Rethinking the Cost Estimating Process through 5D BIM: A Case Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative study of commercially available BIM-based estimating software, and an investigation of the changes in work practices and workflows incurred by the adoption of such software by a construction company. Due to the fragmentation of the construction industry and the linearity of the design process, cost estimating is typically performed at a time when the conceptual design is quite advanced or even completed, which is much too late in the design process to help the different stakeholders make informed decisions. Performing value engineering and cost estimation from the beginning of the design process would potentially enable a faster and more cost-effective project delivery process, higher quality buildings, and increased control and predictability for the owner. This research examines the changes in work practices and work flows within a construction company as they move towards adopting Building information Model (BIM) estimating process. To conduct this research, we: (1) tested several BIM-based cost estimating software tools to support different phases of design, (2) evaluated the benefits and challenges of working with this software, and (3) analyzed the work practices and workflows of a BIM-based estimating process within the firm. Finally, we propose a multi-stage technology adoption scenario.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it