Implementing a BIM collaborative workflow in the UK construction market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BIM Level 2, as defined by the UK government, sets out processes and standards that formalise and regulate the collaborative methods for producing, sharing and exchanging information during different stages of any construction project. For overseas organisations that are looking to invest in the UK construction market, they will most certainly need to consider developing their understanding and ability related to BIM in order to enable developing their capability and competency to compete. This paper presents a case study that focuses on the implementation of collaborative based BIM workflow at a large Chinese engineering and construction organisation, which has recently established operations in the UK. The BIM implementation has been achieved under a Knowledge Exchange Partnership framework between the organisation and an academic institution in the UK. The main aim for this partnership project was to transform the organisation’s traditional workflow to achieve a BIM based collaborative workflow, and to comply with BIM Level 2 requirements. The case study has been achieved by adopting an action research methodology, whereby the project affiliate was an active part of the implementation project and was managing and coordinating the partnership project between the organisation and academic partner. Results to date from the project will be documented in this paper. This includes highlighting key challenges, adopted strategies and tactics to overcome the obstacles, pockets of improvements and potential areas for future development.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".