Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 1080 – 1087

Creative Construction Conference 2017, CCC 2017, 19-22 June 2017, Primosten, Croatia

Ontology of BIM in a Construction Project Life Cycle

Petr Matějkaa*, Aleš Tomeka
a
Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Economics and Management in Civil Engineering,
Prague 6 – Dejvice, Thakurova 7/2077, 166 29, Czech Republic

Abstract

The paper deals with Building Information Modeling (BIM) on a general level. Upon literature and practice research, we discovered
that BIM ontology has not been properly defined during project life cycle on the whole. There are various existing interpretations
of BIM and related acronyms, but these interpretations only describe BIM from a specific perspective regardless to general
relationships. This can result in problems and misunderstandings during communication, coordination and contracting. Research
shows, that it is possible to understand BIM in three different ways: 1) BIM as a product, 2) BIM as a method and 3) BIM as a
methodology. This paper also explores broader understanding of BIM as a methodology and proposes the correct BIM ontology -
we use schematics, and explain the role of BIM in traditional project life cycle phases. We propose strict differentiation between
model and modeling, and we describe relationships between BIM and other IM (i.e. PIM, PLIM, CIM, DIM and AIM). Proposed
ontology ought to be useful in both research and practice. In BIM standardization process, BIM implementation, and development
of BIM related tools, it is necessary that all parties understand common ontology in the same way. In the end, the paper also
summarizes the impact of research results and their possible use in practice.

©
© 2017
2017TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This
by Elsevier Ltd. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2017.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2017
Keywords: BIM; definition; ontology; project life cycle; project management

1. Introduction

Ongoing implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) throughout the world faces various obstacles.
Knowledge of BIM is usually supported by professional and semiprofessional literature ([1, 2, 3]), scientific research
(presented in scientific papers), practice (especially national standards [4, 5, 6]) and public awareness (many internet

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +420-607-803-814

E-mail address: petr.matejka@fsv.cvut.cz

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2017
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.065
 Petr Matějka and Aleš Tomek / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 1080 – 1087 1081

sources, propagation materials etc). There is a correlation between those categories, as they all support comprehensive
BIM knowledge. This paper explores some important aspects of such knowledge system:

x System is constantly evolving, due to new emerging methods, their utilization in practice and the fact that
practical BIM application is relatively new in construction industry.
x There are some local attempts at unification of knowledge; however, there is low conformity of local systems
around the world.
x Users (i.e. people, construction companies etc.) have limited knowledge of the system; therefore, every user
knows only its part.

These aspects together create ontologically problematic environment. It is hard to establish longer-term ontology.
Education is more complicated and fragmented. Implementation of BIM has to deal with lack of deeper understanding,
even from experts, narrow view and various explanations in practice. These obstacles have practical impact on BIM
adoption, especially in contracting, normalization and innovation.
The paper presents results of research, which examined various BIM interpretations and compared them. The
comparison led to a proposal of BIM ontology categorization. Research also examined understanding of BIM in a
construction project life cycle.

1.1. Methodology

The nature of the research was explorative and we based it on inductive and abstractive methods. We gathered
research data with the use of observational, surveying and review methods. The main scientific questions of the
research were:

1. Is BIM unambiguously defined?

2. What are differences in understanding of BIM ontology?
3. What is ontological role of BIM in construction project life cycle?

We supported the first research question by a survey and we answered this question by comparison of various BIM
definitions. We identified differences in the understanding of BIM, and we addressed these differences more
thoroughly in the second and the third research questions. We verified research results by practical application in risk
analysis [7].

1.2. Survey results

We based the research on practical experience with BIM implementation and we verified our original statements
by a survey. We conducted the survey in the Czech Republic, where we questioned respondents from expert public,
regarding their broader understanding of various BIM interpretations. The questionnaire proposed 12 definitions of
BIM, based on literature research. Some of these definitions were restrictive (for example: “BIM is software”), some
of them were broad and universally acceptable (like definition from NBIM-US [8]). Some definitions were very
similar to one another. Respondents had to check whether such definitions are correct and comprehensive enough or
not. Figure 1 presents results of the survey.
The results clearly state that there is no universally accepted definition of BIM. The paper further discusses nature
and divergence of survey results.
1082 Petr Matějka and Aleš Tomek / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 1080 – 1087

BIM is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility. A BIM is a shared
BIM definitions D1 knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life-
cycle; defined as existing from earliest conception to demolition. [8]
40
D2 BIM is a tool, which allows realization of parametric object oriented building design.
35 D3 BIM is a methodology, using information database of construction project during whole project life cycle.

30 D4 BIM is a design software.

Number of votes (N)

BIM is a set of design software for creation and analyse of information models, with aim to realization of
D5
25 construction projects.
D6 BIM is a process of construction project life cycle data creation and management.
20
Digital model represents physical and functional objects with their characteristics. It is open database
D7
15 of information about object for its realization and operation.
BIM is organized approach for collection and use of information throughout a project, based on a digital
10 D8 model, containing graphical and descriptive information about project design, construction and
operation.
5 BIM is a technology of modeling with associated sets of processes with the aim to create, communicate
D9
and analyse construction projects.
0 BIM is a parametric and object oriented modeling of physical and functional characteristics of
O D10
D D D D D D D D D D D D construction projects.
w
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 D11 BIM is an approach to creating and working with information.
n
N 36 26 29 5 10 21 22 21 8 18 15 8 8 BIM stands for creation and use of coordinated, consistent and quantifiable information about
D12
construction project.

Fig. 1. BIM definitions survey (source: author, [7]).

2. BIM interpretation categorization

It is possible to divide current BIM understanding in three categories:

1. BIM as a product
2. BIM as a method
3. BIM as a methodology

It is important to state that understanding of BIM at a lower level is not necessarily wrong. Defined categories
merely describe understanding of BIM from different perspectives, neither is generally better or worse. We can easily
classify BIM understanding into one or more categories. The more specific the understanding is, the more clearly it
will fit into one category. If one's understanding is only general, it might fit into more than one category.

2.1. Verification

We gathered a total of 30 random definitions, descriptions, explanations or simple interpretation of BIM (further
just interpretations) for research purposes. Main sources for this database were scientific papers, national standards
and technical literature (because of limited space, only authors and citation are mentioned). Some of these
interpretations were not explicit and therefore we had to evaluate author’s understanding of BIM manually. After that,
we were able to classify all identified interpretations into categories. We present our results in table 1. The list of
interpretations is not and cannot be complete; its purpose is to demonstrate and verify BIM categories as we defined
them.

Table 1. Intersection of BIM interpretations and BIM categories (source: authors).

BIM interpretation BIM as product BIM as method BIM as methodology

Laiserin [9] YES
Eastman [1, p. 8], BIM definition YES
Eastman [1, p. 8], Construction models definition YES
Eastman [1, p. 8], Parametric modeling definition YES
Crotty [10, p. 2], Parametric modeling YES
 Petr Matějka and Aleš Tomek / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 1080 – 1087 1083

Epstein [2, p. 44] YES

Hardin and McCool [11, p. 4] YES Partly
NBIMS-US [8, p. 1] YES YES
Barnes and Davies [12, p. 1] YES
Eynon [13, p. 3] YES YES
Race [14, p. 14], BIM to CAD comparison YES
Race [14, p. 14], BIM definition YES
Crotty [10, p. 2], BIM definition Partly Partly YES
Reddy [15] Partly Partly
Lévy [16] Partly Partly
Krygiel and Nies [17] YES Partly
Singapore BIM Guide [6] YES YES
PASS 1192 [4] YES YES
Park and Cai [18] Partly YES
Chen and Nguyen [19] YES
Bouška and Heralová [20] YES
Bouška [21] YES
Zou, Kiviniemi and Jones [22] YES Partly
Wang and Song [23] YES
Rossini, Fioravanti and Trento [24] YES Partly
Miettinen and Paavola [25] YES Partly
Turk [26] YES YES
Wang et al. [27] YES
Ding, Zhou and Akinci [28] YES Partly
Smith [29] YES

2.2. Results

Three defined categories of BIM are valid and we can use them for further BIM differentiation, classification, and
more thorough explanation.
The first category represents basic understanding of BIM as a model. In such understanding, “BIM” as an acronym
stands rather for Building Information Model than Building Information Modeling. Still, a model is something that
plenty of people require and are satisfied with when they talk about modeling. There are many different models, which
all come under BIM. They vary based on profession (i.e. architectural study, structure, MEP etc.) and construction
project life cycle (see chapter 3). We can understand BIM as a model when we approach it at project level.
The second category represents advanced understanding of BIM as a set of tools and processes (i.e. methods). This
is how BIM was first introduced in the market [9]. The majority of technical literature also refers to BIM from this
viewpoint. We can understand BIM as a method on company level. The group contains not only software and
equipment, which can be used according to BIM, but also all processes and workflows, which are new when using
BIM or which are changed by using BIM. We can further categorize tools and processes, for example as follows:

x Software tools
x Equipment
x Interoperability and standardization
x Collaboration
x Qualification
1084 Petr Matějka and Aleš Tomek / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 1080 – 1087

x Market, contracting and procurement

x Other processes

The third category represents the most sophisticated understanding of BIM as a methodology, especially with the
impact on construction project procurement. The description of BIM as a methodology is always connected with
construction project life cycle as collaborative and information sharing environment, supported by various tools and
methods. Such broad understanding of BIM is applicable on market level.
Results presented in table 1 also show interesting shifts based on source of interpretation. While technical books,
which are usually aimed at public, consider BIM more often as a product, national standards, on the other hand,
understand BIM as a methodology. Journal articles and conference papers tend to spike in understanding BIM as a
method, especially as a set of tools.

3. BIM in construction project life cycle

As we already suggested, especially when we understand BIM as a methodology, we have to consider the meaning
of BIM in connection with construction project life cycle. This way, we can further categorize BIM and explain it
more precisely. Even between the understanding of BIM as a method or a product, there are differences based on the
phase of construction project. For example, according to PAS 1192, there is not only Building Information Model
(BIM), but also Asset Information Model (AIM) and Project Information Model (PIM) [4]. In addition, there are many
other acronyms emerging throughout the industry like Building Information Management (often referred to as BIM,
but use of BIM(M) is also mentioned) [12, p. 5], Facility Information Modeling (FIM, which is basically AIM) [12,
p. 76] or Safety Information Modeling (SIM) [30]. There is also a tendency to develop governing concepts (as PIM is
to BIM). Race suggests the use of term Project Life Cycle Information Modeling (PLIM) [14, p. 15]. Since there is
no consensus on mentioned ontology, this is often a source of confusion or misunderstandings. It is even more
complicated when terms, which had already been established (like CAD or VDC), come into play. Moreover, there is
at least a duality in the meaning of BIM in current practice, as shown on figure 2.

BIM PLIM
VDCO
PIM
VDC, BIM(M)
BIM AIM FIM
VCM
Programming Design Construction Operation

Fig. 2. Disorganized BIM-related acronyms in construction project life cycle (source: authors).

We analyzed various literature sources and our personal experience with BIM in various construction projects.
Based on that, we made some key observations:

1. According to BIM categorization, it is important to distinguish between Building Information Models

(product) and Building Information Modeling (method).
2. Common practice often considers other BIM related acronyms (AIM, PIM etc.) as BIM in general.
3. It is too late for building ontological foundation for already established buzzwords.
 Petr Matějka and Aleš Tomek / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 1080 – 1087 1085

3.1. Results

We identified possible improvement in BIM ontology in project life cycle by:

1. Distinguishing between BIM as product and BIM as model.

2. Harmonizing of BIM terminology in construction project life cycle while understanding BIM as methodology
with regard to common practice.

To distinguishing between BIM understandings according to BIM categories, we can easily use capital letters. While
BIM could stand for Building Information Modeling, BIm could stand for Building Information Model. Table 2 and
figure 3 present harmonization of BIM terminology in construction project life cycle with regard to common practice
understanding of BIM buzzword as a governing term.

Table 2. Harmonized basic BIM acronyms (source: authors).

Acronym Term Acronym Term

DIM Design Information Modeling DIm Design Information Model
CIM Construction Information Modeling CIm Construction Information Model
AIM Asset Information Modeling AIm Asset Information Model
PIM Project Information Modeling PIm Project Information Model
PLIM Project Life-Cycle Information Modeling PLIm Project Life-Cycle Information Model
BIM Building Information Modeling BIm Building Information Model

The model is parametric, object oriented, attribute driven, digital representation of reality (i.e. information model
is a database), while modeling is a set of methods (i.e. tools and processes), which can be used to create and use
information model. On methodological level, we can apply this logic in whole construction project life cycle. It is
then possible to level up models or modeling to superior member set, according to figure 3.

BIM PLIM

PIM
DIM AIM
CIM
Programming Design Construction Operation

Fig. 3. Harmonized BIM acronyms ontology environment in construction project life cycle (source: authors).

Design Information Modeling stands for what BIM used to be in the beginning. Construction Information Modeling
stands for obsolete Virtual Construction Modeling (VCM). It is easy to find or create new acronyms, but with the use
of presented logic, there should be no problem with their ontology and classification. Each acronym may or may not
share project life cycle phase with another. This may vary according to project procurement and its other specifics.
There is a clear hierarchy between PLIM (covering whole life cycle), PIM and AIM (which are equivalent and
distinguish project life cycle according to information flow) and other IM (which are on lowest level, may overlap or
are not hierarchically defined to each other). BIM buzzword was, according to current practice, left alone as a
1086 Petr Matějka and Aleš Tomek / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 1080 – 1087

governing term for whole methodology, while BIm can be considered as a model (or set of connected models), which
is used throughout the whole construction project life cycle, according to rooted theory (same as PLIm).

4. Conclusion

We propose following possible BIM categorization:

1. BIM as a product (model)

2. BIM as a method (modeling)
3. BIM as a methodology

Methodology

Model
Modeling

Fig. 4. Hierarchy of BIM categories (source: authors).

Figure 4 shows simple hierarchy of proposed BIM categories. We based this categorization on different perceiving
of BIM throughout practice and we verified that it is possible to distinguish BIM interpretation with regard to these
categories. We also propose harmonized environment and logic in BIM ontology in construction project life cycle for
understanding of BIM as a methodology, according to figure 3. For this proposition, we deduced environment from
common practice, existing national standards and literature research. We also propose a clear distinction between
models and modeling with the use of capital letters, according to table 2.

5. Discussion

We have no ambition to lay new foundations for something that is already being widely used in practice, although
we could all use properly defined ontological system of BIM (and not only building construction, but also in other
construction projects, especially in transport infrastructure projects [31, 32], but also in development projects [33] and
in education [34]). The main aim of the article is to initiate discussion on this topic. In the paper, we dealt with BIM
ontology on a highly theoretical level. For further practical and scientific application, it is possible to use formulated
propositions, but the main contribution of the article to the body of knowledge lies elsewhere. We explained that the
topic of BIM ontology is more complicated than we may perceive. By understanding of BIM in its deeper context, we
might be able to overcome many problems in practical manner, especially in contracting (when specifying the object
of contract), during BIM Execution Plan (BEP) creation, market standardization and further BIM development and
implementation. In the end, it is important to realize construction projects properly. There is no need for Hollywood
BIM, but on the other hand, whole BIM has already grown out of itself and as with other disciplines, proper
harmonization and clear ontology is necessary for its further development.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Technical University in Prague, grant No.
SGS17/121/OHK1/2T/11.
 Petr Matějka and Aleš Tomek / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 1080 – 1087 1087

References

[1] Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers,
Designers, Engineers and Contractors. 2. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011. ISBN 978-04-7054-137-1.
[2] Epstein, E. Implementing Successful Building Information Modeling. Norwood: Artech House, 2012. ISBN 978-16-0807-139-5.
[3] Jernigan, F. E. BIG BIM little bim. 2. Salisbury: 4Site Press, 2008. ISBN 978-09-7956-992-0.
[4] The British Standards Institution. PAS 1192-3:2014. BSI Standards Ltd., 2014. ISBN 978-0-580-83910-8.
[5] National Institute of Building Sciences. National Building Information Modeling Standard v3, 2015.
[6] Building and Construction Authority. Singapore BIM Guide Version 2 [online]. 2013 [cit. 2014-06-03]. Available at:
http://www.corenet.gov.sg/integrated_submission/bim/BIM/Singapore%20BIM%20Guide_V2.pdf
[7] Matějka, P.: Rizika související s implementací Informačního modelování budov (BIM). Doctoral Thesis. CTU in Prague, Faculty of Civil
Engineering.
[8] NBIM-US. National BIM Standard-United States. Frequently Asked Questions About the National BIM Standard-United States [online]. [cit.
2016-08-04]. Available at: https://www.nationalbimstandard.org/faqs#faq1
[9] Laiserin, J. Comparing Pommes and Naranjas., 2002 [cit. 2016-08-04]. Available: http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue15/feature01.php
[10] Crotty, R. The Impact of Building Information Modelling. Oxon: SPON Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-415-60167-2.
[11] Hardin, B. a McCool, D. BIM and Construction Management: Proven Tools, Methods, and Workflows. 2. Indianapolis: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 2015. ISBN 978-1-118-94276-5.
[12] Barnes, P. a Davies, N. BIM in Principle and in Practice. London: ICE Publishing, 2014. ISBN 978-0-7277-5863-7.
[13] Eynon, J., et al. Construction Manager's BIM Handbook. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2016. ISBN 978-1-118-89647-1.
[14] Race, S. BIM Demystified. 2. London: RIBA Publishing, 2012. ISBN 978-18-5946-373-4.
[15] Reddy, K. P. BIM for Building Owners and Developers: Making a Business Case for Using BIM on Projects. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
2012. ISBN 978-04-7090-598-2.
[16] Lévy, F. BIM in Small-Scale Sustainable Design. Wiley, 2011. ISBN 978-04-7059-089-8.
[17] Krygiel, E. and Nies, B. Green BIM: Successful Sustainable Design with Building Information Modeling. Sybex, 2008. ISBN 978-04-7023-
960-5.
[18] Park, J. and Cai, H. WBS-based dynamic multi-dimensional BIM database for total construction as-built documentation. Automation in
Construction. 77 (2017) 15-23.
[19] Chen, P.-H. and Nguyen, T.C. Integrating web map service and building information modeling for location and transportation analysis in
green building certification process. Automation in Construction. 77 (2017) 52-66.
[20] Bouška, R and Heralová, R.S. Utilization Of BIM during architectural study. CESB 2016 - Central Europe Towards Sustainable Building
2016: Innovations for Sustainable Future (2016) 677-684.
[21] Bouška, R. Evaluation of Maturity of BIM Tools across Different Software Platforms. Procedia Engineering. 164 (2016) 481-486.
[22] Zou, Y., Kiviniemi, A. and Jones, S.W. Developing a tailored RBS linking to BIM for risk management of bridge projects. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management. 23-6 (2016), 727-750.
[23] Wang, H. and Song, X.S. Research on BIM construction schedule generating algorithm. International Journal of Simulation: Systems,
Science and Technology. 16-1B (2015) 10.1-10.7.
[24] Project Risk Modelling Information and Management Framework How to enhance risk management framework improve actor mutual
understanding using BIM and Augmented reality tools. ECAADE 2015: REAL TIME - EXTENDING THE REACH OF COMPUTATION,
VOL 1. (2015) 577-584.
[25] Miettinen, R. and Paavola, S. Beyond the BIM utopia: Approaches to the development and implementation of building information
modeling. Automation in Construction. 43 (2014) 84-91.
[26] Turk, Ž. Ten questions concerning building information modelling. Building and Environment. 107 (2016) 274-284.
[27] Wang, X., Truijens, M., Hou, L., Wang, Y., Zhou, Y. Integrating Augmented Reality with Building Information Modeling: Onsite
construction process controlling for liquefied natural gas industry. Automation in Construction. 40 (2014) 96-105.
[28] Ding, L., Zhou, Y., Akinci, B. Building Information Modeling (BIM) application framework: The process of expanding from 3D to
computable nD. Automation in Construction. 46 (2014) 82-93.
[29] Smith, P. BIM implementation - Global strategies. Procedia Engineering. 85 (2014) 482-492.
[30] Chan, I. Y. S., Leung, H. Y., Fung, I. W. H. a Leung, M. How can BIM support Construction Safety Management? Development of SIM.
MATEC Web of Conferences. 66 (2016). Article number 00018.
[31] Hromada, E. Life Cycle Costing from the Investor's and Facility Manager's Point of View. Central Europe towards Sustainable Building
2016 - Innovations for Sustainable Future. (2016) 1374-1380.
[32] Macek, D., Měšťanová, D., Beran V.: Life-Cycle Cost of Bridges - First Steps to a Holistic Approach. The Baltic Journal of Road and
Bridge Engineering. 2016, 11(2), 169-178. ISSN 1822-427X.
[33] Matějka, P.; Kosina, V.; Berka, V.; Tomek, A.; Tomek, R.; Šulc, D. The Integration of BIM in Later Project Life Cycle Phases in
Unprepared Environment from FM Perspective. Procedia Engineering. 164 (2016) 550-557.
[34] Matějka, P.; Růžička, J.; Žák, J.; Hájek, P.; Tomek, A.; Kaiser, J.; Veselka, J. The Implementation of Building Information Modeling into
Educational Programs at CTU in Prague. Central Europe towards Sustainable Building 2016 - Innovations for Sustainable Future. (2016)
853-860.