Practitioners’ Concerns about Their Liability toward BIM Collaborative Digital Mockups: Case Study in Civil Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building information modeling (BIM) involves the use of collaborative digital mock-ups of an asset to streamline design, building, and operation processes. Collaborative work and the use of an integrated digital mock-up offers many advantages but raises several problems regarding the liability of stakeholders in construction projects. Practitioners involved in the design process of a building (engineers and architects) practice very high-liability professions for which the use of a digital mock-up implies potentially high stakes. Although liability issues have been identified in the literature as a hindrance to BIM implementation, practitioners’ concerns toward their liability have only barely been investigated. In this paper, we propose to explore engineers’ concerns about their liability toward using BIM collaborative digital mock-ups with a case study in civil engineering. We documented these concerns through an exploratory study consisting of semi-structured interviews. The main contribution of the paper is therefore an organized list of concerns. These include: the alignment between their way of working and professional rules, the clarity of the assignment of liabilities, and the reliability of the digital mock-up. These stem from a liability risk that practitioners perceive because of uncertainty about liability allocation and uncertainty regarding the reliability of digital mock-ups. Our research work is part of an overall effort to understand the problems faced by practitioners when implementing new practices associated with BIM and to provide solutions. The results are therefore extensively discussed in order to identify hypotheses and avenues of work to address the identified concerns. The specific context (engineers, in Quebec) and the exploratory nature of the study implies that the results are not generalizable to a wider population. However, the identified concerns may be likely to emerge in similar context like high-liability professions involved in design stages of BIM projects. This paper is a very first step toward identifying these concerns in the construction sector and must be subject to future work.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".