The interdependences of BIM and supply chain partnering: empirical explorations

Figures & data

Table 1. Case selection and diversity criteria.

	Criteria
Goal	Multi-team	Criteria
Selection	Team	A multi-disciplinary SC partnership across engineers, contractors and suppliers.
	History	The SC partners had collaborated before on at least one other project and one or more contractual relations, that is, framework agreement, exist.
	Vision	The SC partnership expresses a clear vision for future collaboration.
	Technology	Use of BIM-based tools from at least one SC partner.
Diversity	Type	Building construction: multi-functional (MF), housing or utility building.
	Scale	Small (up to 2000 m^2) to large (more than 20,000 m^2) projects.
	Size	Small-medium Enterprises (SME) or Multi-National Companies (MNC).
	Boundaries	Local or national character of the SC partnership.

Figure 1. (a) Under-construction housing tower building project of case B on the left, and (b) the interior of utility building of case C on the right.

Table 2. BIM-enabled SC partnership case description as to case selection and diversity criteria.

	Selection criteria				Diversity criteria
	Multi-team	History (projects)	Vision	BIM	Type	Scale	Size	Boundary	Status
A	Yes	2	Unclear	Yes	MF	Large (L)	MNC	Local	Ongoing
B	Yes	10	Yes	Yes	Housing	L	SME	National	Built
C	Yes	7	Unclear	Yes	Utility	Mid- (M)	SME	National	Built
D	Yes	8	Yes	Yes	Utility	Small (S)	SME	National	Ongoing
E	Yes	3	Yes	Yes	Housing	M	MNC	Local	Built

MF, multi-functional project; MNC, multi-national companies; SME, small-medium enterprises.

Table 3. Data collection sources per case and an indication of the phase where it took place respectively.

	Phase I	Phase II	Phase III
A	1, 2, 3, 4	1, 2, 4	Ongoing project
B	1, 2, 3, 4	1, 2, 3, 4	1, 5
C	1, 2	1, 2	1, 5
D	1, 2, 4	1, 2, 4	Ongoing project
E	1, 2, 3	1	1, 5

Note: 1: Group interviews, 2: Analysis of documents, 3: Visit site, 4: Observation of meetings, 5: Individual interviews.

Table 4. SCM activities that contribute to SC integration (column list adapted from Vrijhoef (2011)).

	Repetitiveness	Integration of business activities	Partner sourcing	Integration of operations	Logistics control	Quality management	Information exchange	Product development and design	Market approach and marketing	Cultural alignment	Human resource management	Total number of present factors
A	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	7/11
B	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	8/11
C	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	6/11
D	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	8/11
E	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	4/11

Figure 2. Typical clash session with the installation disciplines (Case A).

Table 5. BIM application areas per SCM project (column list adapted from Cao et al. (2014)).

	Site analysis	Design exploration	3D representation	Design coordination	Cost estimation	Energy simulation	Clash detection	Construction system design	Schedule simulation	Quantity take-off	Site resource management	Offsite fabrication	Total number of present factors
A	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	7/12
B	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	7/12
C	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	5/12
D	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	6/12
E	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	4/12

Table 6. Observed patterns of BIM-based collaboration among the SC partnerships.

		Pattern
Aspect	Observed feature	Ad-hoc	Linear	Distributed
Actor	BIM as a contractual requirement	–	–	Yes
	BIM-savvy strategic partners	–	Yes	Yes
Process	BIM-related meetings	On-demand	On-demand	Pre-scheduled
	Co-location practices	–	On-demand	Pre-defined
	Use of common data environment	–	–	Yes
Product	Use of firm-based BIM protocol(s)	Yes	Yes	–
	Compliance to one BIM protocol	–	Yes	Yes
	Model checking tools	–	Yes	Yes
	Information exchange file type(s)	CAD/PDF, Native	CAD/PDF, Native, IFC	Native, IFC
	Deliverable file type(s)	CAD/PDF	CAD/PDF, IFC	CAD/PDF, IFC

Table 7. Convergent testimonials about areas of improvement from BIM-enabled SC partnering (built cases).

	Activity	Case B	Case C	Case E
SCM	Partner sourcing	‘In the future, we will try to involve the suppliers who are SC partners even earlier in the design process’ (Contractor)	‘For all the sub-contractors, we make contracts, and we ask for BIM models. [ … ] But also price is important’ (Contractor)	‘When we had to make the selection of the partners, [ … ] we just let them tell us on a presentation what they understand about SC’ (Contractor)
	Quality management	‘With BIM, everyone wants to optimise their own product’ (Architect) With SCM, we do not have to think which party is less expensive. We strive for quality and because we want to know what we have in common, a kind of blind trust^a (Structural engineer)	‘For us, quality is synonymous with BIM use’ (Architect)	‘We view it (BIM) as a method to minimise the faults and improve the quality of the chain’ (Client) ‘BIM was more important for quality management than SCM’ (Architect)
	Information exchange	Especially in BIM and SCM, we are much more dependent on information from others^a (Steel sub-contractor)	We went back to 2D drawing use for communication; it works faster and efficiently for all^a (Cladding supplier)	–
	Cultural alignment	‘Together with the other partners we are learning a lot about BIM’ (Mechanical Engineer) And we know each other, also begin to know each other personally and it is also fun to have this relationship^a (Steel sub-contractor)	‘If they (other partners) want to be still preferred suppliers, then that (BIM) is what we want’ (Contractor)	‘We always ask them how they stand. [ … ] We ask: “are you ready to show us all the cards?”’ (Contractor)
BIM	3D representation	–	–	‘BIM did play an important part in 3D representation, not just in engineering’ (Architect)
	Design co-ordination	‘With the co-locations was easier than calling to arrange something. We [ … ] want to sit together more frequently now’ (Architect)	‘The BIM design process, [ … ] it is not really optimal yet, but we are getting there, [ … ] we have to make the distance smaller among the partners.’ (Architect)	‘That (design co-ordination) went far because of the supply chain, together with BIM’ (Architect)
	Cost estimation	‘In this project we only did the modelling, we did not do a lot of analyses, we want to improve that in the next’ (Contractor)	‘All calculations were successful apart one supplier^a’ (Structural engineer)	–
	Clash detection	‘We had a clash session with the concrete supplier and in ten minutes we could be discussing issues all around the building that are influenced by it because the building is so complex’ (Architect)	‘We invite some partners whose responsibility it is and just make clash session only with them. It is faster.’ (Contractor) ‘Maybe in an ideal process we put all the partners altogether’ (Architect)	–

^aTranslated from the Dutch by the authors.

Figure 3. Typical pull-planning session for construction planning (Case C).

Table 8. Findings of the analysis of the selected projects with BIM-enabled SC partnering.

Case description		BIM analysis		SCM analysis		BIM-enabled SC partnering	Reflection
	Type and scale	Actors using BIM	BIM application areas	Internal SC actors	SCM application areas	BIM-based collaboration process	BIM & SCM future strategy
A	MF; L	9/10	7/12	6/10	7/11	Distributed	(Ongoing)
B	Housing, L	9/11	7/12	8/11	8/11	Distributed	Improve BIM strategy
C	Utility; M	6/8	5/12	5/8	6/11	Linear	Improve BIM strategy
D	Utility; S	7/9	6/12	5/9	8/11	Linear	(Ongoing)
E	Housing; M	5/8	4/12	6/8	4/11	Ad-hoc	Improve BIM & SCM

Vrijhoef, R. (2011). Supply chain integration in the building industry: The emergence of integrated and repetitive strategies in a fragmented and project-driven industry. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

 Google Scholar

Cao, D., Li, H., & Wang, G. (2014). Impacts of isomorphic pressures on BIM adoption in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(12), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000903

 Google Scholar