## 5 Results and Discussion
### [PERSON]'s Rank Correlation Coefficient  
[PERSON]'s rank correlation coefficient (\(r_{\mathrm{s}}\)) is calculated by the following equation:  
\[r_{\mathrm{s}}=1-\left[6\sum_{n=1}^{5}\frac{\left(\mathrm{d}^{2}\right)}{n(n^{ 2}-1)}\right]\]  
where \(r_{\mathrm{s}}\) = [PERSON]'s rank correlation coefficient; \(\mathrm{d}\) = the difference between ranks assigned to items; \(n\) = the number of respondents.  
Using [PERSON]'s rank correlation coefficient, the relationship between the perspective of clients, consultants, and contractors with the implementation barriers was shown. [PERSON]'s rank correlation coefficients between all parties were established. The coef  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Overall**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Contractors\({}^{\prime}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Consultants\({}^{\prime}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Clients\({}^{\prime}\)**} \\
**BIM Implementation Barriers** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Respondents**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Perspectives**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Perspectives**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Perspectives**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **Mean Value** & **Rank** & **Mean Value** & **Rank** & **Mean Value** & **Rank** & **Mean Value** & **Rank** \\ \hline Unavailability of standards and guidelines & 4.89 & 1 & 4.02 & 4 & 3.85 & 5 & 4.27 & 5 \\ Lack of BIM training & 4.78 & 2 & 3.89 & 5 & 4.00 & 4 & 4.60 & 3 \\ Lack of expertise & 4.52 & 3 & 4.65 & 1 & 4.32 & 1 & 4.71 & 2 \\ High cost\({}^{\prime}\) & 4.45 & 4 & 4.54 & 2 & 4.10 & 3 & 4.07 & 6 \\ Lack of research and BIM implementation & 4.03 & 5 & 4.21 & 3 & 3.41 & 7 & 4.83 & 1 \\ Cultural barrier (resistance to change) & 3.89 & 6 & 3.61 & 7 & 4.22 & 2 & 4.42 & 4 \\ Lack of promotion & 3.62 & 7 & 3.61 & 7 & 2.88 & 10 & 3.43 & 10 \\ Incompatibility and interoperability problems & 3.43 & 8 & 3.02 & 11 & 2.88 & 10 & 3.23 & 11 \\ Insufficient external motivation (insufficient customer and market demands) & 3.22 & 9 & 3.44 & 9 & 2.65 & 12 & 3.23 & 11 \\ Lack of well-developed practical strategies & & & & & & & & \\ Security issues & 2.98 & 11 & 2.61 & 14 & 3.70 & 6 & 2.98 & 14 \\ Lack of clients demand & 2.82 & 12 & 2.90 & 11 & 1.95 & 16 & 2.87 & 15 \\ Lack of vision of benefits & 2.67 & 13 & 3.23 & 10 & 3.20 & 9 & 2.87 & 15 \\ Poor collaboration among & 2.44 & 14 & 3.73 & 6 & 2.21 & 15 & 3.88 & 7 \\ Lack of initiative and hesitance & 2.32 & 15 & 2.01 & 17 & 2.42 & 13 & 3.88 & 7 \\ Misunderstanding of BIM & 2.27 & 16 & 1.92 & 18 & 2.42 & 13 & 3.88 & 7 \\ Inadequate government policies & 2.18 & 17 & 1.88 & 19 & 1.65 & 19 & 1.00 & 20 \\ Licensing issues & 2.13 & 18 & 1.88 & 19 & 1.72 & 17 & 2.01 & 19 \\ Lack of industry standards & 1.98 & 19 & 2.32 & 16 & 1.72 & 17 & 2.45 & 18 \\ Competing initiatives & 1.92 & 20 & 2.43 & 15 & 1.54 & 20 & 2.61 & 17 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Ranking of BIM implementation barriers.  
ficient value between the consultant and contractor was 0.932. The correlation between the client and consultant was 0.892, whereas that between the client and contractor was 0.821. In addition, there was also a significant relationship among the three parties, namely 0.000, 0.000, and 0.005, respectively, which was smaller than the permissible amount of significance (5%). In other words, it can be said that there was a strong correlation between consultant and contractor, client and consultant, and client and contractor.