Exploring the Challenges in Building Information Modeling (BIM) During the Design Phase: Evidence From Cross-Country Studies
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
Building information modeling (BIM) is transforming the construction life cycle. Nonetheless, there is a notable gap in research regarding the key challenges associated with BIM. This study aims to investigate the primary challenges in the design phase and their implications for project success. To address these objectives, cross-country case studies were conducted in four large engineering companies from the USA, Canada, Brazil, and United Arab Emirates. Data were collected through 23 semi-structured interviews with managers, engineers and directors, and content analysis was performed using NVIVO software. The resulting coding structure revealed the following categories: organizational and cultural issues, professional and knowledge issues, technological and operational issues, cost issues, BIM specific issues, design issues, data issues, and information and communication issues. The findings highlighted the most significant challenge as the lack of BIM knowledge or expertise. Additionally, an important enabler in the design phase is the accuracy of data provided by BIM, which enhances project management analysis. Finally, the BIM challenges and enablers influence various benefits dimensions, particularly on the efficiency.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it