Journal

The “Design and Manage” procurement route is presented as an evolution or modification of the traditional Design and Build (D&B) method. D&B is characterized by a single entity undertaking responsibility for both the design and construction phases of a project, typically under a single contract. Design and Manage builds upon this integrated approach by placing a specific emphasis on the management of the construction works and introducing variations in how these works are contracted and managed, predominantly concerning the level of client involvement and the allocation of responsibility. It can be viewed as an attempt to address certain perceived limitations of standard D&B, such as potentially limited client control over design details or the selection of subcontractors.

Design and Manage with Single-Point Responsibility

Design and Manage with Single-Point Responsibility is a variant that retains the core principle of D&B by having a single contractor responsible for the overall delivery of the project, encompassing both the design and the management of the construction works. Under this arrangement, a single “design and manage contractor” assumes this comprehensive responsibility. However, the actual construction work is executed by a number of package contractors (i.e., subcontractors) who are contracted to this design and manage contractor.

Features of D&M with Single-Point Responsibility

A key characteristic of this variant is that the payments made to these package contractors by the design and manage contractor are often reimbursed by the client based on a cost-plus contract arrangement. This cost-plus element introduces a degree of financial transparency regarding the subcontractor costs for the client. Given that the client ultimately reimburses these costs, it is considered reasonable for the client to have a say in the selection of these package contractors. This client involvement in subcontractor selection is a significant feature that distinguishes this variant from a standard D&B approach, where the contractor typically has full autonomy over subcontractor selection. Furthermore, certain design work itself may be structured as separate packages, particularly if the client wishes to have specific input into the selection of design consultants for particular aspects of the project. This provides an additional layer of flexibility and potential client influence within the single-point responsibility framework.

This approach to Design and Manage seeks to combine the efficiency and single-point accountability of D&B with the transparency and client influence over subcontractor selection often associated with Management Contracting. It presents a hybrid model that could be appealing to clients who desire a single point of contact for the entire project but also wish to have a voice in the selection of key subcontractors.

Key characteristics include the single-point responsibility of the design and manage contractor for both design and construction management. The client operates under a cost-plus reimbursement model for subcontractors, directly reimbursing the design and manage contractor for these costs. A notable feature is the client’s influence on subcontractor selection, allowing them to have a say in who is chosen for the works packages. The design and manage contractor might have potential limitations on their liability for the project. There is also flexibility in design packaging, with some design elements potentially being separate packages where the client can influence consultant selection. This method shares similarities with the role of a Management Contractor, particularly in the early involvement and use of package contractors. It is often considered suitable for complex or fast-track projects where a single point of contact is advantageous. The structure can also foster a collaborative relationship between the design and manage contractor and the client.

Advantages of D&M with Single-Point Responsibility

Advantages of this approach include the simplified client management due to a single point of contact and responsibility. The client’s influence on subcontractors allows them to choose preferred firms. The transparency in subcontractor costs provided by the cost-plus model can be beneficial. The integrated nature can lead to potential for reduced delays through better communication and coordination. It offers flexibility for complex and fast-track projects and can promote a collaborative environment.

Disadvantages of D&M with Single-Point Responsibility

Disadvantages include the lack of an established contract sum initially, similar to Management Contracting. There is a potential for duplication of resources between the main contractor and subcontractors. The risk of liability limitations for the main contractor needs to be carefully considered by the client. The project’s success relies heavily on the expertise of the design and manage contractor in both design and management. Finally, there is still a potential for conflicts to arise between the main contractor and the various subcontractors.

Design and Manage with Multi-Point Responsibility

Another variation of the Design and Manage procurement route involves a structure where the package contractors are directly contracted to the client. In this model, the Design and Manage Contractor assumes a role more akin to a consultant to the client, taking on full responsibility for the design of the project and the overall management of the construction work. However, unlike the single-point responsibility variant, the package contractors, while managed by the Design and Manage Contractor, are directly responsible and contractually obligated to the client.

Due to the multi-point responsibility arising from the client’s direct contracts with the package contractors, paradoxically, this Design and Manage method falls under Separated Procurement System designs but also exhibits features of Integrated Procurement System designs. This mix of features stems from the integration of design and overall construction management under a single Design and Manage Contractor, while the execution of the construction work is managed through separate contracts held by the client. Evolution of this arrangement from regular D&B is similar to the evolution of Construction Management from the Conventional Method, where the client also holds direct contracts with trade contractors but employs a CM for coordination.

Features of D&M with Multi-Point Responsibility

Key characteristics of this variant include the multi-point responsibility where the client directly contracts with package contractors. The Design and Manage Contractor acts as a consultant with design responsibility, overseeing both design and overall management. The package contractors are directly responsible to the client for their work. This model presents a hybrid procurement system, blending features of separated and integrated approaches. It bears a strong parallel to Construction Management, where the client also leads the contracts.

Advantages of D&M with Multi-Point Responsibility

Advantages of this approach include the client’s control over contractors through direct contractual relationships. There is a single point of responsibility for design and management strategy with the Design and Manage Contractor overseeing these aspects. The client enjoys transparency in contractor costs by directly managing payments. There is also a potential for cost savings through direct contracting and management.

Disadvantages of D&M with Multi-Point Responsibility

Disadvantages include the high administrative burden for the client in managing multiple contracts. There is a risk of coordination issues as the client is responsible for coordinating multiple contractors. The approach relies on client expertise in managing construction contracts. Finally, there is a potential for conflicts between different contractors and the Design and Manage contractor.

Construction Management at Risk (CMAR) is a project delivery method that blends elements of both Construction Management and traditional contracting approaches. Similar to standard Construction Management, the client engages a Construction Manager early in the design phase to provide preconstruction services and act as a consultant. These services generally include cost estimating, value engineering, and constructability reviews, allowing the CM’s expertise to inform the design process from its early stages.

The key distinguishing feature of CMAR is that at an identified point in the design process, usually when the design has progressed sufficiently to allow for a reasonably accurate price prediction, the Construction Manager agrees with the client to complete the project under a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). This GMP represents the maximum amount the client will pay for the entire construction project, encompassing the costs of subcontractors, materials, and the CM’s fee for the construction phase.

Once the GMP is established, the Construction Manager then enters into direct contracts with various package contractors, or subcontractors, to perform the actual construction work, a practice similar to that in Management Contracting. The client’s contractual arrangement with the CM is usually a Cost Plus fee structure, but with the condition that the total cost will not exceed the agreed-upon GMP. A fundamental aspect of CMAR is that the Construction Manager assumes the financial risk for any costs that goes beyond the GMP, provided these overruns are not a result of changes in the project scope initiated by the client. This “at-risk” element is central to the CMAR approach, as it incentivizes the CM to manage costs effectively and efficiently throughout the construction phase.

Features of CMAR

Several characteristics define the CMAR method. Early CM involvement is first, with the CM participating in the design phase and offering preconstruction services. The Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is the next, providing a cap on the total construction cost, i.e., the client’s contract with the CM is typically a Cost-Plus contract with a GMP, ensuring they pay the actual costs plus a fee, but not exceeding the agreed limit. The CM contracts with subcontractors to execute the work once the GMP is set. A significant aspect is the risk transfer to the CM, who bears the financial responsibility for cost overruns beyond the GMP. CMAR promotes collaboration among the owner, architect, and CM from the project’s inception. The early involvement of the CM facilitates value engineering and constructability input during design. Construction Manager in CMAR often implement a prequalification process for subcontractors, focusing on qualifications and experience.

Advantages of CMAR

CMAR offers several key advantages. The cost certainty through the GMP is a significant benefit for clients, providing a maximum budget for the construction phase. The early contractor involvement allows for valuable insights into buildability and cost during the design phase, potentially preventing costly changes later. The risk mitigation for the client is substantial, as the CM assumes the financial burden for cost overruns beyond the GMP. The collaborative approach fosters better communication and teamwork among all project stakeholders. There is a potential for faster schedules due to the early involvement of the CM and the possibility of overlapping design and construction activities. The use of higher quality subcontractors, selected based on qualifications, can lead to better workmanship. Finally, the early collaboration can lead to reduced change orders during construction.

Disadvantages of CMAR

Despite its benefits, CMAR also has some disadvantages. The financial risk for the CM is significant, as they are liable for costs exceeding the GMP. This risk might incentivize the CM to potentially keep a higher profit margin to offset the risks and/or pursue a reduced scope or quality to ensure they stay within the GMP. The complexity of contracts in CMAR can be higher than in traditional methods. Negotiating the GMP can be challenging, requiring a well-defined scope of work. The client remains at risk for exclusions in the contract documents and for any changes in project scope after the GMP is set. There is a potential for conflicts of interest as the CM is involved in both advisory and construction roles. There is also less opportunity for competitive bidding at the main contractor level, as the CM is selected based on qualifications rather than solely price.

Construction Management (CM) represents another management-oriented procurement route where the client appoints a Construction Manager to oversee and coordinate the construction project. However, a key distinction from Management Contracting is that in CM, the client enters into direct and separate contracts with multiple trade contractors for the various aspects of the construction work.

Similar to the traditional separated procurement route, the project design in CM is carried out by design consultants directly appointed by the client. However, instead of engaging a single main contractor to execute the entire construction, the client establishes individual contracts with various trade contractors, such as those specializing in structural work, masonry work, mechanical and electrical services, and interior finishes. The Construction Manager acts as a consultant or agent to the client, providing professional management services aimed at coordinating the activities of these numerous trade contractors and the client’s design team. Notably, the CM does not have a direct contractual relationship with the trade or package contractors. In essence, the client takes on a more direct role in the contractual framework of the project, directly managing relationships with multiple entities, while the Construction Manager provides the necessary expertise and coordination to facilitate a smooth project progression.

Features of Construction Management

Several characteristics define the Construction Management approach. The client establishes multiple direct contracts with each of the package contractors involved in the project. The Construction Manager operates as the client’s agent, acting solely as a manager and coordinator without a direct contractual link to the trade contractors. Consequently, the client takes the responsibility for managing and administering these multiple direct contracts, a task that can be quite demanding. CM offers significant flexibility in terms of design, procurement strategy, and the phasing of construction, allowing the client to adapt to changing circumstances as the project evolves. Similar to Management Contracting, the early appointment of a CM can facilitate an early start potential, enabling some trade packages to be tendered and commenced before the entire design is finalized, reducing the overall project duration. The CM can also contribute their buildability knowledge and programming advice during the design and project planning stages, working along with the client’s design team. A key differentiator is the absence of a contractual link between the CM and the package contractors; the CM’s role is purely advisory and coordinative. This procurement route usually affords the client a high degree of control over the project, as they maintain direct relationships with all the key stakeholders involved.

Advantages of Construction Management

Construction Management presents several advantages. Clients gain greater control over the project by having direct contractual relationships with all the trade contractors, which can influence the project’s execution, quality, and potentially cost. There is a possibility for cost savings as the client might be able to eliminate the overhead and profit margins associated with a traditional main contractor by contracting directly with trade specialists. CM offers considerable flexibility to accommodate design changes and adjustments throughout the construction process without necessarily incurring a premium from a main contractor. The early contractor input provided by the CM during the design phase is valuable in terms of buildability, cost implications, and project programming. The potential for a reduced project duration exists by overlapping the design and construction phases through the early commencement of some trade packages. The roles, responsibilities, and risks for all parties involved are generally clearly defined under a CM arrangement. Clients also have direct remedies with the package contractors due to the direct contractual links, providing a clear path for addressing any issues or non-performance. Finally, the client enjoys transparency in costs, having complete visibility over the amounts payable to each of the package contractors. Overall, Construction Management can be particularly advantageous for clients who desire a high level of control, seek potential cost savings, and require flexibility, provided they possess the capacity and willingness to manage multiple contracts effectively.

Disadvantages of Construction Management

However, Construction Management also has several disadvantages. The client faces a significantly increased administrative burden due to the need to manage multiple separate contracts with the various trade contractors, including procurement, payments, and coordination. Similar to Management Contracting, price uncertainty can be an issue, as the total project cost is not fully known until all trade packages have been let, which can occur relatively late in the project. With multiple trade contractors working directly for the client, there is a higher risk of conflicts arising between them regarding scheduling, coordination, and responsibilities, and the client may need to play a role in resolving these disputes. This procurement route demands a client who is knowledgeable about construction processes, contract management, and project coordination, as they are taking on a more active role than in other methods. While direct contracting might save on a main contractor’s margin, the client may need to engage more consultants or a highly experienced Construction Manager, potentially leading to higher overall professional fees. Changes to later trade packages can negatively affect packages that are already in progress, potentially leading to increased costs and delays if not managed carefully. Finally, there is no single point of responsibility for construction, as the responsibility for the overall construction delivery is distributed across multiple package contractors, which can make it more challenging to hold one party accountable for the entire project’s success. In summary, while offering significant control and potential benefits, Construction Management can be demanding for clients who lack experience or resources in managing multiple construction contracts and requires careful coordination to mitigate the risks associated with a fragmented responsibility structure.

Management Contracting represents a procurement strategy where the client appoints a specialized Management Contractor (MC) early in the design phase to oversee the construction works. Unlike a traditional main contractor, the MC does not directly undertake the physical construction work. The overall structure of this method has resemblance to the Conventional Procurement system structure, where the client engages independent design consultants to develop the project design. However, the key distinction lies in the replacement of the conventional main contractor with the MC, whose primary role is to procure and manage various package contractors, often referred to as Package Contractors or subcontractors, to execute the actual construction activities.

The contractual framework in Management Contracting involves the client entering into a single agreement with the MC, who then establishes separate contracts with each of the package contractors. Normally, the client does not have direct contractual relationships with these package contractors. This structure allows the client to make use of the expertise of a construction specialist early in the project lifecycle without losing control over the design process. The MC’s fundamental role is to act as a manager and coordinator for the various works packages that constitute the overall construction project.

Features of Management Contracting

Several key characteristics define the Management Contracting approach. A significant aspect is the early appointment of the Management Contractor, typically during the initial design phases. This early engagement allows the client to benefit from the MC’s construction expertise, which can significantly influence the design for improved buildability and overall cost-effectiveness. The MC’s input at this stage can also facilitate a more efficient package-based procurement strategy. The construction works are divided into manageable packages, and these packages are then awarded to specialist package contractors through a competitive tendering process, aiming to achieve the best possible value for each component of the project. The MC plays a crucial role in defining these work packages in collaboration with the client’s design team.

The financial arrangement between the client and the MC is usually based on a cost-plus contract. Under this model, the MC is compensated with a fee for their management services and expected profit, and the client reimburses the MC for the actual costs incurred by the package contractors. This arrangement provides a degree of transparency to the client regarding the costs of the individual works packages. Given this cost-plus structure, the client often has a say in the selection of package contractors. This involvement allows the client to ensure they are comfortable with the chosen specialist firms and can influence the quality and the cost of the individual work packages. The Management Contractor assumes responsibility for achieving the time and quality targets of the overall project, akin to a main contractor in a conventional method. The MC is tasked with managing and supervising the package contractors to ensure their work adheres to the contract requirements. To encourage experienced contractors to undertake the MC role at a reasonable fee, management contracts frequently incorporate a limitation of liability for the Management Contractor. This acknowledges that certain project risks might be disproportionately large compared to the MC’s management fee. Legally, the Management Contractor acts as a principal in their contractual relationships with the package contractors, meaning they have direct obligations and potential liabilities towards them. The client maintains a contractual relationship solely with the MC.

This combination of early involvement, a package-based approach to procurement, and a cost-plus fee structure is intended to harness the specialized skills of various subcontractors while offering a level of financial transparency to the client. The client’s participation in the selection of subcontractors provides a measure of control over the project’s execution, but the overall success of the Management Contracting method is significantly dependent on the MC’s ability to effectively manage and coordinate the diverse works packages.

Advantages of Management Contracting

Management Contracting offers several notable advantages. The early contractor input is a significant benefit, allowing the client to capitalize on the MC’s construction expertise during the design phase, leading to more buildable and cost-effective designs, as well as improved risk management. The method also provides flexibility in the design process, allowing for changes to be made even during the construction phase with relative ease, although such changes may have cost implications. Furthermore, the potential for faster project completion exists because the early involvement of the MC can enable the tendering and commencement of certain works packages before the entire design is finalised, shortening the overall project duration. The client also retains a degree of control through their design team and their involvement in the selection of package contractors. The potential for high-quality delivery is enhanced by the ability to award works packages to specialist subcontractors with specific expertise. From an administrative perspective, the client benefits from simplified contract administration by managing only a single contract with the MC. Finally, the price competition at the package level through competitive tendering aims to ensure that the client receives good value for money for each component of the project. In essence, Management Contracting can be particularly advantageous for complex projects where the client values early construction expertise but wishes to maintain control over the design and benefit from the specialized skills of various subcontractors.

Disadvantages of Management Contracting

Despite its advantages, Management Contracting also presents certain disadvantages. One key concern is price uncertainty, as the final overall project cost may not be fully known until all the works packages have been tendered and awarded, which can occur relatively late in the project. Clients might also feel the need for direct warranties from the individual package contractors, even though they have a contract with the MC, to protect themselves against possible non-performance or insolvency of the MC. Another issue is the risk of proving loss and damages, e.g., if the MC needs to replace a package contractor due to non-performance, under the cost-plus arrangement, the financial loss is ultimately borne by the client. Compared to a Design & Build approach, Management Contracting typically requires increased client involvement, particularly in decisions regarding subcontractor selection and monitoring the overall progress. The coordination of multiple package contractors, even under the MC’s management, can also lead to potential for conflicts regarding scheduling, interfaces, and responsibilities. The success of the project is also heavily reliant on the competence of the MC in managing the various works packages and ensuring effective overall coordination. Therefore, while offering transparency, the cost-plus nature of Management Contracting introduces a degree of financial uncertainty, and the client needs to be prepared for a more involved role and must ensure the MC possesses the necessary expertise for effective project management.

The landscape of construction procurement has evolved significantly over time, driven by the increasing complexity and scale of construction projects. Traditional methods, such as the Conventional Method and Design & Build, while having their merits, presented certain limitations that drove the development of more management-focused strategies. Management Oriented Procurement Methods emerged as a response to these limitations, particularly for projects characterized by high complexity, the need for early contractor involvement, a requirement for flexibility, and the necessity of specialized management skills for successful delivery. These methods recognize the growing complexities of construction activities and the increasing importance of dedicated construction management expertise to navigate these complexities effectively.

At the core of these methods lies an emphasis on Construction Management as a unique professional specialization. This perspective moves beyond the traditional role of a general contractor, which often involves directly undertaking a significant portion of the construction work. Instead, it focuses on the importance of a dedicated professional or team with specific skills in the planning, coordination, and control of all aspects of a construction project, from its initial conceptualization to final completion. This includes crucial functions such as careful cost management, adherence to project timelines, rigorous quality control, and effective administration of contracts. By recognizing Construction Management as a specialized discipline, these procurement methods facilitate the selection of the most suitable contractors for specific work packages based on their specific expertise, which can lead to enhanced quality and efficiency across all facets of the project. Furthermore, this approach enables the early integration of construction knowledge into the design phase, allowing for informed decisions that enhance buildability and cost-effectiveness, while also ensuring focused management during the construction phase, leading to improved coordination and accelerated project delivery.

This series of short articles will cover four key Management Oriented Procurement Methods:

• Management Contracting
• Construction Management
• Construction Management at Risk (CMAR), and
• Design and Manage (including its single and multi-point responsibility variants)

Readers are encouraged to read all articles linked above before moving further in here for deeper understanding.

Each of these methods presents a unique framework for engaging with the construction process, characterized by specific contractual relationships between the client, the management entity, and the various package contractors involved. Furthermore, they differ in how risk and responsibility for both design and construction management are allocated among the project stakeholders. Understanding the differences in these contractual structures and risk allocations is crucial for clients and project professionals in selecting the most appropriate procurement method to align with the specific objectives and constraints of their construction projects.

Management Oriented Procurement Methods represent a significant evolution in the construction industry, offering alternatives to traditional approaches like conventional procurement and Design & Build. Each method caters to different project needs and client capabilities, emphasizing the crucial role of specialized construction management.

Summary of Key Differences and Suitability of Each Method:

• Management Contracting: Features a single contract between the client and a Management Contractor (MC). The MC manages works carried out by package contractors under a cost-plus fee arrangement. This method is particularly suitable for complex projects where early contractor input is valuable, but the client wishes to retain control over the design.
• Construction Management: Involves the client entering into direct contracts with multiple trade contractors. A Construction Manager (CM) acts as the client’s agent, coordinating the works. This approach is best suited for experienced clients who desire a high degree of control and potential cost savings, and who are capable of handling the administrative burden of managing multiple contracts.
• Construction Management at Risk (CMAR): The client engages a CM early in the project. At an identified stage, the CM agrees to a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). The CM then contracts with subcontractors. CMAR offers a balance of cost certainty and early collaboration, making it suitable for larger projects with budget constraints.
• Design and Manage with Single-Point Responsibility: A single contractor is responsible for both design and management. The client reimburses the contractor for subcontractor costs and has a say in their selection. This variant blends the single-point responsibility of D&B with client influence over the supply chain.
• Design and Manage with Multi-Point Responsibility: The client directly contracts with package contractors. A Design and Manage Contractor acts as a consultant, responsible for design and overall management strategy. This model provides the client with significant control over contracts but requires strong project management capabilities.

Feature	Management Contracting	Construction Management	Construction Management at Risk (CMAR)	Design and Manage (Single-Point)	Design and Manage (Multi-Point)
Contractual Relationship with Package Contractors	Management Contractor (Principal)	Client (Direct Contracts)	Construction Manager (after GMP)	Design & Manage Contractor	Client (Direct Contracts)
Role of Management Entity	Main Contractor	Agent/ Consultant	Consultant (Pre-GMP), Contractor (Post-GMP)	Single Point Responsibility for Design & Management	Consultant for Design & Overall Management
Client’s Level of Involvement	Moderate	High	Moderate	Moderate	High
Key Advantages	Early contractor input, flexibility, client design control	High client control, potential cost savings, flexibility	Cost certainty (GMP), early contractor involvement, risk transfer	Single point responsibility, client influence on subcontractors	High client control, single point design & mgmt responsibility
Key Disadvantages	Price uncertainty, need for direct warranties	High admin burden, price uncertainty, coordination challenges	Financial risk for CM, potential for reduced scope/quality	Lack of initial contract sum, potential resource duplication	High admin burden, coordination risk, reliance on client expertise
General Suitability	Complex projects, early contractor input, design control	Experienced clients, high control, potential cost savings	Larger projects, budget constraints, early collaboration	Complex/fast-track projects, client wants subcontractor input	Experienced clients wanting design/mgmt oversight & contract control

The selection of the most suitable Management Oriented Procurement Method hinges on a careful consideration of several key factors. The complexity and size of the project often dictate the need for specialized management and early contractor involvement. The client’s in-house expertise and available resources play a crucial role, especially for methods like Construction Management that demand significant client involvement in contract management. The desired level of control over design and construction is another critical factor, with some methods offering more client oversight than others. The client’s risk appetite and how risk is allocated among the project participants should also be carefully evaluated. The importance of cost and time certainty will also influence the choice, with CMAR offering a greater degree of financial predictability through the GMP. Finally, the need for early contractor involvement to enhance buildability and efficiency is a common driver for selecting these management-oriented approaches. Ultimately, the optimal procurement method is not a one-size-fits-all solution but rather a strategic choice that aligns with the specific objectives, constraints, and priorities of each individual construction project and the capabilities of the client organization.

A BIM Infant Industry is a concept that refers to a specific stage in the adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) within a construction industry in a particular region, usually a country. This concept characterizes the situation of the

1. Limited BIM adoption (i.e., only a small number of industry participants are actively using BIM in their projects),
2. Early implementation (i.e., the industry is in the initial stages of transitioning from traditional methods to BIM workflows and practices), and
3. Challenges and resistance (i.e., implementing BIM projects can be challenging)

Challenges and resistance are likely to be due to factors such as

1. Lack of awareness and understanding of BIM benefits,
2. Insufficient skilled professionals and resources,
3. Resistance to change from established practices, and
4. Difficulty in achieving the desired return on investment (ROI) due to initial costs and complexities.

Identifying an industry as being in its BIM infancy is important for several reasons. Importantly, this identification allows the development of specific and targeted strategies and support mechanisms to foster BIM adoption in the early stages. These strategies may focus on the following.

1. Raising awareness and education about BIM benefits and capabilities.
2. Developing training programs to equip professionals with the necessary BIM skills.
3. Providing incentives and support for organisations to pilot BIM projects and overcome initial hurdles.
4. Establishing clear standards and guidelines for BIM implementation.

Recognising the infant stage helps manage expectations and avoid frustration during initial BIM implementation. Achieving widespread adoption and realising the full potential of BIM requires time and sustained effort. Setting realistic expectations is important for the successful adoption of an innovation such as BIM.

Realising the infancy context also encourages collaboration between experienced BIM users and those in their early stages. This allows knowledge sharing, best practice exchange, and mutual learning to overcome common challenges.

With appropriate support and focused efforts, the BIM Infant Industry can gradually mature and transition towards increased BIM adoption.

I introduced the concept of the BIM Infant Industry through my 2013 paper titled “Assessing the BIM Maturity in a BIM Infant Industry”, that I co-authored with Prof. Chitra Weddikkara. This concept was proposed to describe the specific challenges and characteristics faced by construction industries in the early stages of BIM implementation. My main argument was that recognising this “infant” stage is crucial for developing appropriate strategies and fostering successful BIM adoption. I believe that, by introducing this concept, I have contributed to a more nuanced understanding of BIM adoption and provided valuable insights for policymakers, industry leaders, and practitioners working to navigate the early phases of BIM implementation within their specific contexts.

Recommended Reading

LinkedIn Article on BIM Infant Industry

Jayasena, H. S., & Weddikkara, C. (2013). Assessing the BIM Maturity in a BIM Infant Industry. The Second World Construction Symposium 2013: Socio-Economic Sustainability in Construction (pp. 62-69). Colombo: Ceylon Institute of Builders – Sri Lanka. Mirror Link

The Affordance-Led Framework of Understanding (AFU) is a structured approach designed to assess the state of BIM affordances at a given moment and study their evolution over time. The term “affordance-led” is used because it centres around the concept of affordances. Affordances represent the perceived, expected, or real opportunities (and constraints) that a technology or system provides to its users. It’s crucial to understand that affordances are not intrinsic to the innovation itself but emerge from the interaction between the user and the innovation. Thus, it represents the complementarity between the user and the technology or the system. This departure from traditional innovation adoption models, which typically focused solely on the “innovation” itself while overlooking the subjective interpretation by users, is a distinguishing feature of the AFU. The subjectivity of what BIM means to different users further emphasizes the significance of this shift.

The AFU is based on a comprehensive framework that categorizes the various states of affordances at any given time. It offers a unified, interconnected framework for comprehending the status and dynamics of affordances within a user’s BIM adoption context. By using the AFU, adopters can assess their position in the BIM adoption process at any specific point and develop strategies to realize the expected dynamics of affordances, thereby ensuring the successful integration of BIM or informed withdrawal from their BIM adoption efforts. The AFU provides a detailed view of the context, enabling experts to focus on critical issues, making it a valuable resource for practitioners seeking to understand the status of BIM adoption within a given setting.

At the early stages of BIM diffusion within an industry, the importance of the AFU is significant because the failure of adoption by a few early adopters can lead to increased user dissatisfaction, negative word-of-mouth, and potential erosion of goodwill among adopters. Negative information spreads more rapidly than positive news, significantly disrupting the effective diffusion of BIM in the industry. Therefore, the success of BIM adoption at the micro-level, for individuals or small groups, is critical for the overall success of BIM diffusion in an emerging industry, often referred to as a BIM Infant Industry in theory.

While we have not explicitly addressed it, after reading this article, you will realize that the AFU can be applied to various other innovation adoption contexts. The AFU serves as a universally applicable foundational framework in the realm of innovation adoption processes. It is not a theory in itself but rather a theoretical framework that can be leveraged to comprehend BIM adoption and decision-making in other innovation adoption contexts. As innovation continues to reshape industries, the insights offered by the AFU will play a vital role in informed decision-making and the promotion of innovation diffusion across diverse sectors. We are optimistic that the AFU will introduce a new dimension to the study of innovation adoption.

This article serves as a condensed overview of the recent publication under the title “The Affordance-Led Framework for Understanding BIM Adoption” in Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, presenting the primary findings from my doctoral research. In this study, a framework was developed to aid BIM adopters, change agents, and other stakeholders in gaining a deeper understanding of the adoption context, thereby facilitating effective strategies for BIM adoption. This research is grounded in the theory of Diffusion of Innovations.

I would like to express my gratitude to my research supervisors, Professor Kanchana Perera and Associate Professor Niraj Thurairajah, as well as Dr Mohan Siriwardena, the chair of the progress panel, for their invaluable contributions that played a pivotal role in the successful completion of my doctoral study. I would also like to express my gratitude to Professor Chitra Weddikkara, who provided guidance and supervision during the initial phases of my study.

Citation to Original Article
Jayasena, H.S., Thurairajah, N., Perera, B.A.K.S. and Siriwardena, M. (2023), “Affordance-led framework of understanding of BIM adoption“, Archnet-IJAR, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-02-2023-0028

Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited

Listing in Research Gate

It is well known that today’s construction industry is undergoing a major technological advancement with Building Information Modelling (BIM), a transformative technology with associated processes that have shifted how construction projects are conceived, executed, and managed. The benefits of BIM have become increasingly obvious; many have already adopted it, and more are trying to do so. This recognition has extended to the point where some governments have mandated BIM for their public sector projects and building approval processes. However, a critical challenge hindering the effective adoption of BIM is the issue of associated costs, especially when implementing BIM in a less developed economy like Sri Lanka.

One of the promising scientific approaches to cost optimization is the Lean concept. Lean Principles are known for their ability to enhance operational efficiency, improve the quality of products and processes, and reduce waste. All of these factors can contribute to optimizing costs, or in better terms: to optimizing value. Costs cannot be considered independently but need to be evaluated based on the benefits they can deliver. However, not all benefits would necessarily align with the user’s needs. For example, BIM can support realistic visualization of the proposed building. If the client does not require regular visualization of that nature, spending a significant amount of money on a high-end computer system and rendering software is a waste. When the system is designed and set up based on the technology, incurring such unnecessary costs is possible. The concern is further emphasized by the fact that BIM means different things to different users, and their BIM expectations could vary.

Therefore, the value-driven approach of Lean Principles is likely to bring value to BIM adoption in a BIM Infant Industry like Sri Lanka. As a result, it became interesting to identify the potential application of Lean Principles to the cost centres of BIM implementation to efficiently implement BIM in the Sri Lankan construction industry. A study was conducted to uncover opportunities for addressing the major barrier of costs associated with BIM implementation by applying suitable Lean Principles, thus enhancing overall value.

Through a literature review, several cost centres associated with BIM implementation were first identified. The application of Lean Principles to address these issues was determined through a qualitative study involving data collection from experts and content analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten experts who possessed expertise in both Lean and BIM. Since there was a limited number of local experts in Sri Lanka, overseas experts with prior experience in the Sri Lankan context were also included.

From the study findings, it can now be concluded that the application of Lean Principles can significantly reduce the costs associated with BIM implementation in the Sri Lankan construction industry. The study identifies several Lean Principles that can be applied to BIM implementation, including value stream mapping, 5S, visual management, and continuous improvement. The study also identifies specific cost centres associated with BIM implementation and offers recommendations for reducing costs in each of these areas. Ultimately, the study suggests that the application of lean principles can lead to more efficient and effective BIM implementation.

This is a synopsis of an article we published in the Benchmarking journal in 2023. The article is titled “Can lean principles assist in reducing BIM implementation costs? A contemporary application of lean principles to the Sri Lankan construction industry.” While many other studies have focused on using BIM to achieve Lean in construction projects, our study differs by examining how to apply Lean principles to achieve value in BIM implementation, making an original contribution to knowledge.

Citation to the original article

Weerasinghe, L.N., Rathnasinghe, A.P., Jayasena, H.S., Thurairajah, N. and Thayaparan, M. (2023), “Can lean principles assist to reduce BIM implementation costs? A contemporary application of lean principles to the Sri Lankan construction industry“, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2022-0098

Research Gate Listing