MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177894083 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2014-0484

Assessing the performance of the building information modeling (BIM) implementation process within a small specialty contracting enterprise

2015· article· en· W2177894083 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersIndustry Canada
KeywordsBuilding information modelingIntegrated project deliveryProcess (computing)Scope (computer science)Process managementEnablingQuality (philosophy)BusinessProject managementEngineering managementOperations managementEngineeringSystems engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current shift to building information modeling (BIM) enabled project delivery in the construction industry is promising important benefits. For small and micro businesses, which represent 99.0% of the employers in the Canadian construction industry, adopting these trends could significantly impact their bottom line. However, this often represents considerable cost and risk. Assessing the performance of BIM implementation therefore becomes an important part of the process, namely in ensuring that it is on track and progressing as required. This article presents the findings from a case study research project conducted over a 2 year period within a small mechanical contracting firm. The objective of this research project was to develop an evolutionary approach, supported by specific measures, to assess the performance of the BIM implementation process within a specialty contracting small enterprise. The findings suggest that BIM has had a positive impact over time on predictability for indicators such as total project cost and labor cost. On the other hand, project scope and quality were not shown to be influenced by BIM in the projects studied. The variability uncovered in the findings reinforces the central tenant of BIM as an enabler for collaboration. Indeed, most of the projects studied were performed in a lonely manner and thus the measured impact of BIM on project delivery was limited, even if it was perceived as very beneficial. Lastly, the article highlights the need for a parallel reconfiguration of practice: performance assessment and BIM implementation need to be developed conjointly to serve one another.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it