The results show clearly that the “Cost Reduction or Control” is the KPI that more often was seen as receiving a positive effect of using BIM. Cost reduction or control benefits were mentioned in 29 occasions. 21 of the case studies, a 60%, showed positive effects on cost from using BIM. The cost reduction or control mentions are of significant value, with some of the most relevant being sentences like “Cost savings of 9.8% of project costs” (Endeavour House – BSI, 2010); “savings of around 9% (est) realized in the construction phase” (Festival Place – BSI, 2010); “no change orders originating from field conflicts” (Dickinson School of law – Leicht and Messner, 2008) or “minimize staffing of the project” (Esean Children’s Hospital – McGraw-Hill, 2010a). On the other hand, the same KPI was mentioned with negative connotations 6 times in the case studies. In two of the projects, i.e. 5.71 % of them, negative effects on cost were mentioned more times than positive effects. The nature of these costs was generally less relevant than the positive ones. Some examples include “CAD rework cost £20–30k” (St Helens and Knowsley PFI – BSI, 2010) or “invest in computer upgrades, training of its staff and technical support” (University Campus Suffolk – McGraw-Hill, 2010a).
Overall, data from case studies show that the negative effects from using BIM are much less and generally less relevant than the positive effects of implementing BIM tools and processes. Some of this extra costs, such as CAD rework, training or computer upgrades, are costs that can be reduced or eliminating by implementing BIM from the beginning of projects or simply by the fact that once people are trained and computers upgraded those costs will not appear in a firm anymore.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment