Governments around the globe have recognized this and put in place initiatives actively supporting the transformation of their respective industries. The motivation of these government bodies comes from an understanding of the importance of the AECOO community to a country’s vitality and economic competitiveness on a global scale. For instance, the United Kingdom’s Construction Strategy sets four key target areas for improvement:

• 33 per cent lower costs for construction and whole life costs of built assets;
• 50 per cent faster delivery of projects;
• 50 per cent reduction in greenhouse (GHG) gas emissions; and
• 50 per cent improvement in exports of construction services, materials, and products. (The HM Government’s Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills 2013 report, “Construction 2025: Industrial Strategy−Government and Industry in Partnership,” is available at
  www.gov.uk/government/publications/construction-2025-strategy.)

The Singaporean government developed a strategic plan to transition to a knowledge-based economy in 1999. Its design, construction, and asset management sectors were deemed central to this transformation, as highlighted in the report, “Construction 21: Reinventing Construction,” which sought to transition from “dirty, demanding, and dangerous (3D)” sectors to “professional, productive, and progressive (3P)” ones.

In both cases, these strategies were partially supported through the mandating of BIM-based project delivery. Other countries have also moved or are in the process of moving toward BIM, such as Finland, Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, and, most recently, Russia. In the United States, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of Defense’s MILCON, as well as many states, cities, and large universities, have been adopting BIM since the mid-2000s. In fact, when looking at Canada’s G7 partners, every country except our own has some form of national strategy for the transformation of its design, construction, and asset management sectors, supported through BIM-enabled project delivery.

Consequences in Canada
The consequences of not having a clear strategy for the transformation of the Canadian AECOO community, enacted through a strong mandate for BIM-enabled project delivery, are multi-facetted:

1. The status quo comes at a cost. As mentioned, there is tremendous opportunity to generate value for Canada that is being squandered due to inefficient practices. This represents billions of dollars of wasted potential every year.

2. Both limited consideration of sustainability during design and poor use of resources during construction impacts our environment. This is particularly important in light of Canada’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions in line with the Conference of the Parties (COP) 21 Paris Agreement.

3. Canada risks losing its position in terms of innovation and competitiveness on a national and international scale in one of its most important industry sectors. While other countries are investing in their AECOO community to support research and development and promote innovation and best practices, Canada shows very limited support for this sector. Granted, initiatives exist and research funds are available, but they are generally fragmented, localized, and yield results that benefit only those directly involved.

The risks of not having a clear mandate to support the deployment of BIM across Canada are multiple. Primarily, there is the risk of a growing disparity within the AECOO community between BIM adopters and non-adopters. This disparity will only exacerbate an already-fragmented industry.

What we are seeing right now is advance of implementation, but only in some companies—predominately large firms with the resources and capabilities to undertake the transition alone, or smaller firms that have sensed the tremendous opportunity and can get direct benefits from implementation (e.g. mechanical subcontractors who can prefabricate from the model). On the other hand, many small or medium-sized firms, which may not see a direct benefit from BIM (e.g. electrical engineers who move from a one-dimensional/schematic workspace to a three-dimensional one) are falling behind. This also applies to firms lacking awareness or not knowing how to undertake
this transition.

When one considers that 60.8 per cent of the Canadian construction industry is made up of micro-enterprises (i.e. less than five employees), the gap has the potential to grow to a point where it becomes unsurmountable. Moreover, the disparity is not only within the supply chain, but also across asset life cycles.

Right now, the bulk of BIM use in Canada is focused on construction (i.e. clash detection, co-ordination, visual checking, and some planning and scheduling), with limited use during the design phase. (Use of 3D modelling in the design phase is widespread, but applying ‘true BIM’—analysis, automation, computation/parameterization, validation, and optimization—is less so.) This results in asymmetrical benefits accruing to one or two stakeholders in the supply chain, usually the general contractor. Unfortunately, this reinforces the piecemeal implementation of BIM—that is, optimizing BIM for specific uses and not with the asset’s information life cycle in mind. BIM implementation is also still largely oriented toward buildings. This means there exists tremendous opportunity for its application for linear infrastructure.

In this light, there is a serious risk of BIM use ‘stagnating.’ In other words, once the low-hanging fruit have been reaped, the AECOO community can become complacent and not push to explore new avenues and develop new capabilities. For instance, mainstream use of BIM for facilities management is extremely limited, and has largely been deployed in the context of pilot and research projects—despite the fact it is often touted as having the most potential to generate value. (This comes from Mcgraw-Hill’s “Smart Market Report 2014: the Business Value of BIM for Owners.” Visit i2sl.org/elibrary/documents/Business_Value_of_BIM_for_Owners_SMR_(2014).pdf.)