Hardly a week or two passes without hearing about a new national BIM initiative in one country or another. It is very clear that the pace of BIM adoption has significantly accelerated over the past two years and the next major implementation wave appears to be targeting mainland Europe. Sustained efforts can now be detected in Germany, France and Spain as practitioners and industry associations start to sound the same battle cries we heard before in the US, UK, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and most recently Korea and Brazil.
As policy makers race forward to copy other policy makers or to develop their own BIM guides, protocols and mandates, it may be beneficial to share our ongoing bird’s eye research with those interested. Based on ongoing collaboration with Dr Mohamad Kassem (Teesside University, UK) we’ve investigated and are currently developing a set of Macro Adoption Models intended to inform market-scale BIM diffusion strategies. These models reflect our research starting mid-2013 and are designed to assist policy makers to assess international BIM adoption efforts and to develop their own country-specific initiatives.
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer to http://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
One of the models[i] we are ready to share is the Policy Actions Model (Fig. 1) which identifies three implementation activities (communicate, engage, monitor) mapped against three implementation approaches (passive, active and assertive) to generate nine policy actions:
Fig. 1. Policy Actions model v1.4
The three activities are consistently witnessed in markets where there’s an intentional top-down push to diffuse BIM tools and workflows. What varies is the intensity these activities are conducted and the mix of player types (e.g. government, industry associations and communities of practice) undertaking the policy development effort[ii]. That is, each of the three activities (communicate, engage and monitor) can be approached at three levels of intensity (passive, active, and assertive) accounting for the differences in cultural attitudes and power dynamics across different markets. Practitioners in one country (e.g. an SE Asian nation) may call upon their government to take an assertive approach, practitioners in another country (e.g. US or Australia) may prefer an active or even a more passive approach.
|
[1] PASSIVE |
[2] ACTIVE |
[3] ASSERTIVE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
[A] COMMUNICATE |
Make aware: the policy player informs stakeholders of the importance, benefits and challenges of a system/process through formal and informal communications | Educate: the policy player generates informative guides to educate stakeholders of the specific deliverables, requirements and workflows of the system/process | Prescribe: the policy player details the exact system/process to be adopted by stakeholders |
|
[B] ENGAGE |
Encourage: the policy player conducts workshops and networking events to encourage stakeholders to adopt the system/process | Incentivise: the policy player provides rewards, financial incentives and preferential treatment to stakeholders adopting the system/process | Enforce: the policy player includes (favours) or excludes (penalises) stakeholders based on their respective adoption of the system/process |
|
[C] MONITOR |
Observe: the policy player observes as (or if) stakeholders have adopted the system/process | Track: the policy player surveys, tracks and scrutinizes how/if the system/process is adopted by stakeholders | Control: the policy player establishes financial triggers, compliance gates and mandatory standards for the prescribed system/process |
Table 1. Policy Actions matrix
As depicted in Table 1, the three policy approaches signify an intensification of policy maker’s involvement in facilitating BIM adoption: from a passive observer to a more assertive controller.
These policy actions are discussed here at low detail. Needless to say, each of the nine actions can be further divided into smaller policy tasks. For example, the incentivise action [B2] can be subdivided into multiple incentivise tasks: e.g. [B2.1] make tax regime favourable for BIM adoption, [B2.2] develop a BIM procurement policy, and [B2.3] introduce a BIM-focused innovation fund.
The Policy Actions Model reflect a variety of actions that policy makers take (or can take) in each market to facilitate BIM adoption. It is important to understand that all approaches are equally valid. However, it is critical for policy makers to select the combination of policy actions which best fulfil the unique requirements of their market (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Policy Action Patterns sample chart v1.1
The Policy Action Patterns sample chart (Figure 2) provides a quick comparison of diffusion actions undertaken by policy makers in different markets.Each pattern represents the policy actions taken (or can be taken) by policy players. For example, the top-left pattern represents a wholly passive approach (Make Aware + Encourage + Observe), while the bottom-right pattern represents a mixture of assertive and active approaches (Prescribe + Incentivise + Track).
Updated Dec 18, 2015: a short video now available explaining the Policy Actions model on the BIM Framework Channel:
Please note that the Policy Action Model and other Macro Adoption Models are still being refined. More detailed information will be provided once the research is formally published mid-2015 (estimate). Until then, we’ll be presenting these models and early findings in a number of forums and social media outlets. The first presentation has already been delivered at Geo-BIM 2014 (Nov 20, 2014); the second will be delivered at the European BIM Summit 2015 in Barcelona (Feb 12, 2015). For additional upcoming presentations and web forums, please subscribe to BIMThinkspace.com (top-right) and follow our Twitter accounts (@KassemmMhm or @bsuccar). Thank you.
[i] Another model – the Macro Maturity Components Model – has already been used to guide the development of BIM policies in Brazil. Please refer to “Strategy for the diffusion of Building Information Modelling in Brazil, Experiences Exchange in BIM -Building Information Modelling” (Apoio aos Diálogos Setoriais UE-Brasil, Fase II). Download Presentation (2.2Mb)
[ii] This is covered by the Macro Diffusion Responsibilities Model to be published at a later stage.
Comments 13
I feel this study is a quality approach, however, my experience tells me that taking the Assertive approach (using a top down initiative) is the only way a BIM implementation will occur successfully. More often then not, the majority of BIM Implementation Policies are just not followed through with several “starts and stops” “false starts” and “lonely BIM” to ever be successful. Having recently completed and published my qualitative doctoral research on implementing BIM and IPD, I have seen first hand that true successful changes are still a ways away. For this purpose I personally have decided to obtain a Juris Doctorate degree in an effort to change contractual language and policies for broad, true global BIM implementation.
Thank you Aaron. Different countries have different cultures with respect to power distances and their tolerance for top-down mandates. Also, as you no-doubt appreciate, within the same country different organizations have different cultures with respect to how assertive they expect their managers to be. While you may be right is stating that an assertive approach works better (at organizational level), the Policy Actions model respects cultural differences and does not assume that one solution is better all the time.
Interesting to hear of your decision to complete a graduate law degree and apply it within the BIM domain. From your perspective, do you see the absence of suitable legal frameworks as hampering global BIM implementation?
Hello Bilal,
you describe a rather theoretical approach. Have you used this approach to do an analysis of the policy actions in the different countries, that are already a step ahead (US, UK, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia or even Norway), meaning have you established the Policy Action Patterns for these countries? I could imagine, that they might be interesting for policy makers to see as best practice examples …
Hello Konrad. Correct, this is a theoretical approach to assess and compare country-scale policy actions (it can also be used to assess internal organizational policies). The Policy Actions model (plus other models – see Episodes 19 and 21) have been used to conduct seed/validation assessments. The research effort will expand during the first half of 2015 to include other countries with results published throughout the year. In case you’re wondering, there are two main reasons why we’re releasing these theoretical models before the data: (a) this is part of our research strategy – we want to expose the concepts/relations to public scrutiny; and (b) there are a number of BIM diffusion policies currently being developed around the world, and stakeholders may benefit from these (missing) adoption models. Hope this makes some sense. Bilal
Hello Bilal,
First of all thank you for this 20th episode, it is very instructive ! In your article you are mentioning the following mix of player type: government, industry associations and communities of practice. Are there any involvement from educational institutions, particularly colleges and universities, in the definition of policies or that have specific initiatives for the promotion of BIM adoption ? Thanks in advance for your help ! Regards,
Hello François. Thank you for your comment and question. Educational Institutions play an important role in facilitating innovation diffusion across a market. We are still collecting data on how much this ‘Player Group’ influences BIM adoption specifically, but it is safe to say that their role/influence varies from one market to another. In case you haven’t yet read it, please refer to Episode 23 (http://bit.ly/BIMepisode23) which introduces 9 complementary groups playing a role – not necessarily in developing BIM policies but – in facilitating BIM adoption. Please have a look and let me know if you need more information, or if you’d like to participate in our research (see here: http://bit.ly/BIMquest). Thanks.
Hello Bilal,
Thank you so much for the reference to Episode 23! It brings an excellent perspective of BIM’s ecosystem of stakeholders and the role they play in BIM diffusion. My teammates an I are MBA candidates in technology management, and part of our “Organisational Architecture and Dynamic” course we are developing a wikispace to share knowledge about BIM’s public/private policies and initiatives, and you blog is bringing new light to the subject ! I found it so interesting that I shared both articles of your blog with our Google group. I hope it is OK with you !
Thanks again and best regards !
Hello François…Sure, please feel free to share any of the contents of http://www.BIMthinkSpace.com and http://www.BIMframework.info with your group. Unless specifically noted, all material (including graphics) are provided under a Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ ). Please let me know if you or your team-mates need any clarifications. Best Regards.
Bilal hit the nail on the head! Top down is easier to enforce integrated practice in smaller counties , e.g. perhaps UK, Ireland, Singapore, etc. However this will not assure integrated practice quality is high just from enforcing. Other dynamic thoughts can arise if you look at the US where Federal and State governments can collide. The federal government will never be able to mandate BIM. Throughout the US BIM can only become the norm for the whole country though bottom up and horizontal pressures.
Thank you Shawn for your supportive comments and for participating in our ongoing macro BIM adoption research. You’ve raised an important point here: the differences between local, regional and country-wide policies is an important dynamic to understand. Currently, the approach we’ve taken is to assess similar jurisdictions (e.g. a State) separately and compare them (to other States). When there’s a variance between a State-level and the Federal-level, then another macro model need to be applied to establish whether the ‘diffusion dynamic’ within a country is Top-down (Federal Gov. mandate), Middle-out (State Gov. mandate) or Bottom-up (Local Authority mandate) is in play [ please refer to http://bit.ly/BIMEpisode19 ]. In other words, although this model need to be understood independently, it can be applied more accurately when other variables are neutralised using other macro models.
Hi Mr Succar,
This model seems to fit a wide range of policy makers’ actions in several contexts I can land on, but I was wondering : was this model thought-out to fit any policy-oriented player or was it developed only with potential policy makers’ actions in mind? I’m trying to put together a set of tools to asses industry associations’ roles in BIM diffusion and I taugh that this model could be put to good use.
Thank you !
Hello Vincent,
Thank you for your question.
The Policy Actions model is applicable at a number of Organisational Scales (1-7, 9 and 10 – http://www.bimframework.info/2013/12/organizational-hierarchy.html). So yes, the above model can be used to assess Industry Association’s role in BIM diffusion. You can also apply other macro adoption models if you wish. For example, the Diffusion-Role Matrix (Fig. 2 of Episode 23 – http://bit.ly/BIMepisode23) may prove useful. Please let me know if you need any clarifications.
Best wishes on your research; maybe you can share some of your research findings through a Guest Post?
Bilal
Hi Mr. Succar,
Thank you for your helpful answer. I will surely keep you informed of progress via my Research Gate project and I will be glad to share findings on your blog when the time comes.
Best regards,
Vincent.