# A Systematic Review of Current Strategies and Methods for BIM Implementation in the Academic Field
## 3 Results
### Study Content: Objective, Developed Method and Results Obtained  
This section reviews the content of the 23 articles analyzed. The main objective of the study and the two previous points, the explanation of the main method used and the type of evaluation for each case, were investigated individually and in detail. The results obtained by the authors, both positive and negative, are included above. However, we also aimed to determine if these studies carried out any type of evaluation focused on analyzing their BIM integration method to give it validity and to answer the third research question: Does a guide to an academic BIM implementation that can serve as a reference for schools exist, or is one being investigated? In this section, see Table 5, it is necessary to clarify that studies that aim to demonstrate that BIM is necessary in universities are not the focus. We are looking for cases that have evaluated the implementation process itself over a period or have made comparisons between different implementation strategies that can lead to best practices that other institutions can benefit from. Therefore, we are also looking for studies that have worked on or researched a common standardized guideline. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Authors—Type of Evaluation** & **A** & **B** & **C** \\ \hline [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2018) [30] & X & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2017) [47] & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2017) [52] & & X & X \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2019) [37] & & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2018) [43] & X & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2018) [48] & & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2018) [54] & & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON] (2018) [38] & & X & X \\ [PERSON] (2016) [39] & & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2018) [53] & & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2019) [40] & & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON] (2016) [41] & & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2020) [50] & X & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2019) [46] & X & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2020) [56] & X & X & X \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2018)[55] & X & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON] (2019) [49] & & X & \\ [PERSON] (2016) [57] & & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON] (2018) [23] & & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2020) [44] & X & X & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2020) [42] & X & & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2020) [45] & & X & X \\ [PERSON], [PERSON] (2019) [51] & X & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Classification of the papers selected by type of evaluation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Authors, Year, Reference, and Summary Description.** **Developed Method and Results Obtained**. & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Classification of the papers selected by method and results in the papers. **Table 5.**_Cont._  
**Results:** The framework proposed by the authors can serve as a guide for other universities and support synergy between different institutions, since it encompasses all the necessary aspects for the integration of BIM in the university. The gradual approach adopted for continuous improvement is a positive aspect; they demonstrate the effectiveness of the two-way exchange between industry and university and emphasize the need for links between teachers and BIM researchers to keep the content program up to date. Regarding the limitations, they highlight the lack of participation of university administration and management. The fragmentation between research, teaching, and pedagogical structures also does not facilitate this type of change, so the support of management and administration is key to overcoming resistance to change.