## 7 Discussion
However, by using the BIM-FM platform, CMMS users have access to the 3D model and all its geometric information via individual asset links. Similarly to the second approach, this approach aims to take advantage of the asset information conventionally provided by each stakeholder which, however, creates the need for additional validation efforts. The approach discussed in this study differs from the third and fourth approaches because no data from CMMS or any other FM system is integrated or brought back into another database, or BIM-FM integration platform. While there are many potential benefits of visualizing and querying data from FM systems in a 3D environment, the owners did not envision any specific integrated use that justified the effort required to keep an updated system with integrated data from BIM and FM systems. Compared with similar case studies in the literature [8; 44; 51; 64; 65], the observed BIM-enabled asset information delivery process in this study provides a deeper look into the actual asset information requirements. The study also contributes the following points to the related literature:  
* Highlights the importance of validating the asset information produced in BIM during design given a misalignment between the conventional way designers use BIM for their own purposes and how they are expected to use BIM to deliver asset information. * Provides a glimpse into the existence of an additional scope that this process implies for the delivery team compared with conventional project delivery. * Demonstrates that the idea of having BIM as a central repository of all asset information is not necessarily relevant for FM. A large portion of the information relevant to FM is not actually incorporated in BIM. Another gap addressed in this study was the diffuse understanding of challenges related to BIM for FM, leading to the proposition of isolated solutions that often fail to consider the connections between these different challenges. As it was recently pointed out by [15], the current slow BIM adoption is caused by a series of combined reasons rather than a single cause. Therefore, the root causes of the barriers and any potential interrelations among them should be further explored [5]. Based on the asset information delivery process developed in this study, the challenges previously mentioned in the literature were contextualized, mapped across different levels of implementation (i.e., project, organization, and industry) and project phases, and causal links were established between them. Although these challenges had been previously identified in the literature, the way in which they were observed in this study provides additional insights:  
* There is a significant emphasis on the lack of interoperability as one of the main challenges in BIM for FM in the literature [6; 8; 19; 44; 60; 62; 63]. There have been several attempts to address this issue through the development of technological tools to automate the exchange of building information between different software. However, in this project, it was observed that the challenge of exchanging information between BIM and other FM systems stemmed from the lack of an adequate structure in the asset information that is created in BIM, in other words, a lack of information quality in BIM for FM, as discussed by [89]. * Another highly emphasized challenge in the literature is the lack of clear BIM requirements for FM at early project stages [8; 19; 60; 62; 63; 64; 65; 66]. Although increased owner involvement has been often given as a solution for this challenge [28; 66], this study demonstrates that it can be very difficult for owners to identify adequate information requirements. Having adequate input from FM teams early on in a project is still a challenge. Furthermore, there is still a limited understanding of how BIM can effectively support existing FM activities and how it impacts current design and construction processes, which compromises the definition of clear and efficient information requirements.