## 4 Results and Discussion
### Mean Score Ranking Technique  
The mean score ranking technique (MS) is used to rank the relative relevance of factors in a quantitative study in order of importance/criticality [101]. The MS technique has also been used in a number of previous studies [102; 103; 104; 105]. The ranking of CSFs for BIM implementation is divided into four categories based on the results of the data analysis using the mean value: (a) overall ranking, (b) ranking from the perspective of contractors, (c) ranking from the perspective of consultants, and (d) ranking from the perspective of clients. Table 2 depicts a more complete image of the MS technique in greater depth. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Code**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Critical Success Factors**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Overall**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Contractors’**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Consultants’**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Client’s**} \\  & & **Respondents** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Perspective**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Perspective**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Perspective**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & & **Mean** & **Rank** & **Mean** & **Rank** & **Mean** & **Rank** & **Mean** & **Rank** \\  & & **Value** & **Value** & **Value** & **Value** & **Value** & **Value** & **Rank** \\ \hline CSF1 & \begin{tabular}{c} Enhance safety \\ performance parameters \\ \end{tabular} & 4.19 & 1 & 4.01 & 2 & 4.09 & 2 & 4.41 & 1 \\ \hline CSF20 & \begin{tabular}{c} Enhance collaboration \\ between stakeholders \\ \end{tabular} & 3.89 & 2 & 4.05 & 1 & 4.10 & 1 & 3.60 & 3 \\ \hline CSF2 & Increase stability and efficiency & 3.83 & 3 & 4.00 & 3 & 3.77 & 4 & 3.77 & 2 \\ \hline CSF4 & \begin{tabular}{c} Better construction planning \\ and monitoring \\ \end{tabular} & 3.82 & 4 & 3.98 & 4 & 3.90 & 3 & 2.64 & 12 \\ \hline CSF3 & \begin{tabular}{c} More efficient communications \\ \end{tabular} & 3.64 & 5 & 3.75 & 6 & 3.70 & 5 & 3.50 & 4 \\ \hline CSF7 & \begin{tabular}{c} Improve monitoring and tracking \\ during construction \\ \end{tabular} & 3.63 & 6 & 3.84 & 5 & 3.64 & 6 & 3.49 & 5 \\ \hline CSF5 & Increase sustainable goals. & 3.07 & 7 & 3.13 & 7 & 3.20 & 7 & 2.90 & 6 \\ \hline CSF6 & Promote transparency. & 2.96 & 8 & 2.94 & 16 & 3.03 & 10 & 2.87 & 7 \\ \hline CSF19 & Automated assembly & 2.92 & 9 & 3.11 & 8 & 3.05 & 9 & 2.68 & 10 \\ \hline CSF18 & Better cost estimates and control & 2.89 & 10 & 3.01 & 13 & 3.14 & 8 & 2.56 & 13 \\ \hline CSF10 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Improve operational and facility \\ management in projects \\ \end{tabular} & 2.86 & 11 & 3.07 & 10 & 2.89 & 14 & 2.70 & 9 \\ \hline CSF8 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Reduce project duration \\ \end{tabular} & 2.85 & 12 & 3.09 & 9 & 2.80 & 16 & 2.74 & 8 \\ \hline CSF12 & Improve organizational image & 2.84 & 13 & 2.90 & 17 & 2.98 & 13 & 2.65 & 11 \\ \hline CSF17 & Support project life cycle data & 2.82 & 14 & 3.03 & 12 & 3.00 & 12 & 2.52 & 16 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Ranking of CSFs of BIM implementation. Figure 4: Usage of BIM technology in high-rise buildings. According to Table 2, the MS value for 'enhance safety performance parameters' is 4.19 and it ranks first among all respondents. The 'enhance collaboration between stakeholders' factor has MS value of 3.89 and is ranked second. The MS value for 'increase stability and efficiency' is 3.83, and it is ranked third. However, based on contractors' feedback, 'enhance safety performance parameters' has MS value of 4.01 and is ranked second. 'Improve collaboration between stakeholders' has MS value of 4.05 and is ranked first. The MS value for 'increase stability and efficiency' is 4.00 and is ranked third. Furthermore, according to consultants' feedback, 'enhance safety performance parameters' remained second, with MS value of 4.09. 'Improve collaboration between stakeholders' is also ranked first, with MS value of 4.10. However, with MS value of 3.77, 'increase stability and efficiency' is ranked fourth.