## 5 BIM-Enabled Asset Information Delivery Process
### Synthesis and Verification of Challenges  
As previously mentioned, several challenges prevent the efficient implementation of a BIM process to support FM activities. Although project A had comprehensive information requirements and BIM consultants to guide the whole process, many challenges previously mentioned in the literature were observed. Table 5 describes how these challenges manifested in project A.  
Figure 14: Representation of different types of information available per asset in the CMMS in the operations phase. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Observed Challenge/Issue Identified in the Literature** & & **Example of Challenges/Issues Observed in Project A** \\ \hline Limited interoperability (lack of integration between BIM and FM systems) & \(\bullet\) & Although the issue of difficult interoperability was mentioned, interviews with the CMMS consultant and an analysis of the spreadsheets containing data from the BIM models revealed that the challenge of exchanging information between the BIM and FM systems was not software related. Instead, it was due to the lack of adequate structure in the asset information that is created in BIM during design, which is further discussed as part of another issue—lack of information quality in BIM for FM. \\ \hline Unclear BIM requirements for FM at early project stages & \(\bullet\) & An assessment of the developed asset information demonstrated that the asset information requirements initially developed were significantly changed throughout the project. The changes affected the type of assets and the information that were tracked, naming conventions, and the classification of the assets in groups or categories. As a first project to have asset information requirements as part of a BIM process, it was not clear to the owners what, and how much, data was reasonable to request. Moreover, the BIM requirements were established based on potential uses of the model not currently employed by the owners. The project team agreed that a better understanding of the projected model uses could help define more useful information requirements and minimize the data collection scope. \\ \hline Lack of consolidated guidance, protocols and standards for BIM FM (industry level) & \(\bullet\) & Although there are standards such as COBie and ISO 19650 that provide guidance for the asset information delivery process, there is still uncertainty among practitioners about their viability. For example, the BIM consultants mentioned that one reason not to use COBie as a data specification format was the level of complexity and level of additional effort required to initially input the mapping for the COBie export into Revit. Regarding ISO 19650, the framework was partially aligned with the proposed process outlined in the requirements. However, the BIM consultants opted to not adopt the terminology suggested in ISO 19650 because it is still not widely known or understood among stakeholders and could create unnecessary confusion. \\ \hline Lack of end-user involvement in the definition and validation of the requirements (internal buy-in) & \(\bullet\) & Although the asset information requirements were developed in collaboration between the owners and the BIM consultants, the input from the FMO team was limited due to their lack of familiarity with the BIM process. It was also hard for them to define detailed requirements because they were not used to relying on this information being thoroughly delivered at handover. \\ \hline Lack of delivery team’s input in the definition of the process in the definition of the process in the BIM requirements, and the accuracy of this information were not fully verified. \\ \hline Lack of delivery team’s input in the definition of the process in the definition of the process in the BIM requirements, and the accuracy of the proposed process in the BIM requirements. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}