MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376278966 · doi:10.3389/fbuil.2023.1117066

BIM for FM: understanding information quality issues in terms of compliance with owner’s Building Information Modeling Requirements

2023· article· en· W4376278966 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Built Environment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFraser Health Authority
KeywordsBuilding information modelingEnablingFacility managementProcess managementInformation modelInformation qualityKnowledge managementComputer scienceProcess (computing)Information systemEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Operations managementDatabaseBusinessPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The promise of Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Facilities Management (FM) is based upon building information models as reliable sources of information for decisions during a facility’s life cycle, from the planning to end of life. However, the premise of BIM as an enabler for the delivery of reliable information for FM has numerous challenges. Previous studies have shown that the quality of information provided through current design practices with BIM is inadequate for FM. These information quality (IQ) issues are mostly related to incomplete, inaccurate, inconsistent, and unintelligible facility information that ultimately reduce the usefulness of BIM-based information for FM purposes. In order to support BIM-enabled delivery of useful asset information for FM, certain IQ criteria must be met. Based on three ethnographic case studies, including the analysis of more than two thousand documented BIM for FM-related compliance issues, this research identifies ten key IQ criteria in design BIMs that must be considered to reliably support BIM use for FM, correlates these IQ criteria with key IQ dimensions identified in the literature to reflect their frequency of occurrence, and identifies sources of IQ issues in BIM for FM within design practice. A mixed-method approach for data collection from the case studies is adopted, including document analysis, semi-structured interviews, meeting observation, and a survey. The data collected are analyzed through an iterative coding process, in which the themes emerged are refined and tested as part of a grounded theory approach. This study contributes to the development of the theoretical concept of IQ in BIM for FM that is grounded in data from actual projects with stringent BIM requirements for FM and thorough compliance processes. As a practical contribution, the findings in this study should enable owners and designers to develop a more optimized asset information delivery process, increasing the value of the information in design BIMs for operations with minimal impact on current modeling practices.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.212 · 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