Organizational readiness for building information modeling Open Access

According to Ahuja et al. (2020), customer demand is the main driver of building information modeling (BIM) implementation. However, the organization must understand BIM as a systemic innovation enabled by information technology (IT). BIM digitally represents all information from construction projects, transforming processes involved in construction projects. Transformations brought about by BIM cause evolutionary and revolutionary changes in organizations (Gu and London, 2010; Murguia et al., 2021).

When deciding to implement BIM, organizations need to initiate the shift toward The Point of Adoption BIM. Throughout this process, they lead preparation for adoption of BIM tools, workflows and protocols (Succar and Kassen, 2016). Proper planning of this change is essential for a successful BIM implementation. Poorly conducted change processes result in a low level of organizational readiness, which can lead to failure in the implementation process (Lokuge et al., 2019), BIM abandonment (Lee and Yu, 2017) or project failures in terms of intended benefits (Abbasianjahromi et al., 2019).

Despite the importance of BIM organizational readiness (BIM readiness), this topic is rarely discussed in the literature. Studies dedicated to BIM readiness present readiness models focused on specific types of organizations. Furthermore, few of them consider theories and models for implementing innovations and readiness for change. This paper aims to understand what affects BIM readiness and how it occurs. Thus, we seek to broaden discussion on BIM readiness by developing a conceptual model. The conceptual model is based on a literature review and adaptable to any organization regardless of type or size.

This article uses three theories to achieve the proposed objective: (1) organizational readiness for change, (2) process of implementing innovations and (3) project management. As well as Damschroder et al. (2009), we use the term theory as a collective reference for models, theories and structures. The BIM definition adopted justifies the choice of the first two theories. The tradition of implementing innovations employing project management techniques used in industry (Murphy, 2014) justifies the third theory.

The article is structured in four sections. The introduction addresses the topic, objectives, and relevance of the article, as well as providing a brief theoretical review and synthesis of studies dedicated to BIM readiness. Then, research methodology, presents, justifies and describes the adopted methodology (Design Science Research – DSR). The Findings section presents the construct and conceptual model developed for BIM readiness. Finally, are presented the study's limitations, theoretical and practical implications and suggestions for further research.

The organizational readiness for changes is essential to facilitate that changes implementation can occur successfully and meet intended objectives. Readiness involves all organization managerial levels, implying multiple and simultaneous transformations in the team, workflow, decision making and reward systems (Weiner, 2009).

Readiness encompasses factors that may be necessary, but not always enough, for change to occur or succeed about anticipated outcomes (Lehman et al., 2002; Weiner, 2009). The demand for tasks (what is necessary for implementation?), the availability of resources (are there the necessary resources?) and situational factors (does the current state of the organization allow the change implementation?) are the main determinants for achieving change implementation capacity (Weiner, 2009).

Hammed et al. (2012) proposed a conceptual model for adopting innovation in IT. They consider that innovation is something new that causes changes and can be a product, a process or a practice. Its adoption is a process that results in the full use of innovation. Hammed et al. (2012) investigated several studies and theories, such as diffusion of innovation theory, technology acceptance model, technology organization and environment model and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. They divide studies on innovation implementation into three aspects: individual, group and organizations. According to authors, characteristics of innovation, organization, environment, manager and user influence IT innovation implementation. Furthermore implementation of IT innovation is a three-step process, namely, (Hammed et al., 2012):

1. Initiation: The organization recognizes the need to implement innovation, acquires knowledge or awareness about innovation, and takes action on whether or not to adopt innovation;

2. Adoption-decision: The organization evaluates innovation from technical, financial and strategic perspectives, allocating the necessary resources for procurement of innovation;

3. Implementation: The organization acquires innovation, prepares the organization for its use and confirms the innovation and user acceptance, ending the process in the actual and continuous use of innovation within the organization.

We adopt Project Management Institute (PMI) standards and guidelines as project management theory. According PMI, a project is a temporary effort undertaken to create a unique product, service or result. A project can generate change in organizations, involving or not a transition state. Projects have a life cycle divided into four phases: (1) project initiation, (2) organization and preparation, (3) execution and (4) project completion. Project management involves five groups of processes: (1) initiation, (2) planning, (3) execution, (4) monitoring and control and (5) closure. Project management also involves 10 areas of knowledge: (1) integration management, (2) scope management, (3) schedule management, (4) cost management, (5) quality management, (6) resource management, (7) communications management, (8) risk management, (9) procurement management and (10) stakeholder management (PMI, 2017).

BIM implementation can be defined as the “set of activities carried out by an organizational unit to prepare, implement or improve its BIM deliverables (products) and their related workflows (processes)” (Succar and Kassem, 2015, p. 04). Succar and Kassem (2015) consider that BIM adoption is complex, occurring in three stages: (1) readiness (the pre-implementation status), (2) capability (object-based modeling, model-based collaboration and network-based integration) and (3) maturity (ad-hoc or low maturity, defined or medium-low maturity, managed or medium maturity, integrated or medium-high maturity and optimized or high maturity).

Other authors have also proposed BIM adoption models. For example, Ahmed and Kassem's (2018) model is based on the Diffusion of Innovation Theory, the Institutional Theory and the Point of Adoption model. They propose a model composed of five stages:

1. Awareness stage, the organization is exposed to innovation, starting to gain knowledge about it.

2. Intention to adopt stage, the organization develops a favorable attitude, or not, about innovation.

3. The Point of Adoption stage signals the beginning of an intentional set of experimental activities (pilot project) to implement BIM.

4. Implementation stage, the organization starts using BIM, or one of its specific stages, in real-life (nonexperimental) activities.

5. Confirmation stage, the organization extends BIM disclosure or one of its specific capability stages.

In turn, Almuntaser et al. (2018) adopt project management standards and guidelines to propose a BIM implementation model divided into three phases: (1) the pre-BIM implementation phase, referring to preparation for implementation, (2) the BIM implementation phase, which begins with pilot project selection managed according to PMI structure and (3) post-BIM implementation phase evaluates the implementation and BIM maturity. In the last phase, improvements are proposed and implemented. In common, all models recognize the need for the preparation stage for BIM implementation and establish the pilot project as a starting point for BIM implementation itself. The present study interprets the Point of Adoption as the end of the BIM readiness stage.

BIM readiness is “the situation before BIM implementation that represents the propensity of an organization or organizational unit to adopt BIM tools, workflows, and protocols” (Succar and Kassem, 2016, p. 03). Or as “the psychological will or state of readiness to carry out BIM implementation activities” (Liao et al., 2020, p. 701). Authors such as Gu and London (2010), Hanafi et al. (2016), Succar and Kassem (2016), Juan et al. (2016), Lee and Yu (2017), Abbasianjahromi et al. (2019), Abbasnejad et al. (2021) and Liao et al. (2020) and others studied BIM readiness. Table 1 – summary of BIM readiness studies presents a summary of these studies.

The research development followed the first stage of DSR (Figure 1 – DSR Steps) which is the construction of the artifact (Voordijk and Adriaanse, 2016). DSR was adopted because it is a design-oriented approach to artifacts that offers solutions to real problems (Lacerda et al., 2013). Therefore, it is an approach that adheres to the research objective. For a better understanding of the DSR consult the references.

Conducting a preliminary literature review identified the research problem. This review found that few studies addressed readiness and maturity of organizations for BIM implementation. Assuming that BIM is an IT-based innovation that causes changes in organizations, two research questions arise: RQ1) what affects organizational readiness to implement innovations and changes? RQ2) How to achieve BIM readiness?

The next stage of the DSR led to two Literature Reviews (LR). The first LR (LR-1) followed the strategy presented in Table 2 – strategies for conducting LR-1.

Subsequently, LR-2 sought studies that investigated BIM implementation (Table 3 – strategies for conducting LR-2).

The search problem can be configured as an implementation problem. The LR-1 results contributed to the identification of evaluated artifacts referring to this class of problems.

The CiteSpace bibliometric analysis software analyzed the results of the LR-1, allowing the full reading of the most cited articles to compose the theoretical framework. RL-1 identified and selected the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (Damschroder et al., 2009) to assess factors that impact the implementation of changes. CFIR is the result of a comprehensive literature review and, according to Birken et al. (2018), is the construct most used by implementation researchers.

This study proposes two artifacts: a construct and a model. The construct was developed in three phases:

1. Selection of the CFIR;

2. CFIR expansion (CFIR-2). CFIR is a construct focused on health services. Therefore, new studies were incorporated such as: readiness for innovations in (1) health services (Lehman et al., 2002; Damschroder et al., 2009; Weiner, 2009), (2) industry (Kotter, 1995), (3) information technology (Hameed et al. 2012; Lokuge et al., 2019), (4) big data (Ramezani and Nasrollahi, 2020) and (5) theoretical review study (Vakola, 2013). The objective was to find similarities and differences in terminology and construct that could contribute to a generalization and expansion of the CFIR. The CFIR-2 relied on a careful review of concepts and terminologies adopted by the different authors. As a result, some terminologies were standardized and concepts included:

3. CFIR-2 comparison with BIM literature. The comparison identified contrasts and similarities and allowed the development of an initial BIM Readiness Model. The complete reading of 69 articles (RL-2) refined the model.

The studies about BIM implementation, with rare exceptions, address the triad of processes, technology and policies. These studies ignore less tangible issues, for example, organizational climate and individual characteristics. In studies dedicated to stages of the BIM implementation process, the BIM readiness stage is almost unanimous. However, there is a gap in factors that impact BIM readiness and the sub-processes inserted in that stage.

The Organizational readiness to BIM (ORBIM) is a construct of 11 core domains that interact with themselves to influence BIM readiness. Domains carry a set of factors that must be evaluated and considered during the BIM implementation preparation. These domains are: (1) institutional motivation, (2) BIM characteristic, (3) BIM valence, (4) cultural readiness, (5) individual/collective readiness, (6) resource readiness, (7) IT readiness, (8) strategic readiness, (8) cognitive readiness, (9) readiness for partnerships and (10) engagement and competence of BIM agents (Lehman et al., 2002; Damschroder et al., 2009; Vakola, 2013; Lokuge et al., 2019). Next, this article presents the description of the domains.

According to Lehman et al. (2002), no innovation will be implemented without a motivation to do so. External and internal issues influence institutional motivation, such as the imposition of BIM by customers (Ahuja et al., 2020) and the search for innovations that can strengthen existing weaknesses in an organization's business (Abbasianjahromi et al., 2019). Understanding what factors drive the organization to BIM is crucial for a successful implementation. Implementing BIM only to comply with government requirements may not add value to the business and may not bring the benefits promised by BIM, discrediting innovation. Therefore, the decision to implement BIM must be connected to recognition of the need for change, knowledge about BIM, the organization's long-term vision and strategy (Wang et al., 2019) and the commitment of sponsors (Damschroder et al., 2009).

BIM characteristic is related to the level of exposure and knowledge of characteristics such as (1) relative advantage; (2) observability, (3) adaptability, (4) testability, (5) complexity, (6) costs, (7) compatibility (Damschroder et al., 2009), (8) perceived ease of use, (9) perceived usefulness (Ahmed and Kassem, 2018), (10) amount of BIM workpower available for contracting, (11) number of specialists available in the market to offer training and consultancy (Vidalakis et al., 2020) and (12) technological factors such as interoperability (Chen et al., 2019). This domain impacts the decision to incorporate or not BIM in business (Ahmed and Kassem, 2018). Inadequate exposure and understanding of BIM can lead to misperceptions, frustrated expectations and the belief that BIM is not business-friendly and contribute to resistance to implementation (Awwad et al., 2022).

Valence is related to BIM value for the organization and people. For Weiner (2009), the more people want to change (BIM), the easier the change process is. The following factors can affect individual valence: (1) organization involvement, (2) access to BIM knowledge and information (Damschroder et al., 2009) and (3) individual motivations to learn and employ BIM in their professional activities (Weiner, 2009).

The perception of value also affects the organization, as can be verified from the implementation climate. Six factors can affect the implementation climate: (1) tension for change, (2) relative priority, (3) compatibility, (4) incentives and rewards, (5) goals and feedback and (6) learning climate (Damschroder et al., 2009).

Lokuge et al. (2019) define cultural readiness as “the strength of core values of the organization that facilitates digital innovation” (BIM). Organizational culture is one of the crucial factors for the change's successful implementation. The implementation of innovations not relevant or consistent with the organizational culture can be counterproductive (Lehman et al., 2002). van Eijnatten and van Galen (2002) relate the failure of implementation measures to the low ability to change intangible elements of organizational culture.

Denison et al. (2012) considers that the following attributes reflect the organizational culture: (1) organization strategic direction: vision, mission, objectives and goals; (2) values: agreements, coordination and integration; (3) collective involvement with the organization: autonomy of teams and individuals, leadership style and guidance, capacity development and (4) the organization's ability to adapt: incorporation of innovations and changes, customer focus and organizational learning. Lokuge et al. (2019) identified three factors that impact an organizational culture focused on innovation: (1) the sharing of ideas in a digitally connected environment, (2) the decentralized decision-making process and (3) risk aversion.

According to Vakola (2013), individual and collective readiness are associated and should be evaluated together. Individual/collective readiness is related to the propensity of a member/group to be involved in the implementation process. This propensity is based on psychological predispositions, and shaped by organizational and change context (Vakola, 2013). Individual/collective readiness can be affected by factors such as (1) confidence in one's BIM skills (self-efficacy) (2) relative priority (3) confidence in the organization's ability to promote BIM implementation, (4) incentives and rewards, (5) social influence, (6) clarity in the organization's communication regarding BIM objectives, (7) compatibility (8) learning climate, (9) organization involvement and commitment, (10) degree of exposure to BIM, (11) perceived usefulness and (12) perception and appreciation of BIM benefits (Ahmed and Kassem, 2018; Damschroder et al., 2009; Hua and Liu, 2017).

Resource readiness is not about resource availability but the flexibility the organization has to configure and reconfigure its resources to facilitate digital innovation (BIM) needs (Lokuge et al., 2019). The following factors can impact resource readiness domain (1) adequacy of physical space (Gomes, 2015), (2) adequate amount of labor (Lehman et al., 2002), (3) team's BIM skill (Abbasianjahromi et al., 2019), (4) technical and knowledge support (Shehzad et al., 2022) and (5) geographic distribution of facilities and resources (PMI, 2017).

IT readiness is the strength of IT's portfolio to facilitate digital innovation (BIM) (Lokuge et al., 2019). In this aspect, Mahamadu et al. (2019) consider that organizations with high maturity in information systems and a vision with strategic monitoring goals in IT tend to have an advantage during BIM implementation. Therefore, this dimension assesses (1) the degree of dependence and criticality of the organization on IT to execute business strategies, (2) whether there is an IT strategy addressing the level and allocation of investments, (3) management and guarantee of information security and (4) whether the organization has the set of technological skills necessary for the implementation of BIM (Succar, 2010), among others.

Strategic vision helps identify areas where BIM can support organizational objectives, driving BIM vision, BIM strategic planning and BIM competencies needed to achieve business objectives (Dakhil et al., 2019). Therefore, strategic readiness can be understood as “a set of managerial activities in which an organization engages to facilitate digital innovation” (Lokuge et al., 2019, p. 21). For Lokuge et al. (2019) the three factors that impact strategic readiness are (1) clarity of objectives, (2) relevance and (3) the communication strategy.

Cognitive readiness is the strength of a knowledge base of the organization to facilitate digital innovation (BIM) (Lokuge et al., 2019). This domain is affected by the following factors: (1) knowledge of business processes (Sacks et al., 2018) (2) individual level of BIM competence, (3) technical and nontechnical skills and capabilities necessary for professionals to develop BIM activities (Succar et al., 2013) and (4) the team's adaptability (Lokuge et al., 2019).

Partnership readiness is understood as the relationship between the organization and external stakeholders. Examples of external stakeholders are suppliers, external consultants and customers. With the formation of partnerships, the organization can count on the ecosystem of partner organizations in the development and implementation of collaborative innovations (Lokuge et al., 2019) such as BIM.

The domain of engagement and competence of BIM agents involves (1) training BIM leaders, (2) accession of the indispensable actors to the BIM implementation process and (3) mobilization of allies (Lindblad, 2019). BIM agents (leaders, actors and allies) need to be endowed with the minimally necessary BIM skills (technical and nontechnical) to conduct the implementation process (Gomes, 2015).

BIM Readiness Model is a conceptual model for BIM readiness process. The model is proposed in four stages and 12 steps illustrated in Figure 2 – BIM Readiness Model.

At this stage, the organization realizes the need for BIM implementation, is exposed to BIM, BIM awareness and assesses whether the organization will initiate the BIM readiness process (primary assessment) (Hameed et al., 2012). The perception of BIM implementation needs is directly related to the institutional motivation for BIM implementation, while BIM understanding and primary assessment are affected by BIM characteristics (Ahmed and Kassem, 2018).

The primary assessment considers (1) value that BIM will bring to the organization, (2) costs and risks involved (operational and nonoperational), (3) return on investment, (4) whether BIM will meet business needs, (5) whether BIM technological tools that the organization intends to employ work well and (6) if results are reliable (Park et al., 2019; Ahuja et al., 2020). Another important consideration is the possibility of testing related to pilot project execution (Almuntaser et al., 2018), involving acquisition of software, training, financial investments, etc. Therefore, the organization must be aware of (1) necessary investments during the BIM readiness stage, (2) risks involved in the process and (3) what the BIM rejection, if any, could mean for the organization. In view of the results of the primary assessment, the organization authorizes, or not, the start of the BIM preparation process.

BIM, as a tool, has several uses and applications that vary according to the stage of the life cycle of construction projects and the objectives to be achieved. Thus, the organization must define the desired BIM Use and BIM capability stage. Each stage of capability and each BIM Use has particularities in terms of challenges and associated benefits (Hong et al., 2019). Therefore, the definition of BIM Use is related to the mission, values, objectives and benefits that the organization expects to obtain with BIM (Wu et al., 2017) and directly influences organizational changes, directing the investments necessary for the BIM implementation (Abdirad, 2017). The use of innovation is not reported by theorists that investigated organizational readiness. However, its presence is perceived in the BIM literature. In this way, the present paper interprets the definition of BIM Use as a peculiarity of the implementation of BIM.

At this stage the organization: (1) assesses whether the organization's current situation allows for BIM implementation, in terms of domains and factors that impact BIM readiness, (2) prepares the business case for secondary assessment in technical, financial and strategic terms and (3) decides whether or not to initiate BIM readiness (Hameed et al., 2012; Love et al., 2020; Weiner, 2009). This phase is useful for planning the BIM implementation process.

At this moment, the organization starts activities that allow the POA realization: (1) formation of a BIM committee, (2) elaboration of a strategic plan, (3) resource allocation and (4) execution and monitoring of the plan (Gomes, 2015). PMI (2017) establishes a project management framework that can be used to prepare the management plan for BIM implementation activities. The implementation plan must also contain the areas of BIM implementation and the development of new work processes (Gomes, 2015).

Proper organizational readiness is critical to successful BIM implementation. The study started from theories about organizational readiness for change, models for implementing innovations and project management standards and guidelines to understand the BIM readiness process. Literature reviews allowed the design of a construct formed by 11 domains (ORBIM). ORBIM identifies the key factors that affect BIM readiness, including the less tangible aspects that are often omitted by the BIM literature.

The incorporation of ORBIM can represent a great challenge for the organization. But its strategic management can maximize BIM readiness results. However, just embedding ORBIM is not enough for BIM readiness to occur. BIM readiness is a process with steps to be managed. In addition, this article proposes a model that guides organizations about actions to be taken during the BIM preparation process.

The BIM Readiness Model shows that the BIM implementation process behaves differently from other innovations. The three generic steps described by Hameed et al. (2012) occur during BIM preparation (BIM readiness). That is, throughout the BIM readiness, the organization: (1) recognizes the need to implement BIM, (2) acquires knowledge about BIM, (3) takes an attitude as to whether or not to implement BIM (primary assessment), (4) evaluates the innovation from a technical, financial, and strategic point of view (business case – secondary evaluation), (5) allocates the necessary resources for the acquisition of innovation (BIM) and (6) acquire the innovation and prepare the organization for its use in test events. With this, the BIM Readiness Model expands the BIM adoption models brought by the literature review, decomposing the phases of the BIM readiness ramp.

In general terms, in answering the research questions, this article suggests that the success of BIM readiness is mutually dependent on the stages of the BIM Readiness Model and the incorporation of ORBIM. However, both the ORBIM and the BIM Readiness Model need to be evaluated and tested. Therefore, it is suggested that future researchers continue the development of DSR, analyzing results presented in real situations. Furthermore, the combination of the BIM Readiness Model and ORBIM can contribute to a conceptual instrument for a practical and multidimensional assessment of BIM readiness. The paper was limited to investigate BIM readiness to the point of adoption. Therefore, issues such as the elaboration of a BIM Execution Plan (BEP) were not considered, as the study understands that it is an integral part of the Adoption Points processes.