Volkan Ezcan1, Jack S. Goulding2, Murat Kuruoglu3, Farzad Pour Rahimian4

1Research Assistant, Construction Management Division, Civil Engineering Faculty, Istanbul

Technical University, Ayazaga, Istanbul, 34469, Turkey; Email: ezcan@itu.edu.tr

2Professor of Construction Project Management, The Grenfell-Baines School of Architecture,

Construction and Environment, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK:

Email: jsgoulding@uclan.ac.uk

3Senior Lecturer, Construction Management Division, Civil Engineering Faculty, Istanbul

Technical University, Ayazaga, Istanbul, 34469, Turkey; Email: kuruoglu@itu.edu.tr

4Guild Research Fellow, The Grenfell-Baines School of Architecture, Construction and

Environment, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK: Email: fpour-

rahimian@uclan.ac.uk

PERCEPTIONS AND REALITY: REVEALING THE BIM GAP BETWEEN THE UK AND

TURKEY

The complex nature of the construction process needs an intensive control and management

mechanism in order to manage and process information flow. Current deficiencies in

managing construction related information have been highlighted by a range of industry

reports, the consensus of which has reinforced the lack of performance in the construction

industry. Given this, recent research on the role of Building Information Modelling (BIM) has

been proffered as a potential solution for covering these deficiencies, along with improving

competitive advantage.

Although limited research has concentrated on measuring BIM awareness and use, findings

have been somewhat parochial and non-specific. This paper addresses this gap by

concentrating on two markets: Turkey and the UK. The aim of the paper is to determine the

BIM gap in terms of awareness and use, in order to form a basis for the development of future

adoption strategies. A web-based questionnaire was used mirror the National Building

Specification (NBS) survey (previously undertaken) in order to capture data from a new

context (Turkey). The descriptive analyses of the findings and a comparison of the two

countries are presented. The findings identify significant differences in BIM awareness the

influence of which could provide insight for both mature and emerging markets.

Keywords: Building Information Modelling, Adoption, Turkey, UK, Comparison

INTRODUCTION

The construction industry has specific information management needs as a result of its one-

of-a-kind product/process/group of partners’ characteristics (Turk, 2006). This need and the

importance of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) investments in the

Construction Industry have been discussed in several influential reports on the construction

industry (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998; 2002; NSDC, 2010; TMB, 2011; Anson et al. 2009). Given

these challenges, BIM has been advocated as a potential solution to address some of these

concerns (Eastman et al. 2011; Froese, 2003; Becerik-Gerber and Rice 2010); especially in such

areas as: data interoperability, information quality, collaboration between the projects

participants etc.

BIM is argued to have dated back to the 1980’s; however the term “Building Information

Modelling” was first introduced in the 1990s and has been subsequently developed and

upgraded since then (Eastman et al. 2011; Laiserin, 2002). The development of BIM has

progressively embraced a number of technical features (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998; 2002), in

order to not only streamline processes, but also help support information flows etc., using

coordinated “structured” and standardised data (Succar, 2009). The term “BIM” has been

defined by several authors and a precise all-encompassing definition has yet to be agreed.

Given this, and for the purposes of this paper, the following definition is used; “The

information management process throughout the lifecycle of a building which mainly focuses

on enabling and facilitating the integrated way of project flow and delivery, by the

collaborative use of semantically rich 3D digital building models in all stages of the, project

and building lifecycle.” (Underwood and Isikdag, 2011).

Despite the fact that the technology to implement BIM is readily available and rapidly

maturing, the adoption of BIM is still slow (Azhar, 2011; Harty and Laing, 2010). The

contribution of a new technology to an industry to support economic growth can only be

realised when and if it is widely diffused and used (Hall and Khan, 2003). Hence, the adoption

strategies are of vital importance for BIM as they are for most new technologies. Today,

government clients across the globe including the USA, Denmark, Finland and the UK have

begun to implement national strategies to establish industry-wide adoption (Bew and

Underwood, 2010).

Given that Turkey is one of the main contributors to the global construction industry (ENR,

2012); it is vital that the Turkish Construction Industry embraces such technologies as BIM in

order to remain competitive. Moreover, in order to facilitate this adoption it is advocated that

an industry wide strategy is needed. Hence, the first step is to identify the Turkish construction

industry’s current position in the global market is to determine existing and new trajectories

for further adoption and implementation. This paper identifies the level of awareness, use

and positioning of BIM in the Turkish construction industry by using a comparative study

between Turkey and the UK.

RECENT ATTEMPTS TO MEASURE AWARENESS AND USE

Information technology (IT) is regarded as an essential tool for enhancing the competitiveness

of the economy of a country as well as improving organisational productivity (Oliviera and

Martins, 2011). The level of benefit that can be obtained by using IT is directly proportionate

to its level of adoption (Hall and Khan, 2003). On this theme, there have been various attempts

to measure the level of BIM awareness and adoption. These efforts have focussed especially

on the BIM leading countries (US, UK, Finland, Singapore etc.), which have been driving the

BIM agenda. As an overview, some of the recent efforts on measuring the level of BIM

awareness and adoption are presented as follows.

Research conducted to measure the business value of BIM in the US (McGraw Hill, 2009;

2012a), emphasised the increase in magnitude of BIM adoption, which was measured as 28%

in 2007, 48% in 2009 and 71% in 2012. Further research (McGraw Hill, 2012a) examined North

America in five separate parts: West, Midwest, Northeast, South and Canada; noting that in

the West of North America had the highest level of BIM adaptation (77%); with Canada at 72%

and nearly half (49%) of the BIM users in the US possessed five years and more experience

(McGraw Hill, 2012a). BIM usage in the US Infrastructure Market was measured as 46%, and

most of them (73%) stated that they started using BIM in the last two years. The findings

showed that, the level of BIM adoption has been rapidly rising within the last four years and

the application of BIM in infrastructure projects was three years behind of the BIM

implementation on vertical building projects (McGraw-Hill, 2012b).

McGraw-Hill (2010) also conducted similar research to identify the business value of BIM in

Europe. This research indicated that, more than one third of the industry, in Western Europe

(UK, France and Germany), had adopted BIM. Architects were the primary adopters with a

level of 47%, followed by engineers (38%). One third of the participants stated that their BIM

experience exceeded 5 years, while this level was nearly half (18%) for participants in the US.

Although they had very similar levels, France was the leader of BIM adoption with 38%,

followed by Germany (36%) and the UK (35%). Engineers were the primary adopters of BIM in

France (McGraw Hill, 2010).

The UK Governments BIM strategy has placed specific emphasis on the UK construction

industry to measure BIM awareness and use. It has also highlighted specific targets and areas

for exploitation. Similarly, the National Building Specification (NBS) (2011) published its first

BIM Report to identify UK Construction Industry’s attitude towards BIM in 2011. Findings of

this survey indicated that 43% of respondents were neither aware nor used BIM. Respondents

that used BIM was 32% and the expectance of using BIM in one year was nearly double this

rate (62%).

According to the findings of the 2011 BIM Survey undertaken by the RICS BIM Steering Group

and the Quantity Surveying and Construction Information Technologies Business Group; the

average BIM use of Quantity Surveyors and Building Surveyors in the UK was 56%. Almost one

quarter (23%) of the participants, identified their usage as “infrequently or in limited fashion”.

Nearly half (47%) of the respondents stated that they did not check on the development of

BIM tools and processes with a view to adopt BIM (BCIS, 2011). Similarly, the Construction

Sector Network (2012) reported the rate of BIM used in the UK construction sector was 57%,

and more than half (56%) of these organisations seemed to have used BIM more than four

years. However, 17% of the respondents pointed out that they were unaware of BIM and that

was their reason for not using it.

The National Federation of Builders (2012) conducted a survey to assess BIM-Readiness across

the contracting sector in UK. The findings showed that almost half of the contractors (48%)

saw BIM as an important concept that enables core competency within their business either

then or in the future, but only 36% of them had ever worked on projects utilising; 3D drawings,

clash detection tools, schedule integration tools or other BIM features. Building-Smart (2011)

carried out a similar survey in the Middle East to assist in the planning and development of

BIM programmes and infrastructure across the region. A wide range of professionals from

different sectors, operating in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain,

Kuwait and Jordan participated in this survey. Research findings highlighted that the BIM

usage level for the region was 25%, which could be defined as moderate but not very low

when it was compared with Europe (36%) and US (49%). The report indicated that the region

was aware of BIM but lacked experience. Reduction in design errors, improved productivity

and improved quality control were the top three benefits that were identified by the BIM

users. Unavailability of the skilled staff and cost of the software were identified as the main

obstacles to the adoption of BIM. The report predicted that the Region would have an 80%

adoption and 90% implementation rate in 2014. The BIM adoption levels are summarised in

Figure 1.

Figure 1: Worldwide BIM Adoption Levels

Bae and Uk (2012) analysed the awareness and utilisation of BIM in civil engineering practices

in Korea. They highlighted that the application of BIM in the civil engineering field was

continuously increasing and that the awareness and importance was very high. The results of

the McGraw Hill’s (2012 c) survey presented the BIM adoption level in South Korea as 58%.

The unavailability of sufficient training was highlighted as the primary obstacle (59%) to BIM

adoption by the participants that were not using BIM; but a large percentage (47%) believed

that BIM would be very important to the industry in five years’ time.

MasterSpec (2012) carried out a survey in the New Zealand Construction Industry, noting that

the level of BIM use was 34%. They highlighted that respondents believed in the high

importance of BIM for the future of construction industry (75%) and defined collaboration as

USA

2007 (McGraw Hill) 28% Cons.Ind. 2009 (McGraw Hill) 48% Cons.Ind. 2012 (McGraw Hill) 71% Cons.Ind. 2012 (McGraw Hill) 46% Infrastructure

CANADA

2009 (McGraw Hill) 23% Cons.Ind. 2012 (McGraw Hill) 72% Cons. Ind.

UK

2010 (McGraw Hill) 35% Cons.Ind. 2011 (NBS) 32% Cons.Ind. 2011 (RICS) 56% Quan.-Bld. Surv. 2012 (CSN) 57% Cons.Ind. 2012 (NFB) 36% Contractors

EUROPE (West) 2010 (McGraw Hill) 38% France-Cons.In. 2010 (McGraw Hill) 36% Germany-Cons. Ind.

EUROPE (North) 2009 Finland 19% 2009 Denmark 12% 2009 Norway 4% 2009 Iceland 2% 2009 Sweden 1% Cons. Ind. (Jensen & Johennesson, 2013)

KOREA

2012 (buildingSMART) 58% Cons. Ind.

NEW ZEALAND

2012 (MasterSpec) 34% Cons. Ind.

MIDDLE EAST

2011 (buildingSMART) 25% Cons. Ind.

the core of BIM. MasterSpec (2012) also argued that the industry was not clear on the

definition of BIM (73%). Nearly all of the participants (92%) expected to use BIM in the

following five years’ time and 68% of them stated that they were expecting to use BIM by the

following year. The majority of the participants (81%) agreed on the positive effect of BIM

adoption on coordination of construction documents and nearly all the participants (93%)

asserted that BIM would bring a change in the workflow, practices and procedures.

Amongst all Nordic Countries (Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden), Finland was

recognised as being one of the foremost adopters of BIM in the world (Khemlani, 2012). As a

result of the BIM strategy which embraced public sector, private sector and the research and

development organisations (Universities and other private organisations), the rate of BIM

utilisation in at least one project, was noted as 63% in Finnish Construction Industry (Kiviniemi,

2007; 2009; Wong et al. 2009). Jensen and Jóhannesson (2013) argued that despite the lowest

CAD usage level (63%) amongst the Nordic Countries, Finland has the highest Industry

Foundation Classes (IFC) compliant BIM usage in design with a percentage of 19%, which is

followed by Denmark (12%), Norway (4%), Iceland (2%) and Sweden (1%).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Building Information Modelling is a valuable tool which is been advocated that can promptly

act as a “game changer” in global construction market. In order to have a better position in

the construction market, many countries have already developed and implemented strategies

for BIM adoption (Khemlani, 2012; HM Government 2012). With having 33 construction firms

listed in the ENR’s 2012 Top 250 International Contractors List, Turkey plays a big role in the

global construction market (ENR, 2012). As such, this appears to be vital for Turkey to develop

a BIM Diffusion Strategy (covering both individual and organisational challenges) in order to

remain competitive within this industry.

The aim of this study was to investigate the level of BIM adoption in Turkey by comparing it

with the level of BIM adoption in the UK (as a representative sample set for a developed

country). As such, the study espoused a positivist approach, giving an independent and

objective point of view that focussed on capturing the current position. A survey based

method, as a research methodological approach with a “close-bounded” research lens, was

adopted to determine the level of BIM use in Turkey.

In order to facilitate a systematic comparison between Turkey and the UK, this study referred

to the results of a previous study carried out by NBS (2011; 2012) in order to investigate the

attitude of the UK construction industry towards BIM and identify the individual and

organisational CAD use, BIM awareness, attitudes and future predictions about BIM. In terms

of the number of participants, NBS (2011) surveyed the perceptions of 400 respondents and

it was followed up by NBS (2012) to understand the changes in the attitudes of randomly

selected 1,000 respondents towards BIM in one year time.

In order to provide a reliable comparison, this study followed NBS’s National BIM Survey

(2012) with respect to determining the target population. Similarly, the questionnaire was

structured to gather information regarding the respondents’ individual and organisational

level of CAD usage (Q2, Q3, Q5), level of BIM awareness and use (Q4), and views and future

predictions about use of BIM (Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9). The purpose of each question and their target

are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Structure of the Questionnaire

Q. No.

Focus Target Audience

1 Participant profiles All the participants

2 CAD drawing types All the participants

3 Type of the CAD tools All the participants

4 Level of BIM awareness and use All the participants

5 Organisation's use of CAD All the participants

6 BIM adoption predictions Who were aware of BIM

7 Views on BIM All the participants

8 Reason for not adopting BIM Who had not adopted BIM

9 How experience effects views on

BIM Already adopted BIM / aware but had yet to

adopt it

Due to the advantages such as quickly recruiting large number of participants and the ease of

capturing and analysing data (Wyatt, 2000), a web-based questionnaire with closed-ended

questions was selected as the medium for collecting data in this study. The target population

was the professionals who practice within the Turkish Construction Industry. The invitations

for completing the questionnaire were sent to 5041 people, through the largest social network

within the Turkish construction industry, which involves numerous members from various

parts of the country and all related disciplines. The survey was carried out from January 15 to

February 15, 2013. A total of 120 respondents completed the questionnaires, representing a

response rate of 2.4%. Whilst this could be seen as relatively low, the veracity of data was

deemed appropriate for this type of cross analysis. The descriptive analyses of the responses

were presented in terms of ratios. Subsequently, a comparison was conducted between the

two data sets representing Turkey and the UK.

REAEARCH FINDINGS

Concerning the respondent profiles, each respondent was asked to define their main

discipline. The findings illustrated in Figure 2 show that almost two-third of the respondents

were Civil Engineers who are one of the two main disciplines (as well as Architects) that deal

with CAD drawings in Turkey. There was no response from the “Architectural Technologists”,

“Contractors”, “Facilities Managers”, “Quantity Surveyors”, “Structural Engineers”,

“Manufacturers”, “Building Surveyors”, and “Chartered Surveyors”, whilst the people who

classed themselves as the category of “Other” contributed to 8% of the whole responses.

Figure 2: Respondent Profiles

CAD Usage

Before asking about BIM, participants were asked about their CAD usage in order to have an

understanding about their competence in using ICT applications in design and construction.

Figure 3 shows that more than three quarters of the all respondents (82%) have been using

CAD tools in their practice. Although almost half of the respondents (43%) indicated that they

are using 2D as well as 3D CAD applications, only 2% of them said that they use only 3D

drawings.

15%

0%

3%

63%

4%

0%

1%

2%

1%

0%

2%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

8%

Architect

Architectural Technologist

Building Surveyor

Civil Engineer

Building Services Engineer

Contractor

CAD Technician

Landscape Architect

Interior Designer

Facilities Manager

Property Developer

Engineer: Other

Quantity Surveyor

Structural Engineer

Manufacturer

Building Engineer

Chartered Surveyor

Other (please specify)

Figure 3: CAD Usage Levels

Almost the three quarters (72%) of the respondents stated that they are using “Autodesk

AutoCAD” for producing CAD drawings. Autodesk AutoCAD LT (11%) and Autodesk Revit (6%)

were respectively second and third most commonly used applications by the respondents. In

the meantime, the responses for the object oriented tools, e.g. Autodesk Revit, Nemetschek

Vectorworks, Graphisoft ArchiCAD, Bentley Microstation and Bentley Building Suite, only

contributed to 8% of the whole responses (Figure 4).

Figure 4: CAD tools that are used.

Current BIM Use and Awareness

When the participants were asked, if they had ever heard of BIM before taking the survey

(Figure 5), 47% stated that they had never heard about it. 51% were aware of BIM, and only

2% declared that they were both aware of, and were currently using BIM.

18%

2%

43%

37%

No CAD

3D only

2D and 3D CAD

2D only

72%

11%

6%

0%

1%

3%

1%

0%

2%

5%

Autodesk AutoCAD

Autodesk AutoCAD LT

Autodesk Revit

Nemetschek Vectorworks

Graphisoft ArchiCAD

Google Sketchup

Bentley Microstation

Bentley Building Suite

Nemetscheck Allplan

Other

Figure 5: BIM Awareness

Use of CAD Models

The participants were asked regarding their organisations’ CAD usage (Fig. 6). Producing 3D

visualisations by using CAD applications (56%) and keeping a library of CAD objects (53%)

appeared to be the most common responses from the Turkish professionals participating in

this research. Meanwhile, generating schedules automatically from the CAD models had the

lowest rate (19%) amongst the others, and it was followed by generating bills automatically

from CAD models (40%).

Figure 6: Organisation’s Use of CAD

BIM In The Future: Predicted Use

The people who stated that they were aware of BIM were asked whether or not they were

expecting to use BIM at least in some of their projects in the future. The findings (Figure 7)

indicate that nearly half of the respondents (42%) did not expect to use BIM in the following

5 years’ time. The respondents appeared to believe that the chance of using BIM in the

51%

2%

47%

Just aware of BIM

Aware and currently using BIM

Neither aware nor using

56%

19%

40%

26%

22%

53%

We produce 3D visualisations using our CAD models

We automatically generate schedules from our CADmodels

We automatically generate bills from our CAD models

We carry out performance analysis (energyconsumption/structural/accoustic) on our CAD models

We export information from our CAD models to a non-proprietary format (IFC/gbXML)

We keep a library of CAD objects we create for reuse

following three years (42%) was nearly the double of the chance of using it in the following

year (22%).

Figure 7: Predictions for BIM Use

BIM Attitudes

The participants’ assessment of the key statements about BIM (Figure 8) demonstrates that

51% of the participants agreed that BIM had become more popular these days; 67% asserted

that BIM would be the future for project information; 72% declared that the industry was not

clear enough on the BIM definition, and 61% mentioned that BIM would be needed do design

sustainable buildings. On the other hand, 52% did not agree that BIM was all about software,

47% did not see BIM just a synonym for 3D CAD drawings and 42% mentioned that BIM

facilitates bespoke design or construction. However, a high level of uncertainty (neither agree

nor disagree), with an average of 37% for all statements, could be seen.

12%

22%

42%

58%

We currently use BIM

In one year we will use BIM

In three years we will use BIM

In five years we will use BIM

Figure 8: BIM Attitudes

BIM: Expectation and Reality

The participants were invited to assess two statements in order to reveal “what stands in the

way of BIM adoption”. From Figure 9, almost half of the respondents (43%) could not make

an assessment on BIM’s implementation costs. While 54% asserted that they needed to get

through the downturn before giving a decision about BIM adoption, 30% could not make any

judgment on it.

Figure 9: Costs and Adoption

Comparison of Attitudes towards BIM

A variety of statements with respect to BIM were assessed by the participants. The answers

of the people who had already adopted BIM for at least in some projects and who were aware

of BIM but not yet adopted BIM can be seen in Figure 10.

14%

2%

15%

8%

5%

5%

4%

52%

41%

47%

41%

35%

31%

42%

20%

43%

42%

35%

34%

47%

39%

35%

51%

67%

43%

72%

52%

53%

61%

14%

12%

14%

24%

You hear more and more about BIM these days

BIM is the future of project information

The government will make people use BIM for the public sector

The industry is not clear enough on what BIM is yet

BIM is all about real time collaboration

Unless specifications are linked to the CAD model, it’s not BIM

We will need BIM so we can design sustainable buildings

BIM is all about software

BIM does not facilitate bespoke design or construction

BIM is just a synonym for 3D CAD drawings

BIM leads to bland buildings

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree

28%

54%

43%

30%

29%

16%

BIM is too expensive for us to consider at the moment

We need to get through the downturn, then we’ll look at BIM

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree

Figure 10: Comparison of User and Non User Attitudes

The findings ascertain that the biggest convincement that BIM experience brought was about

the BIM’s impact on traditional specifications. While 28% of the participants, who were aware

of BIM, asserted that BIM makes traditional specifications redundant, this level became 100%

with the BIM experience. All of the BIM users agreed that BIM requires changes in the

workflow and practices; the level of agreement was just above the half (52%) before BIM use.

Although 41% of the BIM-aware participants did not believe in BIM’s ability to increase

profitability, all of these users appeared to be convinced about it after they experiences BIM.

While 21% of the BIM-aware respondents were not positive about adopting BIM, this level

increased by 12% after experiencing BIM. The only decrease that can be seen in the findings

was in the level of agreement about clients’ eagerness about BIM usage. Although the level of

BIM aware participants who believed that clients will insist on BIM adoption was 52%, this

level appeared to decrease by 21% after BIM usage.

COMPARISON BETWEEN TURKEY AND THE UK

The findings of this study, reveals the current state of Turkish Construction industry in terms

of BIM awareness and use. However, to identify its place in the global market, a metric was

needed. Targeting the global BIM leadership, UK developed an industrial strategy for

facilitating BIM adoption in UK construction industry (HM Government, 2012). Due to this

strategy, a series of research have been conducted, by different institutions, to measure BIM

adoption and use in construction industry (NBS, 2011; BICS, 2011; CSN, 2012; NFB, 2012).

These researches not only clarified the current state and the needs, but also identified the

positioning in the global market by the help of comparisons (McGraw Hill, 2010). As a result,

52%

74%

84%

52%

44%

84%

69%

69%

59%

28%

48%

21%

100%

100%

100%

33%

67%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

67%

33%

BIM requires changes in our workflow and practices

BIM improves visualisation

BIM increases co-ordination of construction documents

Clients will increasingly insist on us adopting BIM

Contractors will increasingly insist on us adopting BIM

BIM improves productivity due to easy retrieval of information

BIM brings cost efficiencies

BIM increases speed of delivery

Adopting BIM increases our profitability

BIM makes traditional specifications redundant

BIM makes traditional bills of quantities redundant

I’d rather not adopt / wish we hadn’t adopted BIMNON USER USER

with its well identified position in the global market, UK construction industry was assumed

to serve as a valuable metric for identifying Turkey’s position. This section presents a

comparison of two data sets, representing two countries, in order to understand the

differences and similarities between them.

The findings of the survey present that, CAD usage is more common in Turkey (TR:82% / UK:

65%) but UK organisations use it more efficiently. Turkish professionals use CAD usually (43%)

for 2D drawings, whereas UK has a more rooted understanding of 3D visualisations and object

oriented modelling.

Although “Autodesk AutoCAD” is seen as the most common (TR:72% / UK:28%) software

package for both of the countries, UK draws a more balanced distribution in using different

CAD tools. On the other hand, findings show that, in Turkey, nearly the three of every four

people that state they use CAD, mean that they are using “Autodesk AutoCAD”. In both of the

countries, “Autodesk Revit” is the most common (TR:6% / UK:17%) used, object oriented, tool

however, the level of object oriented CAD usage in the UK (38%) is nearly fivefold more than

Turkey (8%).

The comparison of the two countries shows that in Turkey, the level of participants who are

aware of BIM (53%) is less than two thirds of this level in UK (%79). The BIM usage rate in the

UK (31%) is more than fifteen times of the usage rate in Turkish Construction Industry (2%).

CAD use purposes also show differences for the two countries. Although producing 3D

visualisations using CAD models is very common (85%) in the UK, slightly more than half (56%)

uses CAD for this reason in Turkey. Findings show that generating bills automatically from the

CAD models is two times more common in Turkey (40%), whilst it’s just the opposite for the

automatic generation of schedules from CAD (TR:19% / UK:47%). The response rates for

carrying out performance analysis on CAD models (TR:26% / UK:35%) and exporting

information from CAD models to a non-proprietary format (TR:22% / UK:32%) draw a similar

line and variance for both of the countries. However, the habit of preparing for the further

projects by keeping a library of CAD objects that are used, seems to be diffused (95%) by the

UK while it is performed by half (53%) of the Turkish respondents.

The first thing that attracts attention about the findings for future BIM use predictions is the

digital division in the responses of two countries, for all four statements. The current level of

BIM usage in UK (41%) seems to be nearly four times higher than the usage rate in Turkey

(12%). Almost all (94%) of the respondents in UK believe that they will be using BIM in the

coming three or five years, whilst nearly the half of the respondents in Turkey (42%) do not

believe that they will be using BIM in next 5 years’ time.

Nearly all (90%) of the respondents from UK agree that they hear more about BIM while only

half (51%) of the Turkish respondents agree on this. Importance of BIM in the future of project

information is agreed by both of the countries (TR:67% / UK:77%). Even though the UK

respondents seem to believe (74%) in the success of UK Governments BIM Strategy, the

Turkish respondents do not seem to be certain (43%) about an involvement of Turkish

government in BIM adoption process. The same level of agreements (TR:72% / UK:73%) from

both of the countries show that the BIM concept is not clear for both of the industries. The

interaction of BIM and collaboration are mostly agreed (68%) by UK respondents while nearly

half (47%) of the Turkish respondents do not have a clear idea.

Turkish professionals’ belief in BIM’s positive effect on sustainable design (61%) is higher than

the UK’s (41%). Both of the countries have the same level of respondents that believe that

BIM does not have a positive impact on bespoke design or construction (TR:12% / UK:16%);

however, nearly half of the respondents in Turkey (47%) have no idea about this subject. The

levels of respondents that identify BIM as the synonym of 3D CAD drawings are nearly the

same (TR:14% / UK 13%) for both of the countries and both of the countries disagree with the

idea that BIM leads to bland Buildings (TR:41% / UK:63%).

In UK, the implementation costs are seen as a barrier for BIM adoption (63%), yet Turkish

respondents seem not to have a clear idea (43%) about the implementation costs. As a

reflection of this, they do not agree that a settlement in the economic indicators is important

for BIM implementation (54%) while UK participants seem to have a better understanding

(20%) about this subject.

When the effects of BIM experience is compared between two countries, their reactions show

similarities for: BIM’s positive effect on visualisation (TR:74%-100% / UK:66%-79%),

productivity (TR:84%-100% / UK:66%-67%), cost efficiency (TR:69%-100% / UK:53%-65%),

speed of delivery (TR:69%-100% / UK:46%-59%), profitability (TR:59%-100% / UK:45%-49%)

and contractors’ willingness to adopt BIM (TR:44%-67% / UK:40%-68%); but differences for;

BIM’s change requirements in workflow and practices (TR:52%-100% / UK:93%-90%), positive

effect on co-ordination of construction documents (TR:84%-100% / UK:83%-78%), clients’

willingness to adopt BIM (TR:52%-33% / UK:46%-74%), BIM’s effects on traditional

specifications (TR:28%-100% / UK:24%-14%) and bills of quantities (TR:48%-67% / UK:26%-

14%) and the attitude of not to adopt BIM (TR:21%-33% / UK:14%-2%).

DISCUSSION

Prior work in the area revealed that BIM awareness in the Global Construction Industry is

continually increasing (McGraw Hill, 2009; 2012; NBS, 2012). However, these studies focussed

on the main actors of BIM and there is a paucity of evidence in extant literature on developing

countries. The goal of the study was to be the first to present the gap of BIM level that Turkey

needs to fill in order to keep pace with Global BIM Leaders. For this reason, the present level

of BIM use and awareness is presented in this paper. Subsequently a comparison has been

made between Turkey and UK, for providing a better understanding about Turkey’s place in

global market.

The findings of the survey reveal that there is a high level of CAD use in Turkey. However, in

view of the characteristics of the CAD tools that are being used and reasons for usage, the

results proposed that CAD should be used more efficiently. BIM is a familiar aspect for more

than half of the construction professionals, but so few had experienced it and nearly half of

them do not believe that they will experience it within the coming five years’ time.

The comparison of the two countries presents that although BIM awareness in Turkey is two-

third of the level in UK, the level of BIM use is one-tenth. This points out that construction

professionals are, individually, aware of BIM; however, organisational use is still immature.

This comparison emphasises the importance of organisational factors in BIM adoption.

Another element that attracts attention about participants’ attitudes towards BIM is the rate

of uncertainty. The average of Turkish responses, stating uncertainty, is almost the double of

UK’s. In terms of the assessments, the responses show a more similar character, when the

statements are more general; nevertheless, when a deeper knowledge or experience about

BIM is needed, the responses of two countries differ. These differences confirms that the BIM

knowledge of Turkish respondents is rooted on more general aspects and the BIM user

respondents’ level of experience is low when it is compared to the UK.

Although the sample for Turkey was very limited when it’s compared to UK, the comparison

of two countries still gives us enough understanding about the gap between them, in terms of

BIM awareness and use. From another point of view, along with the high levels of uncertainty

responses, the relatively high rate of people who chose not to participate in this research

could also be interpreted as another sign of BIM awareness gap.

Figure 10: BIM Implementation Level and International Markets

The findings of the study show that BIM implementation, in parallel with the adoption levels

are very low in Turkish construction industry when it’s compared with the UK. This gap points

out the need of a comprehensive BIM strategy targeting to fulfil the international market

demands, in order to have a better place in the global construction market (Fig.10).

Development of this strategy needs an intensive analysis and the internalisation of unique

characteristics of the Turkish Construction Industry. Despite the fact that the importance of

ICT for Turkish Construction Industry has been emphasised by various studies, well formulated

and documented, ICT strategies, which can be accepted as a prerequisite for a BIM adoption

strategy, do not appear to be widespread across the Turkish industry (TMB, 2011; Acar et al.,

2005; Isikdag et al., 2008; Underwood et al., 2010).

The recent literature comparing the two countries show that although Turkish construction

industry is still inhibited by technological and process-related issues, in the UK, the focus of

ICT adoption has shifted towards the issue of organisational readiness which is considered to

be the main concern in the future to achieve strategic value/benefit from ICT (Underwood et

al., 2010). The gap between two countries in terms of ICT implementation and maturity stands

as the main hurdle for the implementation of a similar BIM adoption strategy in Turkey. Even

though Government`s support and leadership is sine qua non, an initial strategy that focuses

on the Global rather than internal market looks more feasible in order to gain early adopters,

achieve quick wins and speed up the BIM adoption process.

CONCLUSION

As the importance of BIM on construction information management has been understood day

by day, having an industry wide adoption of BIM has become the focus of the countries that

want to lead the market. The recent market reports have visualised the development of BIM

adoption throughout the world.

This paper presented the level of BIM awareness and use in Turkish construction industry

through a comparative study of two countries (UK and Turkey), in terms of BIM awareness

and use. This comparison was to clarify the knowledge gap in order to form a basis for

developing further strategies for BIM adoption in Turkish Construction Industry. Despite the

relatively low response rate, it is postulated that these findings reflect the general operating

landscape of the Turkish construction industries’ attitude towards BIM.

The comparison has revealed that, even though the level of CAD use was high in Turkey, it

lacked efficiency. Despite Turkey’s well known place in international construction markets,

BIM is new to Turkish Construction market and BIM usage is very limited and immature. Most

of the Turkish professionals are not aware of BIM and most of the ones that are aware cannot

use it, as it needs an organisational acceptance.

The low response rate and the number of respondents can be regarded as the limitations of

this research. However, given that the findings presented in this paper are bounded and

constrained by this sample set; some important reflections are noted vis-à-vis the general

landscape of the Turkish construction industry in terms of BIM adoption. It is therefore

recognised that additional work is needed to strengthen the generalisability and repeatability

of this research beyond this sample set. Finally, it is acknowledged that future work should

focus on the ‘softer’ issues, particularly the nature and dimensions of BIM resistance; as this

is considered an important lever for future BIM adoption policies in the Turkish Construction

Industry.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey

(TUBITAK) for providing the financial support during this research.

REFERENCES

Acar, E., Kocak, I., Sey, Y., & Arditi, D. (2005). Use of information and communication technologies by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in building construction. Construction Management and Economics, 23(7), pp. 713-722.

Anson, M., Cheng E., Chiang, Y.H., Hui, E., Lam, P. & Mak, S. (2009). An annual report of the construction industry of China, Hong Kong 2008-2009. In: The 15th AsiaConstruct Conference, 19–20 October, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Azhar, S. (2011). Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the AEC industry. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 11(3), pp. 241-252.

Seo, M., & Kim, J. (2012). Analysis of Awareness and Utilization of BIM in Civil Engineering. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 2, pp. 166-169.

BCIS - Building Cost Information Service. (2011). RICS 2011 Building information modelling survey report. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.rics.org/Global/RICS_2011_BIM_Survey_Report.pdf

Becerik-Gerber, B., & Rice, S. (2010). The perceived value of building information modeling in the US building industry. ITcon, 15, pp. 185-201.

Bew, M., & Underwood, J. (2010). Delivering BIM to the UK market. In J. Underwood & U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of research on building information modeling and construction informatics: Concepts and technologies (pp. 30-64): IGI Global.

Building-Smart. (2011). BIM in the Middle East 2011: The reality and the way forward. Building SMART ME. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.bimjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Full-BIM-Report-Web.pdf

CSN - Construction Sector Network. (2012). BIM Do you or will you use it?: Survey results. Retrieved December 18, 2012, from http://www.constructionsectornetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BIM-SurveyResults-FINAL.pdf

Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2011). BIM handbook: A guide to building

information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors (Second

ed.): John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking construction: The report of the construction task force

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. London.

Egan, J. (2002). Accelerating change, Strategic Forum for Construction, London.

ENR-Engineering News Record. (2012). The Top 225 International contractors 2012. Engineering news record, McGraw-Hill Construction. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://enr.construction.com/toplists/Top-International-Contractors/201-300.asp

Froese, T. (2003). Future directions for IFC-based interoperability. ITcon, 8, pp. 231-246.

Hall, B. & Khan, B. (2003). Adoption of new technology, UC Berkeley Working Papers No. E03-330, Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley, Department of Economics, pp. 1–20.

Harty, J., & Laing, R. (2010). Removing barriers to BIM adoption: Clients and code checking to drive changes. In J. Underwood & U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Building Information Modeling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies (pp. 546-560): IGI Global.

HM Government. (2012). Industrial Strategy: government and industry in partnership Government Building Information Modelling, Retrieved February 10, 2013, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34710/12-1327-building-information-modelling.pdf

Isikdag, U., Underwood, J., Kuruoglu, M., & Acikalin, U. (2008). The Strategic Role of ICT within the Turkish AEC Industry. Paper presented at the Proceedings of CIB W89: International Conference on Building Education and Research-Building Resilience, Kandalama, Sri Lanka.

Jensen, P. A., & Jóhannesson, E. I. (2013). Building information modelling in Denmark and Iceland. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 20(1), pp. 99-110.

Khemlani, L. (2012). Around the World with BIM. AECbytes. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.aecbytes.com/feature/2012/Global-BIM.html

Kiviniemi, A. (2007). Finnish ICT Barometer 2007, Tekes. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://cic.vtt.fi/projects/vbe-net/data/2007_ICT_barometer.pdf

Kiviniemi, M., Sulankivi, K., Mäkelä, T. (2009). Building Information Model (BIM) promoting safety in the construction site process, SafetyBIM – research project 10/2007 – 2/2009. VTT Technical Research Center Finland. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.vtt.fi/files/projects/turvabim/turvabim_english.pdf

Kjartansdóttir, I. B. (2011). BIM Adoption in Iceland and Its Relation to Lean Construction. (Unpublished MSc. Thesis), Reykjavík University. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://skemman.is/en/stream/get/1946/10907/26324/1/Ingibj%C3%B6rgBirnaKj.Tilb%C3%BAi%C3%B0040112.pdf

Laiserin, J. (2002). Comparing pommes and naranjas. The Laiserin Letter. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue15/feature01.php

Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team: Joint review of the procurement and contractual arrangements in the UK construction industry, Final Report. HMSO, London, UK

MasterSpec. (2012). New Zealand national BIM survey 2012. Master Spec Construction Information Ltd., Auckland. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.masterspec.co.nz/news/reports-1243.htm

McGraw-Hill. (2009). SmartMarket report: The business value of BIM. McGraw-Hill Construction, Bedford, Massachusetts.

McGraw-Hill. (2010). SmartMarket report: The business value of BIM in Europe. McGraw-Hill Construction, Bedford, Massachusetts.

McGraw-Hill. (2012a). SmartMarket report: The business value of BIM in North America multi-year trend analysis and user ratings (2007-2012). McGraw-Hill Construction, Bedford, Massachusetts.

McGraw-Hill. (2012b). SmartMarket report: The business value of BIM for infrastructure. McGraw-Hill Construction, Bedford, Massachusetts.

McGraw-Hill. (2012c). SmartMarket report: The business value of BIM in South Korea how building information modelling is driving positive change in the South Korean construction industry. McGraw-Hill Construction, Bedford, Massachusetts.

NBS - National Building Specification. (2011). Building information modeling report 2011. RIBA Enterprises Ltd. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.thenbs.com/pdfs/bimResearchReport_2011-03.pdf

NBS - National Building Specification. (2012). National BIM report 2012, RIBA Enterprises Ltd. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.thenbs.com/pdfs/NBS-NationalBIMReport12.pdf

NFB - National Federation of Builders. (2012). BIM: ready or not?, National Federation of Builders, West Sussex. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.builders.org.uk/resources/nfb/000/318/333/NFB_BIM_Survey_BIM-ready_or_not.pdf

NSDC - National Skill Development Corporation. (2010). Human resource and skill requirements in the building, construction and real estate services sector; Study on mapping of human resource skill gaps in India till 2022. National Skill Development Corporation, New Delhi. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.nsdcindia.org/pdf/bldg-const-real-estate.pdf

Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2011). Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1), pp. 110-121.

Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), pp. 357-375.

TMB - Türkiye Müteahhitler Birliği. (2011). İnşaat sektörü 2023 vizyonu sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Türkiye Müteahhitler Birliği, Ankara. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.tmb.org.tr/arastirma_yayinlar/TMB_insaat_sektoru_2023_vizyonu.pdf

Turk, Ž. (2006). Construction informatics: definition and ontology. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 20(2), pp. 187-199.

Underwood, J., Isikdag, U., Goulding, J., & Kuruoglu, M. (2010). A Comparative Analysis of the Strategic Role of ICT in the UK and Turkish Construction Industries. Paper presented at the W078-Special Track 18th CIB World Building Congress May 2010 Salford, United Kingdom.

Underwood, J., & Isikdag, U. (2011). Emerging technologies for BIM 2.0. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 11(3), pp. 252-258.

Wyatt, J. C. (2000). When to use web-based surveys. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7(4), pp. 426-430.