Around two decades from its introduction, Building Information Modelling (BIM) remains a topic of discussion,
offering various perspectives across the construction sector.

The Misconception (Focusing on the “M” in BIM)

For many stakeholders in the industry, the first encounter with BIM is a 3D model in a software platform such as
Autodesk Revit, Navisworks, and so on. This will often result in BIM being perceived as a software tool or technology
(Deegan & Mathews, 2017). Instead, it has to be understood as a collaborative process.
While 4D, 5D, and further advanced BIM applications are being developed, 3D modelling and coordination remain the
most widely used BIM application among industry. This can be attributed to the persuasive nature of 3D visualisations
for stakeholders. Furthermore, software manufacturers who keep promoting their platforms as BIM fuel this trend.
When BIM is treated as software or technology, the application becomes limited across stakeholders. Architects
and clients use it for visualization, contractors for clash detection, QS for estimation, and the facility manager for
maintenance in fragmented tasks without a single, well-coordinated process. This is contrary to BIM’s intended
purpose and limits the overall potential in a vast spectrum. Consequently, the lifecycle promise of BIM continues to
fall short despite being in the industry for so many years.
As per UK standards, BIM software tools include six (6) categories, while AGC America lists seven (7) BIM tool
classes, namely Preliminary Design, Authoring, Analysis, Fabrication, Construction Management, Model Review, and
Collaboration. Notably, the majority of software packages frequently referred to as BIM tools are categorized under
Authoring tools, which is one of seven BIM tool classes.

The Intended Purpose (Redirecting to the “I” in BIM)

RICS describes BIM as a process of information management across the lifecycle of a building, emphasizing collaboration
and data continuity. Therefore, the key focus should be on the ‘I’ (information) rather than the widely considered ‘M’
(modelling) in BIM. It is not just about creating models; it is about ensuring that accurate and consistent information
flows seamlessly from inception to the end of life of a facility.
With the availability of international standards, the focus is shifting from technology around BIM to a clear and precise
focus on information and its management and security (RICS, 2023). The UK BIM Alliance has broadened its coverage
to include information management and rebranded as nima (the national information management organisation for
the built environment in the UK). According to nima (2025), the UK BIM Framework has transitioned into the IMI
(Information Management Initiative) Framework, launched in partnership with the UK’s Construction Leadership
Council.
The aim is to shift the industry focus from model creation to full lifecycle information management process from
Conceptualisation, Design, Analysis, Documentation, Fabrication, Materials, Costing, Construction, Logistics,
Sequencing, Handover, Operation, Maintenance, Renovation, Demolition, and Decommissioning.

Key Information Management Concepts within BIM Ecosystem: Dimensions, LOD, LOIN, and CDE

BIM dimensions are mostly aligned globally up to 5D; however, the 6th dimension (6D) is not consistent with US
standards considers it as facilities management while UK standards identify it as Sustainability/Energy management.
In addition, BIM can have any number of dimensions (XD) depending on project-specific requirements, such as safety
and lean concepts.

In simple terms, the “LOD” (Level of Development) is the reliability of the information in a BIM model as it evolves
from a concept to completion. LOD was introduced by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in 2008 and was
adopted globally, including the UK in its initial stages. In essence; LOD 100 – Concept level, 200 – Generic placeholder
level, 300 – Specific design level, 350 – Inter-coordinated level, 400 – Ready to build, and 500 – As-built for facilities
management. This is again a clear indication that BIM, in its initial stage, was developed as a lifecycle process.
The ISO 19650 suite introduced the concept of Level of Information Need (LOIN) in 2018 to address certain shortcomings
in the traditional LOD definitions, mainly in terms of information clarity. Instead of relying on a single scale, LOIN
combines and evolves as two distinct aspects, which are LOG (Level of Geometry) to define the completeness and
accuracy of model geometry with LOI (Level of Information) for non-graphical attributes, data incorporated into
its objects. ISO 19650 is now recognised by professional bodies such as the RICS and the RIBA as a framework to
encourage collaborative working throughout the overall lifecycle of a project.
Common Data Environment (CDE) in collaborative BIM is a digital environment where all project information is stored,
managed, and used by all stakeholders. It minimizes errors, rework, and enhances transparency and accountability.

Industry Adoption and Potential Future in Brief

BIM adaptation is primarily driven by 3D design visualization and clash detection, which feature in 75-85% of
BIM projects, followed by 4D Scheduling at 35-45%. Cost management and Facility management through BIM are
implemented at 25-30% and 20-25% respectively (Gitnux Market Data: Statistics & Reports).
3D visualizations and time-based (4D) BIM construction sequencing simulations without the project being built
provide clients with clarity and an intuitive preview of the facility. This allows them to comprehend what they are
getting for their money without needing complex technical expertise. Clash detection (i.e. spatial coordination), on
the other hand, has proven to be the direct cost-saving aspect of BIM, where the ROI (Return on Investment) can
be illustrated by calculating the cost saved by the virtually identified clashes if they were not captured until the
construction stage.
Therefore, it is evident that the adoption of BIM heavily relies on business and financial-driven decisions rather than
project management or engineering decisions.
In Qatar, the Public Works Authority (Ashghal) has developed Ashghal Building Information Modelling Standards
(ABIMS) in 2022 as the official BIM standards for Qatar in alignment with the international ISO 19650 series. Qatar
also has a government-led BIM roadmap as part of Qatar National Vision 2030 strategy, which was planned in phases
from 2018 (Grys R. 2023).
Similar to the usage of digital 2D drawings at present (CAD), BIM is becoming the baseline requirement and will be the
common usage in the future as the best practice without needing to be explicitly mentioned.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping almost every industry in the world, and BIM is no exception. Integration of BIM
(information-rich dynamic process) with AI (information-driven self-learning platforms) will immensely enhance the
industry towards a greater efficiency and effective state through facilitating paths to new trends, such as realistic
digital twins, etc.

Significance of Aligning Contractual Framework and Procurement Routes

BIM is a paradigm shift in the industry, and it is essential to encourage its alignment with procurement routes and
contractual frameworks. ISO 19650 defines the Exchange Information Requirements (EIR) as one of the main contract
documents that sets out client requirements with timelines in detail. A well-written EIR ensures that project teams
clearly understand what needs to be delivered throughout the project.
Subsequently, the BIM Execution Plan (BEP) is to be produced by the consultant, project manager, or project delivery
team based on the EIR. It defines how the team will meet the client’s requirements comprehensively. BEP shall
establish BIM standards, procedures, required LOIN levels at each stage, deliverables, roles and responsibilities,
model naming conventions with versioning, delivery plans, workflows and access restrictions, interoperability and
software/hardware requirements, quality control procedures, etc., at each project stage. Similarly, additional roles
such as BIM manager, BIM coordinator along with some concepts of BIM Room or iRoom, and such will be introduced.

Traditional contracts are tailored for paper-based practices. It is evident that these BIM-specific documents/
requirements such as EIR, BEP, LOIN, CDE and COBie to be embedded into the contractual framework directly to
achieve optimum outcomes from the BIM process. It is equally important to ensure that all the stakeholders including
subcontractors, subconsultants, and suppliers adopt the same standards for consistency, while the BEP becomes a
key document for contract administration. This integration is already reflected in the NEC4 suite of contracts, which
provides robust support for BIM through its optional provisions, enabling BIM to be implemented as a process.

These arrangements and the contractual framework depend on the selected project procurement route:

Traditional (Design-Bid-Build): Although this is one of the most practiced procurement routes, it is not considered
a BIM-friendly route, as the information is fragmented with the separation of design, construction, and operation
phases. This creates a high risk of information loss between each phase.

Construction Management (CM as Agency): This route has its advantages as the CM can act as the Information
Manager in the BIM process, to ensure the various inputs from different stakeholders align with client requirements.
However, managing multiple BIM incorporated contracts makes the overall collaborative process challenging.

Management Contracting (CM at Risk): An approach with better buildability compared to the previous two as the
management contractor will be involved from the beginning and can run clash detection (3D), scheduling (4D), and
costing (5D) simulations to mitigate construction and financial risks at an early stage. However, potential coordination
and responsibility conflicts between the consultant and MC can arise as their collaboration is not contracted.

Design and Build (D&B): Presently, the most frequent and practical route for BIM adopted projects due to its single
point of responsibility and the main contractor manages all sub-consultants and sub-contractors under the same
umbrella, reducing data fragmentation and loss. The close variant of the Develop and Construct route with two stage
tendering approach can give initial design control to the client but at the cost of potential information gaps.

The ISO 19650 BIM standards are applicable to all forms of procurement types; however, it emphasizes that the
procurement route must support collaborative information management for optimum outcome, which leads to the
IPD route.

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) / Alliance Contract (ALC): NBIMS-US identifies that BIM delivers maximum value
under collaborative frameworks, where the owner selects the team based upon qualifications and experience prior
to design being started. Accordingly, key Participants (owner, designer, project manager, contractor, facility manager,
etc.) are bound by a multi-party contract sharing both risks and rewards. The same concept can be found In NEC4
Alliance Contract (ALC). This route provides the highest-level effectiveness, understanding, and information flow
as a single process, aligning perfectly with ISO 19650 principles. High initial cost, governance, insurances, dispute
management, and legal issues are the main challenges of this method. However, once these barriers are properly
overcome or absorbed, IPD and ALC approaches are the gold standard for the intended BIM process.

Challenges for Collaborative BIM Process

The early-stage BIM challenges including high initial cost, resistance to change, technological limitations, regulatory
alignment, and training requirements, have now been mostly addressed. However, despite being matured for more
than a decade, BIM has not solved collaboration problems (He et al., 2020).
Inconsistent information management and poorly understood collaboration requirements remain a key issue as the
industry is moulded to the traditional fragmented processes. Mismatch of resources between stakeholders, along with
governance and decision-making under differing opinions, are the management-level complications. Most of these
barriers can be overcome by well-established and proper BIM-centric contract documentation that comprehensively
governs the overall process.
BIM’s collaborative nature often blurs traditional boundaries, which creates uncertainties when multiple parties
contribute to a shared information-rich model that evolves throughout the project cycle. Therefore, significant
challenges can be identified as scepticism on other parties, contractual complexity risks, and unclear accountability
issues. Determining the responsible party when a BIM-related error leads to a defect or delay can be complicated.
Furthermore, traditional PI insurance arrangements were not intended to cater multi-author, dynamic digital designs.
Hence, it is evident that the related legal and insurance frameworks must adapt to BIM related industry to address
these gaps in traditional insurances. 

 

Final Reflection

BIM is a continuous process of data rich, multi-disciplinary environment to be understood and supported by
stakeholders and systems in alignment with the procurement approach and contractual framework. Ideally, even
decommissioning and demolition related requirements should be taken into consideration when preparing the BIM
execution plan, and once a unique ID is assigned to an object or element in the preliminary design stage, it should
remain consistent throughout design, construction, operation, and until the end of life of the facility, unless the
element is removed during the process.
Consistent information management is crucial, as even minor information gaps or inconsistencies in this dynamic
process can trigger a butterfly effect, resulting in significant consequences for the end goal and its stakeholders. It is
a disruptive change to adopt collaborative BIM into a project or an organization initially. However, once implemented,
the BIM process should remain undisrupted throughout the project lifecycle to unlock the full potential of BIM.

References

Ashghal (Public Works Authority) (2023) ABIMS: Level of Information Need Guide, Version 2. Doha: Public Works
Authority.
BluEntCAD (2022) ‘Revit vs BIM: How Revit Supports but Isn’t BIM Itself’, BluEnt Engineering, 7 February. Available at:
https://www.bluentcad.com/blog/difference-between-revit-and-bim (Accessed: 19 January 2026).
Deegan, K. and Mathews, M. (2017) ‘BIM: Building Information Management (not Modelling)’, CitA BIM Gathering 2017.
Croke Park, Dublin, 23-24 November. Dublin: Technological University Dublin.
Gitnux.org (n.d.) Gitnux Market Statistics & Reports. Available at: https://gitnux.org/ (Accessed: 18 January 2026).
Grys, R. (2023) ‘Implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) on Public Infrastructure and Building Projects
in Qatar’, The 2nd International Conference on Civil Infrastructure and Construction (CIC 2023), Doha, Qatar, 5–8
February. DOI: https://journals.qu.edu.qa/index.php/CIC/article/view/3808
Nima (2025) New IMI Framework to extend UK BIM Framework. 30 May. Available at: https://wearenima.im/new
imi-framework/ (Accessed: 22 January 2026).
Patel, A. (2026) The Top 10 BIM Software You Need to Know in 2026. United BIM, 13 January. Available at: https://
www.united-bim.com/top-10-bim-softwares-in-2025/ (Accessed: 21 January 2026).
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) (2023) The future of BIM: Digital transformation in the UK construction
and infrastructure sector. 1st edn. London: RICS.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) (2025) ‘BIM and the power of data in construction’. Available at:
https://www.rics.org/news-insights/bim-power-data-construction? (Accessed: 19 January 2026).