La implementación de BIM es una cuestión política

10Feb15

THE ROLE POLICY MAKERS (CAN) PLAY IN BIM ADOPTION

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.

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:

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).

Policy-Action-Patterns-Sample

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).

Read the full article here

Advertisements


No Responses Yet to “La implementación de BIM es una cuestión política”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: