Abstracts – Browse Results
Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 8 results ...
Alwan, Z and Gledson, B J (2015) Towards green building performance evaluation using asset information modelling. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(03), 290-303.
Bosch, A, Volker, L and Koutamanis, A (2015) BIM in the operations stage: Bottlenecks and implications for owners. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(03), 331-43.
Kassem, M, Kelly, G, Dawood, N, Serginson, M and Lockley, S (2015) BIM in facilities management applications: A case study of a large university complex. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(03), 261-77.
Lindkvist, C (2015) Contextualizing learning approaches which shape BIM for maintenance. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(03), 318-30.
Love, P E D, Zhou, J, Matthews, J, Sing, C-P and Carey, B (2015) A systems information model for managing electrical, control, and instrumentation assets. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(03), 278-89.
Motawa, I and Almarshad, A (2015) Case-based reasoning and BIM systems for asset management. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(03), 233-47.
Olatunji, O A and Akanmu, A (2015) BIM-FM and consequential loss: How consequential can design models be?. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(03), 304-17.
- Type: Journal Article
- Keywords: intellectual property,asset management,building information modelling,virtual property,consequential loss,disclaimer
- ISBN/ISSN:
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-03-2014-0021
- Abstract:
Purpose - Building information modelling (BIM) offers a new direction of project implementation. It promotes integration of multiple lifecycle stages as well as multidisciplinary integration; whereas conventional approaches are primed on fragmentation. The purpose of this paper is to add to existing debates on the relationship between the rationality of the legal structures underlying fragmented project delivery and BIM’s ability to successfully foster integration across different lifecycle stages. A step further from extant arguments on whether BIM could be sufficiently serviced by the same legal provisions that had serviced fragmented relationships, the study opens up some new fronts regarding the consequences of shared trusts and reciprocity in an integrated project platform. Design/methodology/approach - In addition to a deep analysis of traditional literature on BIM and project management, the study draws its strength from two recent court cases on the limitations of disclaimers against breaches. It also targets court decisions on consequential loss and the duty of care to explain project team’s liabilities when BIM could not live to its theorized promises. Findings - The study shows that disclaimers are a weak protection against liabilities. As BIM offers a dynamic project environment, the study relies on decided cases to show that duty of care to a project (and its owners) is not entirely representable by prototype contract language. More importantly, the study concludes that the applications of BIM to facilities management are better supported on BIM’s new dimension of multidisciplinary integration, rather than a mere coalescing of deliverables across different lifecycle fragments. Originality/value - This work presents a novel approach to the debate on the potentiality of BIM to drive project success. It adds to the growing discourse on the legal implications of BIM by considering the potential of digital models as a valid and admissible contract instrument.
Whyte, A and Donaldson, J (2015) Digital model data distribution in civil engineering contracts. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(03), 248-60.