
and reliable. Protocols needs to established as the range of
professionals accessing BIM data widens, as the key benefit
perceived by survey respondents of improved performance
may not be realised in practice. Furthermore the opportunity
to provide clients with value added services may not be
realised if data is not perceived to be reliable, up to date and
sound. Overall the survey respondents felt there would be
little benefit at this point in time to valuers in using BIM data,
however it is considered that more benefit lies in the area
of property portfolio managers who will seek to rationalise
properties within the portfolio based on performance
amongst other variables.

Data needs were also found to vary from relatively


simple at a single point in time, for example the Building
Surveyors Technical Due Diligence report (figure 5) to
very complex needs of Portfolio Management Surveyors
over a whole of life timeframe (figure 6). The workshops
and survey revealed good potential to use some of the
data already in BIM for property professional practices
for example, FM and Property Management tasks,
Building Surveyors Technical Due Diligence reporting,
and property portfolio management. The opportunities
lie largely in respect of the data on building performance
in use. However, such data is typically found in the BMS
as much as the BIM. Therefore RICS should investigate
the opportunities within BMS technology to inform some
property tasks, as many buildings may not have BIM but
may have a BMS.

3. Organised such that it can be discovered and used.

RICS Research 2015

43

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

6.3 BIM in Property Education


Given the low levels of understanding and practical
experience of using BIM, there is considerable scope for
incorporating some understanding of BIM technology into
RICS accredited property courses at undergraduate and
post graduate level. Clearly the obvious place to introduce
student to the concept would in construction technology
subjects, however it should also be referenced in property
management, property investment, valuation, building
surveying and facility management subjects as a potential
source of information. In this way property students will
start to see the potential for the use of BIM data across
a range of their professional tasks. Macdonald (2012)
has proposed a framework to assist AEC academics in
implementing collaborative education programs with the
aid of BIM tools and processes, and this could be adapted
to incorporate property education.
Clearly property education is not restricted to the tertiary
sector and this research concludes that a broad program
across all RICS disciplines at all levels of membership is
desirable. Such a program should encompass provision
of CPD for existing members, training short courses and
provision of Information Papers and Best Practice Guidance
Notes. A comprehensive strategy should be established
to deliver a roll out of resources to members, under the
leadership of an Education Task Force. This could build
on the work already carried out to develop the RICS BIM
Manager certification. There are various initiatives in this
area being undertaken by professional bodies and other
groups, and a unified, industry-wide approach may be
worth considering, rather than separate task forces being
set up that essentially have the same aims.

6.4 Recommendations and


further research
From this research, it is apparent that great potential exists
to enhance the quality and accuracy of many aspects of
property professional practice with the adoption and use
of BIM in some tasks. There are five key recommendations
that arise out of this research.

1. Mapping of data needs and types across


all RICS disciplines
One of the key priorities is to undertake a comprehensive
mapping of data needs and types across all RICS
disciplines to identify (a) what is currently within BIM
that could be used by property professionals, (b) data
needs and types currently in a digital format but found
in databases outside of BIM that could be easily made
compatible to BIM. At this point an assessment of the
demand for the data would determine whether it is
desirable to implement such a change. Thirdly this review

44

RICS Research 2015

would identify those data needs and types that are


outside of BIM that could be digitised and incorporated
due to the extent of potential usage within the property
profession. In all cases issues identified in section 5.4
data quality and fidelity, context, security and privacy
should be considered. In particular details on data format
and source are needed. The full list should be categorised
and prioritised, and where necessary negotiations with
third parties should be initiated.

2. Introduce BIM professional competency


in RICS APC for property professionals
The RICS APC group should develop appropriate property
discipline BIM competencies with the APC structure so
that property professionals can obtain recognition for
knowledge, skill and competency with the application of
this knowledge in their professional practice. Given the
innovation in the RICS BIM Certified Manager qualification,
there may be some aspects which are transferable to the
property disciplines.

3. Develop a set of CPD events to raise


awareness among property professionals
of BIM
As a priority RICS should develop some online education
resources for members to raise awareness and knowledge
in respect of BIM and how property professionals could
use data within the models.

4. Develop RICS training courses for existing


members of the property disciplines in BIM
Concurrent with the roll out of CPD courses for members
and the development of online education resources, RICS
should develop a series of training courses for existing
members globally to realise the potential of BIM data in
their professional practices.

5. RICS BIM & Property Education Task Force


With regards to the integration of BIM into property
education, RICS could consider updating accreditation
criteria for universities to include requirement for
collaborative working with other disciplines/using BIM
data effectively. Furthermore RICS could form an
Education Task Force to champion the roll out of BIM
across property courses globally to ensure new members
have the requisite awareness, knowledge and skills with
respect to BIM and property; or the value dimension.

rics.org/research

7.0 References
Australian Construction Industry Forum (ACIF), 2015. A Framework for the
Adoption of Project Team Integration and Building information Modelling.
Retrieved on 31st May 2015 from; http://www.apcc.gov.au/ALLAPCC/
Framework_WEB.pdf
Australian Institute of Architects. 2015. BIM & IPD working Groups.
Retrieved on 31sy May 2015 from http://wp.architecture.com.au/bim/
groups/
Azhar, S. (2011). Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits,
risks, and challenges for the AEC industry. Leadership and Management
in Engineering., 11(3), 241-252.
BAF 2013. Embedding Building Infomration Modelling (BIM) within the
taught curriculum. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved on 31st May
2015 from http://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Embed_
BIM_in_curriculum_UK.pdf
Ball A, Darlington M, Howard T, McMahon C, & Culley S. (2012). Visualizing
research data records for their better management. Journal of Digital
Information, 13.
Becerik-Gerber, B. and Kensek K. 2010. Building Information Modeling
in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction: Emerging Research
Directions and Trends, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice 136(3): 139-147.
Becerik-Gerber, B., Jazizadeh, F., Li, N., & Calis, G. (2011), Application
areas and data requirements for BIM-enabled facilities management.
Journal of construction engineering and management, 138(3), 431-442.
Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. (2013), The project benefits
of building information modelling (BIM). Intl. Journal of Project Mgmt.,
31(7), 971-980.
BSI (2010), Constructing the business case for BIM, BSi, London, 2010.

The European Group of Valuers Associations (TEGoVA). (2003), European


Property and Market Rating. TEGoVA. Brussels.
Fillman, S.A., Wilde, K. L., Kochert, J.F., Homan, S.R., & Tomovic, C.L.
(2010). Entry-level engineering professionals and product lifecycle
management: a competency model, Int. J. of Manufacturing Technology
and Management, 13(3/4), 306-311.
Ford, G, Bartley, T, Igba, J, Turner, A, & McMahon, C (2013), Product Life
Cycle Data Management: A Cross-Sectoral Review, in B. Alain, R. Louis,
D. Debasish, (eds.) Product Lifecycle Management for Society, FIP Adv in
Inf. and Comm. Tech., Vol. 409, pp. 58-67.
Fuerst, F. & McAllister, P. 2012. Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring
the effects of environmental certification in commercial office values. Real
Estate Economics. 39 (1) pp45-69.
Green Property Alliance (2010). Establishing the Ground Rules for
Property: Industry-wide Sustainability Metrics, GPA, London.
Hewett, A, (2009) Product Lifecycle Management (PLM): Critical Issues
and Challenges in Implementation, Inf. Tech. and Product Dev., Annals
of Inf. Sys., Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.81-105.
Hutchins, G. (2004). SME Speaks: Manufacturing Engineers Must
Reduce Competency Gaps. Manufacturing Engineering magazine
132(2). Retrieved (Feb. 2014) from www.sme.org/MEMagazine/
Article.aspx?id=31088&taxid=1427
Holness, G. V.R.: 2008. BIM Gaining Momentum. ASHRAE Journal,
June 28-29
Jupp, J., & Awad, R. (2013). Developing digital literacy in construction
management education: a design thinking led approach. Journal of
pedagogic development.

BSI (2014), BS 1192-4:2014, the Collaborative production of information


Part 4: Fulfilling employers information exchange requirements using
COBie, URL: http://shop.bsigroup.com/forms/BS-1192-4/ (accessed 14
Jan. 2015).

Jupp, J. R. (2013), Incomplete BIM implementation: Challenges and


role of product lifecycle management functions, in B. Alain, R. Louis,
D. Debasish, (eds.) Product Lifecycle Management for Society, IFIP
Advances in Information and Communications Technologies. Vol. 409,
pp. 630-640, Springer Berlin Heidelberg

BSI (2015), PAS 1192-5: Specification for security-minded building


information modelling, digital built environments and smart asset
management: Retrieved on 31st May 2015 from http://shop.bsigroup.com/
upload/271469/PAS1192-5-BSI.pdf

Jupp, J. R., & Nepal, M. (2014). BIM and PLM: Comparing and Learning
from Changes to Professional Practice Across Sectors. In Product
Lifecycle Management for a Global Market (pp. 41-50). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg.

BuildingSMART, (2012). MVD Process. Retrieved on 14th January 2015


from: http://buildingsmart.com/ standards/mvd/mvd-process.

Jupp, J. R. & Singh, V. 2014, Similar Concepts, Distinct Solutions,


Common Problems: Learning from PLM and BIM, Intl. Conf. on Product
Lifecycle Management, 9-11 July, Japan

Cambridge Semantics. 2015. Introduction to the Semantic Web. Retrieved


on May 24th 2015 from http://www.cambridgesemantics.com/semanticuniversity/introduction-semantic-web
Carroll, S. (2009). A well-kept secret: BIM in preconstruction wins clients.
Constructor the magazine of the Association of General Contractors of
America. Retrieved on 14th January 2015 from http://constructor.agc.org

Jupp, J., & Wilkinson, S. 2015. Challenges of Through-Life Property Data


Management. In the proceedings of the RICS COBRA Conference UTS
Sydney July 8-10th 2015. ISBN 978-1-78321-071-8. To appear.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques
and applications (Vol. 29). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Corry, E., ODonnell, J., Curry, E., Coakley, D., Pauwels, P., & Keane,
M. (2014). Using semantic web technologies to access soft AEC data.
Advanced Engineering Informatics, 28 (4), 370-380.

Ltzkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D. (2011). Capturing sustainability-related


information for property valuation. Building Research & Information, 39(3),
256-273.

Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi


method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467.

Macdonald, J.A. and Mills, J.E. (2013) An IPD approach to construction


education, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building,
13 (2) 93-103

de Souza, L.L.A., de Amorim, S.R.L., & de Magalhes Lyrio Filho,


A (2009). Impact from the use of BIM in Architectural Design Offices:
Real Estate Market Opportunities, Gesto & Tecnologia de Projetos,
Vol. 4, N 2, Nov, pp 26-53.
East, W.E (2007), Construction Operation Building Information Exchange.
USACE ERDC.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R & Liston, K, (2008). BIM Handbook:
A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers,
Designers, Engineers and Contractors. Wiley & Sons Inc, New Jersey.

Macdonald, J.A. and Granroth, M. (2013), Multidisciplinary AEC


Education Utilising BIM / PLIM Tools and Processes, in Product
Lifecycle Management for Society IFIP Advances in Information and
Communication Technology (Proc. of 10th IFIP WG 5.1 International
Conference, PLM 2013, Nantes, France, July 6-10, 2013), Vol. 409, 2013,
pp 663-674.
Macdonald, J.A. (2012), A Framework for collaborative BIM education
across the AEC disciplines, in Proc. of the 37th Annual Conference of
the Australasian Universities Building Educators Association (AUBEA),
4-6 July, Melbourne, pp223-230.

RICS Research 2015

45

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Mason H. ISO 10303 STEP, A key standard for the global market, ISO
Bulletin 2002 4:9-13.
McGraw Hill. (2008). Smart Market Report, Building information modeling:
Transforming design and construction to achieve greater industry
productivity. McGraw Hill, NY.

Stark, J. (2011). Product lifecycle management: 21st century paradigm for


product realisation, 2nd ed., Decision engineering, Springer.

McGraw Hill. (2009). Smart Market Report: The business value of building
information modeling: Getting building information modeling to the bottom
line, McGraw Hill, NY.

Succar, B., Sher, W., & Williams, A. (2013). An integrated approach to


BIM competency assessment, acquisition and application. Automation in
Construction, 35, 174-189.

McGraw Hill. (2010). Smart Market Report, The Business Value of BIM in
Europe. McGraw Hill, NY.

Teicholz, P. (Ed.). (2013). BIM for facility managers. John Wiley & Sons.

McGraw Hill. (2014). Smart Market Report: Business value of BIM for
construction in major global markets: How contractors around the world
are driving innovation with building information modelling. McGraw Hill
Construction.
Millington, A. F., 2014. 5th ed. An Introduction to Property Valuation.
Routledge, Oxon, UK.
Newell, G., MacFarlane, J., & Kok, N. (2011) Buildings Better Returns.
API, Australia. Retrieved on May 23rd 2015 from http://www.api.org.au/
assets/media_library/000/000/219/original.pdf
NIBS (2007), US National BIM Standard: Version 1 Part 1: Overview,
Principles and Methodologies, National Institute of Building Sciences,
URL: www.wbdg.org/bim/nbims.php (accessed 14 Jan. 2015).
Redmond, A., Hore, A., Alshawi, M., & West, R. (2012). Exploring
how information exchanges can be enhanced through Cloud BIM.
Automation in Const. 24, 175-183.
RICS, 2015. BIM Manager Certification. Retrieved on 31st May 2015
from http://www.rics.org/uk/join/member-accreditations-list/bimmanager-certification/
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2009) 6th Ed. RICS Valuation
Standards. RICS, London.
Rowlinson, S., Collins, R., Tuuli, M. M., & Jia, Y. 2010. Implementation
of building information modeling (BIM) in construction: a comparative
case study. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1233 (PART 1), pp. 572 577
Sebastian, R. & Berlo, L. van 2010. Tool for Benchmarking BIM
Performance of Design, Engineering and Construction Firms
in The Netherlands. Architectural engineering and design
management 6: 254263.
Silverman, D. 2013. Doing Qualitative Research. A Practical
Handbook. Sage Publications. London.

46

Singh, V., Gu, N., & Wang, X. (2011). A theoretical framework of a BIMbased multi-disciplinary collaboration platform. Automation in Const.,
20(2), 134-144.

RICS Research 2015

Trm, S. & Granholm, L., 2011. Managing building information as a set of


interrelated partial models, Espoo: Working paper
United Nations Environment Programme (2009) UNEPFI/SBCIS Financial
& Sustainability Metrics Report, UNEP. Retrieved on 15th January 2-15
from: www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/metrics_ report_01.pdf
Vanlande, R., Nicolle, C., & Cruz, C. (2008), IFC and building lifecycle
management. Automation in Construction, 18(1), 7078.
Wilkinson, S.J., 2015. Building approval data and the quantification of the
uptake of sustainability measures: A case study of Australia and England.
Structural Survey. Vol. 33, issue 2. ISBN 0263-080X.
Wilkinson, S., & Jupp, J. 2015. Managing property data through life: BIM
and the value dimension. In proceedings of RICS COBRA Conference
UTS Sydney July 8-10th 2015. ISBN 978-1-78321-071-8. (to appear).
Young, N., Jones, S., Bernstein, H. M., & Gudgel, J. E.: 2009. The
Business Value of BIM: Getting Building Information Modeling to the
Bottom Line, Smart Market Report: McGraw Hill Construction
Yu, K., Froese, T., & Grobler, F. (2000). A development framework for data
models for computer-integrated facilities management. Automation in
construction, 9(2), 145-167.

Useful web sites


HM Government BIM Task Group main website
http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/
AEC UK CAD and BIM Standards Site
http://aecuk.wordpress.com/
Construction Industry Council website
http://cic.org.uk/

rics.org/research

8.0 Appendices
Appendix 1

Property professionals data types and needs.............................48

Appendix 2

Key to symbols used in figures 5 and 6 and Appendix 3.............49

Appendix 3 Managing data through the property lifecycle


(Workshop 2 output)..........................................................................50

RICS Research 2015

47

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Appendix 1 Property professionals data types and needs


Market Data
National Market

E.g. Overall national economic situation, political, legal and administrative conditions

State, Regional and


Neighbourhood Market

E.g. Economic situation, political, legal and administrative conditions, investment data (annual
growth, median price, median rent, rental yield and rent demand)

Listings, Recent Sales and


Auction

E.g. Property listings, sale transactions and records, national auction results and clearance
rates, rental listings and applications

Property Transfers

E.g. Property sales & transfers from Valuer General, real estate industry data on annual
transfers

Property Marketing Statistics

E.g. Online, print and phone marketing data

Property Location Data


Macro-Location

E.g. Regional transportation infrastructure & transport connections, socio-demographic


development, population structure & development, regional image, economic structure and
situation, purchasing power

Micro-Location

E.g. Local-context data, suitability of location for property type, image of district, local
transport connections, quality of public spaces and facilities (shopping, services, social &
medical facilities), distance to amenities.

Real Estate Data


Property Value Attributes

E.g. Property attributes such as property type, land use, zoning, lot/plan number, existing
owner, number of bedrooms, bathrooms, car spaces, previous sales information

Property Imagery

E.g. Aerial, internal and external property images, mapping images

Property Activity

E.g. Activity / interest in a property, evaluation of a property

Property Insurance Claims data

E.g. Insurance claims data such as residential property claims

Variables affecting Property


Insurance Rate

E.g. Value and risk data surrounding absolute property value, location, zoning, security & crime
rates, mean area property price, environmental conditions

Property Site Data


Property Lot Attributes

E.g. Orientation, layout, size/area, inclination, topography, soil characteristics, rainwater


drainage, easements, groundwater, degree of hard surface sealing

Utilities

E.g. Energy supplies, water supplies, waste water supplies, communications services

Environmental Attributes

E.g. Environmental situation, green areas & plantation, contribution to maintaining biodiversity,
greenfield & brownfield conditions, climate & geo data, air, noise & soil pollution

Surrounding Building Context

E.g. Distance to surrounding buildings, views & visual context, sunlight & shading levels, street
layout, design & usage of open spaces, internal/external accessibility, neighbourhood safety,
traffic conditions

Property Development

E.g. Data surrounding development applications, site selection/acquisition, details of the


development, development certificates, building permission and planning regulations

Financial Data

48

Tenant and Occupier Situation

E.g. Number of tenants, tenants image and solvency, duration and structure of rental contracts

Vacancy and Letting Situation

E.g. Vacancy rate, tenant retention, tenant fluctuation, duration of letting process, general
letting prospects, investment volume, expected rates of return

Payments-In

E.g. Rental payments, advance payments for utilities, rental growth potential, and inflation
expectations, other payments-in (e.g. facade advertising, energy-feed-in)

Payments Out

E.g. Payments for construction, acquisition, disposal, payments for operating costs, payments
attributable/non-attributable to tenants,marketing/letting (e.g. estate agents fee), payments
for modernisation, payments for operations

RICS Research 2015

rics.org/research

Appendix 2 Key to symbols used in figures 5 and 6 and Appendix 3


Node types

Dependency
Deliverables
Represent packages of information or
materials that are considered, created
or modified by tasks.

Simple tasks
Represent tasks which take account
of inputs to create outputs. All the
outputs of a simple task are created
(or updated) at the same time, when
the task is complete.

Compound tasks
Similar to a simple task, but can have
one or more output scenarios. Each
scenario can represent a different
forward branch and contain one or
more deliverables.

Iteration constructs

The four types of node can be connected using two


types of dependency (line with arrows

Flow dependencies
The dependency contributes to
the timing of the downstream task
(eg. the upstream deliverable must
be available to start the task)

Data dependencies
The dependency indicates that the
upstream information is used while
executing the downstream task, but
doesnt determine when the task can
be attempted.

Milestone
Decision or stage gate, typically
occurring between main project
phases.

Similar to a compound task, but


represent the possibility of generating
a backward branch (iteration).

RICS Research 2015

49

50

RICS Research 2015

Micro
location

National
Market

Payments
In

Payments
Out

Marketing
and Letting
Vacancy
Situation

Tenant and
Occupier
Situation

Planning and Feasibility

GEO Report

Programming

Conceptual
Design

Design

Design

Pre-construction
and site
establishment

Construction
and defects

Handover
and
operations
start-up

Asset
management

MAJOR COSTS

Use,
maintenance
and repairs

Inspections

Sales
Analysis

Research
Reports

Real Estate
Agents

Other
Income

Payments
in

Marketing
and Letting
Vacancy
Situation

Micro
location

Redevelopment, sale, demolition

Outgoings

Payments
out

Tenancy
Schedule

Tenant and
Occupier
Situation

National
Market

Settlement
Adjustments

Fund
manager

Assets
manager

Project
manager

Development
manager

Committee
Paper

Redevelopment/ strategic optioneering

Concept
forecast/
Tech.due
diligence
report

DFC

Capex
Forecast

Lefting up
assumptions

Growth
Rates

Market
Rates

Investment

Asset planning/Repositioning/H&BU

MINOR COSTS

Appendix 3A

Extra inputs

Planning

MINOR COSTS

Mapping Property Professional Tasks with Information Inputs and Outputs

Managing Property Data Through Life

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Appendix 3 Managing data through the property lifecycle


(Workshop 2 output)
Example of a Transactions Managers participants data needs at various stages of the
property lifecycle

Planning and Feasibility

Titles and
Easements

Site Plan

Topography

Flooding
Maps

GEO
Report

RICS Research 2015

Conceptual
Design

ESD
Modelling

Design
Reports

SPESC

Environmental
Quality

Conceptual
ESD Report

Brief

Design
Report

Indicative
Costs

Health
and User
Comfort

SSPECS

Detailed
Design

Operational
Quality

Technical
Quality

Costs

Conceptual
Report

Facilities
Management
Quality

Pre-construction
and site
establishment

FM Score

Construction
and defects

OH&S
Audits

Tenant
Survey

Asset Plan

Accountant
Receivable

Asset Plan

General
Ledger

Tenancy
Schedule

Design
Report

Concept
Diagram

Hazmat
Report

Land
Features

Design
Report

Handover and
operations
start-up

Asset
Plans

Health
and User
Comfort

Payments
In

Investment
Model

Payments
Out

Investment
Model

Tenant and
Occupier
Situation

Environmental
Quality

Asset management

Planning
Report

Design

MAJOR COSTS

Use,
maintenance
and repairs

BIM

Facilities
Management
Quality

Agreements

Maintenance
Schedule

Technical
Quality

Building
Audits

Redevelopment,
sale, demolition

Tenant and
Occupier
Situation

Tenancy
Schedule

Asset Building
Documents

Basic
Building
Description

Maintenance
Reports

Redevelopment/ strategic
optioneering

Tenant and
Occupier
Situation

Tenancy
Schedule

Asset planning/Repositioning/H&BU

MINOR COSTS

Appendix 3B

Titles and
Easements

Planning

MINOR COSTS

Example of a Transactions Managers participants data needs at various stages of the property lifecycle.

Managing Property Data Through Life

rics.org/research

Appendix 3 Managing data through the property lifecycle


(Workshop 2 output)
Example of a Portfolio Management Surveyors data needs at various stages of the
property lifecycle

51

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

Special Thanks
Special thanks to the following people:
Andrew Hannel
Opus, Sydney, Australia
Andrew Partridge
Eureka Funds Management, Sydney
Ben Elder
RICS, London, UK
Christopher Stokes
ESurv, Mid Anglia, UK
Clinton Ostwald
Urbis, Sydney, Australia
David Wagstaff
Pembroke, London, UK
Doug Rayment
AECOM, Sydney, Australia
Hernan Jerrez Guerrero
Ridley and Co Sydney Australia
Jack Moseley
Civic Valuations, Sydney
Jennifer Macdonald
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
John Kavanagh
RICS, London, UK
Kath Fontana
BAM FM, Hemel Hempstead, UK
Leon Carroll
AMP, Sydney, Australia
Paul Zahara
Cranleigh, Sydney, Australia
Phil Boyne
Lend Lease, London, UK
Richard Quartermaine
Hammerson Plc, London, UK
Richard Stacey
Calibre Capital, Sydney, Australia
Sarah Sayce
University of Kingston, London, UK

52

RICS Research 2015

rics.org/research

RICS Research 2015

53

Building Information Modelling and the Value Dimension

54

RICS Research 2015

rics.org/research

RICS Research 2015

55

Confidence through professional standards


RICS promotes and enforces the highest professional
qualifications and standards in the development and
management of land, real estate, construction and
infrastructure. Our name promises the consistent
delivery of standards bringing confidence to the
markets we serve.
We accredit 118,000 professionals and any individual or firm
registered with RICS is subject to our quality assurance. Their
expertise covers property, asset valuation and real estate
management; the costing and leadership of construction
projects; the development of infrastructure; and the
management of natural resources, such as mining, farms and
woodland. From environmental assessments and building
controls to negotiating land rights in an emerging economy;
if our members are involved the same professional standards
and ethics apply.

United Kingdom RICS HQ


Parliament Square, London
SW1P 3AD United Kingdom
t +44 (0)24 7686 8555
f +44 (0)20 7334 3811
contactrics@rics.org

Ireland

38 Merrion Square, Dublin 2,


Ireland
t +353 1 644 5500
f +353 1 661 1797
ricsireland@rics.org

Media enquiries
pressoffice@rics.org

We believe that standards underpin effective markets. With


up to seventy per cent of the worlds wealth bound up in land
and real estate, our sector is vital to economic development,
helping to support stable, sustainable investment and growth
around the globe.
With offices covering the major political and financial centres
of the world, our market presence means we are ideally placed
to influence policy and embed professional standards. We
work at a cross-governmental level, delivering international
standards that will support a safe and vibrant marketplace
in land, real estate, construction and infrastructure, for the
benefit of all.
We are proud of our reputation and we guard it fiercely, so
clients who work with an RICS professional can have confidence
in the quality and ethics of the services they receive.

Europe

(excluding UK and Ireland)


Rue Ducale 67,
1000 Brussels,
Belgium
t +32 2 733 10 19
f +32 2 742 97 48
ricseurope@rics.org

Office G14, Block 3,


Knowledge Village,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
t +971 4 446 2808
f +971 4 427 2498
ricsmenea@rics.org

Africa

Americas

t +27 11 467 2857


f +27 86 514 0655
ricsafrica@rics.org

t +1 212 847 7400


f +1 212 847 7401
ricsamericas@rics.org

North Asia

ASEAN

Japan

South Asia

t +852 2537 7117


f +852 2537 2756
ricsasia@rics.org

t +65 6635 4242


f +65 6635 4244
ricssingapore@rics.org

t +81 3 5532 8813


f +81 3 5532 8814
ricsjapan@rics.org

t +91 124 459 5400


f +91 124 459 5402
ricsindia@rics.org

POBox 3400,
Witkoppen 2068,
South Africa

3707 Hopewell Centre,


183 Queens Road East
Wanchai, Hong Kong

One Grand Central Place,


60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2810,
New York 10165 2811, USA

10 Anson Road,
#06-22 International Plaza,
Singapore 079903

GLOBAL/JUNE 2015/DML/20568/RESEARCH

South America

Middle East

Rua Maranho, 584 cj 104,


So Paulo SP, Brasil
t +55 11 2925 0068
ricsbrasil@rics.org

Level 14 Hibiya Central Building,


1-2-9 Nishi Shimbashi Minato-Ku,
Tokyo 105-0003, Japan

Oceania

Suite 1, Level 9,
1 Castlereagh Street,
Sydney NSW 2000. Australia
t +61 2 9216 2333
f +61 2 9232 5591
info@rics.org

48 & 49 Centrum Plaza,


Sector Road, Sector 53,
Gurgaon 122002, India

rics.org