The BICP team have utilised the Macro Maturity Components model developed by Dr. Bilal Succar and Dr. Mohamad Kassem who have generated five conceptual models covering different aspects of BIM adoption across countries. These models can be used for: 1. Assessing a country’s current BIM adoption policy; 2. Comparing the BIM maturity of different countries; and 3. Developing a national BIM adoption policy. A selection of individuals where chosen because of their expertise and interest in BIM, and in particular, their insights as to level of BIM Adoption and Maturity in Ireland at present. The results of the survey are discussed below Model A: BIM diffusion areas. The macro-adoption model clarifies how BIM field types (technology, process and policy) interact with BIM capability stages (modelling, collaboration and integration) to generate nine areas for targeted BIM diffusion analysis and BIM diffusion planning. As illustrated in the figure A Ireland are quite mature with regards to applying technology for modelling and collaboration purposes, as well as the integration of network-based disparate systems. While results show, we are mature for modelling processes i.e. intraorganisational BIM roles and model workflows, we are low with regards to collaboration processes and policies. The final diffusion area pf policy is low across all three areas. Model A: BIM diffusion areas The Macro Maturity Components model identifies eight complementary components for establishing and measuring the BIM maturity of countries and other macro organisational scales. The components are: Objectives, stages and milestones; Champions and drivers; Regulatory framework; Noteworthy publications; Learning and education; Measurements and benchmarks; Standardised parts and deliverables; and Technology infrastructure. Figure B illustrates Irelands current maturity within each area. Ireland ranked highly when it came to Technology Infrastructure and Learning and Education. However, we ranked poorly when it came to regulatory frameworks; and measurement and benchmarks. This results would coincide with Model A where Irelands showed poor diffusion with regards to policies.
Model C: macro-diffusion dynamic To allow a clearer understanding of from-where and how a diffusion starts to unfold within a population, macro adoption model identifies three diffusion dynamics; top-down, bottom-up and middle-out. It is clear that the diffusion dynamic in Ireland is Middle meaning that large organisation or industry associations are pushing the BIM agenda within the industry.
this
out
Model D: Policy Action This macro-adoption model focuses on the actions a policy maker takes to in fluence the market-wide adoption of an innovative system/process. The Policy Actions model (identifies three implementation activities (communicate, engage, monitor) mapped against three implementation approaches (passive, active and assertive) to generate nine policy actions. The three approaches within each activity signify an increase in the intensity of policymaker's involvement in facilitating BIM adoption, from a passive stance to more assertive actions. The policy action pattern for Ireland is: Make Aware + Encourage + Observe. This would represent the most passive option available. Model E: Macro-diffusion responsibilities This macro adoption model analyses BIM diffusion through the roles played by industry stakeholders as a network of actors. It first identifies nine BIM player groups (stakeholders) distributed across three BIM fields (technology, process and policy) as defined within the BIM framework. The nine player groups are: policy makers, educational institutions, construction organisations, individual practitioners, technology developers, technology service providers, industry associations, communities of practice, and technology advocates. The results show that at present the Technology Drivers are the most influential technology player. For the policy makers, the educational institutes had a much higher BIM diffusion compared to policy makers. Both construction organisations and communities of practice where identified as the key process players. CONTRIBUTERS: Ralph Montague (ArcDox) Joseph Mady (Designer group) Calogero Marino (CW O'Brien Architects) Barry Kirwan (Ryan+Lamb Architects) Barry McAuley (CitA/DIT) Roger West (TCD) Alan Hore (DIT) Michael Murphy (BAM Ireland) Anthony Condon (Ethos Engineering) Dermot Kehily (DIT) Brian Lahiff (GARLAND) Adrian Small (BRFS Ltd) Paul Sexton (SCEG LTD) Claire Crowley (SCSI) Robert Moore (GDA) Michael Earley (Scott Tallon Walker Architects) Paul Brennan (BAM) William Power (Reddy Architecture) Antoinette Rourke (DKIT) Aonghus O'Keeffe (Roughan & O'Donovan) Ger Casey (GDA) John Hunt (Enterprise Ireland)