## 5 BIM-Enabled Asset Information Delivery Process
### Synthesis and Verification of Challenges
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Observed Challenge/Issue** & **Example of Challenges/Issues Observed in Project A** \\
**Identified in the Literature** & Regarding the collection of asset information from the GC and trades, it was observed that a large part of the required information (PDFs and semantic information) was not provided as expected. This missing information had to be collected separately by the CMMS consultant and during the labeling process. According to the interviews, the main reasons for not providing the information were: \\
**Low priority of asset data collection compared to actual construction.** \\
**Lack of understanding of the BIM-enabled asset information development process and its value.** \\ Lack of delivery team’s & Inconsistencies between the asset data in the drawings and the actual assets installed were observed. As mentioned by the BIM consultants, there were inconsistencies in the data extracted from the design models, which prevented the trades from providing asset data correctly. It was expected that the trades would provide feedback to indicate discrepancies between the assets in the database and what was actually installed. However, such feedback was often not provided. \\
**Lack of a responsible person for asset data management on the DB team was also pointed out as a contributing factor for this issue.** \\
**The GC mentioned that not enough time was allocated to perform the required asset data collection.** \\ Impacts of BIM requirements for FM: \\ \(\bullet\) & Since it was the first time the design team was dealing with this level of BIM requirements for FM, the implications and required changes in the design processes were unknown. Multiple design team members mentioned that the BIM requirements implied significant changes in the way designers use Revit to create content in the models. These changes are subtle and not necessarily evident in the drawings. Therefore, an in-depth QA/QC process was necessary to ensure information quality in the model, which was significantly time-consuming. \\ Impact on current processes (increased complexity, scope, cost, schedule) and lack of awareness about this impact & A similar issue was observed on the GC side: According to the BIM consultants, the GC and trades did not fully understand the need for the BIM process. They thought that BIMFMi was simply a platform for them to upload the asset-related documents (manuals, PDFs, etc.), i.e., a PDF repository. It was their understanding that somebody else would go through all of the data to find the required information and associate it with the digital assets in an organized way, because this was never part of their conventional scope. As mentioned by the asset information specialist, the GC and trades needed to understand that they were also hired to provide the information necessary to maintain the building. \\ Lack of awareness about the impacts of the BIM requirements for FM: \\ \(\bullet\) & The interviews and the survey revealed different perceptions of additional effort involved in the BIM-enabled asset information delivery process. It was initially expected by the owners that there would be a minimal increase in the delivery team’s scope, which was perceived differently by the DB team. \\ Lack of top management & Although the ARQTS team in organization A was able to efficiently drive the implementation of a BIM process, other departments within organization A that were important for the process did not have the same level of priority dedicated to BIM and the development of the digital assets. A director of organization A mentioned that if the value of this process was better established, it would be easier to build a business case around it and increase the buy-in from different departments in the organization. \\ Contractual barriers & Lack of contractual leverage to enforce the BIM requirements: \\ Contractual barriers & The implementation of a penalty clause, or some form of contractual constraint to enforce compliance with BIM requirements, was mentioned several times during the meetings and interviews. The fact that the owners can withhold payment in case of defectiveness, incompleteness, or a failure to render the service according to the agreement provides leverage to ensure proper execution of the delivery team’s duties. However, the inclusion and understanding of BIM and the asset information as contractual deliverables were still immature. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}