Promoting Sustainability through Investment in Building Information Modeling (BIM) Technologies: A Design Company Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Building Information Modeling and Sustainability
- 4D—virtual model of the built structure with construction plans and work progress control capability; with additional possibility to prospectively visualize a virtually constructed building in any moment in time;
- 5D—cost data is fed into a 3D model coupled with the construction schedule. Benefits of the fifth dimension of BIM may consist in the higher precision and predictability of changes occurring in the project together with a more reliable cost analysis of different construction scenarios.
- 6D—introduction of sustainable development principle into the investment process with an emphasis on energy efficiency. The sixth dimension of BIM allows for obtaining information about the building’s projected energy consumption at a very early (concept) stage.
- 7D—integration of the Facility Management concept into BIM. It allows tracking of the status of given building components, their specifications and guarantee periods. The seventh dimension of BIM encompasses the management of the full life cycle of a building from the concept to the demolition.
- 8D—supplementing the model with security and healthcare information. This dimension focuses on three tasks: identification of threats resulting from chosen design and construction solutions, indication of alternatives to the most risky solutions, signaling the need to control specific risks on the construction site.
- Environmental sustainability—more environmentally conscious decisions throughout the whole life cycle of a building. Thanks to the BIM’s capacity to store, process, and share all kinds of building-related information it is possible to minimize environmental impact of the asset in relation to: energy and water consumption, used materials, waste management, carbon footprint etc.
- Economic sustainability—assuring economic viability, increasing productivity, and reducing waste. Most authors concentrate on the economic benefits that BIM poses for investors in terms of early detection of potential clashes, better engineering decisions, more efficient logistics, precise ex-ante calculation of costs throughout the whole life cycle of an asset, etc. This paper studies the question of economic viability of implementing BIM technology in design companies since this topic is currently insufficiently covered in the literature.
- Social sustainability—contributing to creating healthy and livable communities by providing tools to improve building operation in such aspects as: waste management, indoor air quality, noise pollution, safety at the construction site, more precise, and less disturbing operations on municipal infrastructure, onerousness of maintenance activities (thanks to better timing and synchronization). Moreover, sustainability-related information continuously gathered and analyzed thanks to BIM may be turned into an instrument of social engagement by involving occupants in setting common sustainability goals for their buildings, monitoring the progress, and celebrating achievements. Such use of BIM does not only contribute to “greening” of the built environment, but also encourages interaction among occupants and strengthens social bonds.
3. Benefits of Implementing BIM in A Design Company
- (1)
- improved project results (less requests for information (RFI) from customers),
- (2)
- more efficient cooperation using 3D visualizations,
- (3)
- personnel productivity improvement,
- (4)
- the positive impact on winning new contracts,
- (5)
- BIM lifecycle value, and
- (6)
- initial staff training costs.
- (1)
- user-friendliness,
- (2)
- easy sharing of information in one central file,
- (3)
- ability to perform automatic analyses (lighting, building’s location in relation to cardinal directions etc.),
- (4)
- transparency of projects,
- (5)
- detailed visualisations,
- (6)
- better conditions for designing prefabricated elements,
- (7)
- precise calculation of the needed amount of work,
- (8)
- more possibiities to innovate, and
- (9)
- avoidance of errors.
4. Research on Economic Effects of BIM-Based Design
- A-
- cost of hardware and software (EUR)
- B-
- monthly labor cost (EUR)
- C-
- training time (months)
- D-
- relative productivity loss during training in relation to the productivity before the training (percentage)
- E-
- relative productivity gain after training in relation to the productivity during the training (percentage)
- The software and hardware
- Training
- Development processes
- Interoperability solutions
- 3D library development
- Consultant services
- Increase (Gain) after investment = (12 months—training time (months)) × relative productivity gain 12 months after training in relation to the productivity during the training (times) × monthly labor costs (euro) × direct design work (times) × company works specificity (times).
- Investment Price (Cost)-software price + (training time (months)) × monthly labor costs (euro) × relative productivity loss during training in relation to the productivity before the training (times).
5. Evaluation of ROI in BIM Software
- purchasing software with required functionalities,
- expectation of improved results after BIM implementation,
- slowing down of the design process directly after BIM deployment, and
- training time after the deployment of BIM tools,
- number of employees for one project,
- time consumption for the project,
- the profitability of the project, and
- turnover rates, etc. of the company.
6. Conclusions
- The calculations have shown that the ROI of the 4500 € program is possible in five years if the service prices rise about two times (employee salary growth: 714 € → 1375 €).
- Estimated BIM software installation for the architect workplace may provide the first year ROI = 20% under the following conditions. Company’s service prices should rise about two times (714 € → 1380 €) in case of the less expensive design program and up to four times (714 € → 2560 €) when the more expensive design program is chosen.
- Estimated BIM software installation for the engineer constructor workplace may provide the first year ROI = 20% under the following conditions. It is worth for a company to invest in BIM design program, only when company is able to pay 2200 € monthly salary to an engineer (respectively, service prices will increase three times: 714 € → 2200 €).
- ROI (%) dependence on the gross wage (€/month) is almost linear. Alternatives of programs with the BIM design program possibility are compared. Less expensive program would yield ROI within one year only with the 2740€/month employee’s salary; the more expensive program—with the 5100 €/month salary.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wong, K.-D.; Fan, Q. Building information modelling (BIM) for sustainable building design. Facilities 2013, 31, 138–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giel, B.K.; Issa, R.; Olbina, S. Return on investment analysis of building information modeling in construction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering; Tizani, W., Ed.; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2010. Available online: http://www.engineering.nottingham.ac.uk/icccbe/proceedings/pdf/pf77.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2018).
- Sen, S. The Impact of BIM/VDC on ROI: Developing a Financial Model for Savings and ROI Calculation of Construction Projects. Master’s Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- The Business Value of BIM for Construction in Global Market; Smart Market Report; McGraw Hill Construction: Bedford, MA, USA, 2008.
- The Business Value of BIM for Construction in Global Market; Smart Market Report; McGraw Hill Construction: Bedford, MA, USA, 2009.
- The Business Value of BIM for Construction in Global Market; Smart Market Report; McGraw Hill Construction: Bedford, MA, USA, 2010.
- The Business Value of BIM for Construction in Global Markets; Smart Market Report; McGraw Hill Construction: Bedford, MA, USA, 2014.
- Santos, R.; Costa, A.A.; Grilo, A. Bibliometric analysis and review of Building Information Modelling literature published between 2005 and 2015. Autom. Construct. 2017, 80, 118–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Z.-Z.; Zhang, J.-P.; Yu, F.-Q.; Tian, P.-L.; Xiang, X.-S. Construction and facility management of large MEP projects using a multi-Scale building information model. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 100, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miettinen, R.; Paavola, S. Beyond the BIM utopia: Approaches to the development and implementation of building information modeling. Autom. Construct. 2014, 43, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Love Peter, E.D.; Matthews, J.; Simpson, I.; Hill, A.; Olatunji, O.A. A benefits realization management building information modeling framework for asset owners. Autom. Construct. 2014, 37, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; Anderson, K.; Lee, S.; Hildreth, J. Generating construction schedules through automatic data extraction using open BIM (building information modeling) technology. Autom. Construct. 2013, 35, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Migilinskas, D.; Ustinovichius, L. Computer-aided modelling, evaluation and management of construction project according PLM concept. Lect. Notes Computer Sci. 2006, 4101, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popov, V.; Juocevicius, V.; Migilinskas, D.; Ustinovichius, L.; Mikalauskas, S. The use of a virtual building design and construction model for developing an effective project concept in 5D environment. Autom. Construct. 2010, 19, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Future directions for IFC-based interoperability. Available online: http://www.itcon.org/2003/17 (accessed on 8 February 2018).
- Ding, L.; Zhou, Y.; Akinci, B. Building information modeling (BIM) application framework: The process of expanding from 3D to computable nD. Autom. Construct. 2014, 46, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ustinovičius, L.; Rasiulis, R.; Nazarko, L.; Vilutienė, T.; Reizgevicius, M. Innovative research projects in the field of building lifecycle management. Procedia Eng. 2015, 122, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ustinovičius, L.; Walasek, D.; Rasiulis, R.; Cepurnaite, J. Wdrażanie technologii informacyjnych w budownictwie—Praktyczne studium przypadku. Econ. Manag. 2015, 1, 290–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azhar, S.; Carlton, W.A.; Olsen, D.; Ahmad, I. Building information modeling for sustainable design and LEED® rating analysis. Autom. Construct. 2011, 20, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kibert, C.J. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
- BIM and Sustainable Design. Available online: http://buildipedia.com/aec-pros/design-news/bim-and-sustainable-design (accessed on 27 December 2017).
- Yan, H.; Damian, P. Benefits and Barriers of Building Information Modelling. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Beijing, China, 16–18 October 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Aladag, H.; Demirdögen, G.; Isık, Z. Building information modeling (BIM) use in Turkish construction industry. Procedia Eng. 2016, 161, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, J.; Sun, J.; Wang, Z.; Xu, T. The construction of BIM application value system for residential buildings’ design stage in China based on traditional DBB mode. Procedia Eng. 2017, 180, 851–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, S.; Li, C.; Hu, D.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, X. The application of BIM technology in construction management. J. Residuals Sci. Technol. 2016, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Seet, B.-C.; Lie, T.T. Building information modelling for smart built environments. Buildings 2015, 5, 100–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tulenheimo, R. Challenges of implementing new technologies in the world of BIM: Case study from construction engineering industry in Finland. Procedia Econ. Finance 2015, 21, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.-C.; Lee, H.-Y.; Yang, I.-T. Developing as-built BIM model process management system for general contractors: A case study. J. Civil Eng. Manag. 2016, 22, 608–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, J.; Zillante, G.; Xia, B.; Chan, A.; Zhao, Z. How Australian construction contractors responded to the economic downturn. Int. J. Strat. Property Manag. 2015, 19, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ning, G.; Junnan, L.; Yansong, D.; Zhifeng, Q.; Qingshan, J.; Weihua, G.; Geert, D. BIM-based PV system optimization and deployment. Energy Build. 2017, 150, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradley, A.; Li, H.; Lark, R.; Dunn, S. BIM for infrastructure: An overall review and constructor perspective. Autom. Construct. 2016, 71, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petri, I.; Beach, T.; Rana, O.F.; Rezgui, Y. Coordinating multi-site construction projects using federated clouds. Autom. Construct. 2017, 83, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porwal, A.; Hewage, K.N. Building information modeling (BIM) partnering framework for public construction projects. Autom. Construct. 2013, 31, 204–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guidelines for Digital Construction in Lithuania 2014–2020. Available online: http://www.skaitmeninestatyba.lt/files/On_development_of_BIM_and_Digital_Construction_Lithuania.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2014).
- Čereška, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Cavallaro, F.; Podvezko, V.; Tetsman, I.; Grinbergienė, I. Sustainable assessment of aerosol pollution decrease applying multiple attribute decision-making methods. Sustainability 2016, 8, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zolfani, S.H.; Maknoon, R.; Zavadskas, E.K. Multiple attribute decision making (MADM) based scenarios. Int. J. Strat. Property Manag. 2016, 20, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Książek, M.V.; Nowak, P.O.; Kivrak, S.; Rosłon, J.H.; Ustinovichius, L. Computer-aided decision-making in construction project development. J. Civil Eng. Manag. 2015, 21, 248–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bucoń, R.; Sobotka, A. Decision-making model for choosing residential building repair variants. J. Civil Eng. Manag. 2015, 21, 893–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suder, A.; Kahraman, C. Multicriteria analysis of technological innovation investments using fuzzy sets. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2016, 22, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cid-López, A.; Hornos, M.J.; Carrasco, R.A.; Herrera-Viedma, E. A hybrid model for decision-making in the information and communications technology sector. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2015, 21, 720–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hattab, M.; Hamzeh, F. Using social network theory and simulation to compare traditional versus BIM–lean practice for design error management. Autom. Construct. 2015, 52, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, D.; Wang, G.; Li, H.; Skitmore, M.; Huang, T.; Zhang, W. Practices and effectiveness of building information modelling in construction projects in China. Autom. Construct. 2015, 49, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poirier, E.A.; Staub-French, S.; Forgues, D. Measuring the impact of BIM on labor productivity in a small specialty. Autom. Construct. 2015, 58, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azhar, S. Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the AEC industry. Leader. Manag. Eng. 2011, 11, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walasek, D.; Barszcz, A. Analysis of the adoption rate of building information modeling [BIM] and its return on investment [ROI]. Procedia Eng. 2017, 172, 1227–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Zwainy, F.M.S.; Mohammed, I.A.; Al-Shaikhli, K.A.K. Diagnostic and assessment benefits and barriers of BIM in construction project management. Civ. Eng. J. Tehran 2017, 3, 63–77. [Google Scholar]
- Johansson, M.; Roupé, M.; Bosch-Sijtsema, P. Real-time visualization of building information models (BIM). Autom. Construct. 2015, 54, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giel, B.; Issa, R. Return on investment analysis of using building information modeling in construction. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2013, 27, 511–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Love, P.; Simpson, I.; Hill, A.; Standing, C. From justification to evaluation: Building information modeling for asset owners. Autom. Construct. 2013, 35, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, R.; Hancock, C.M.; Tang, L.; Wanatowski, D. BIM investment, returns, and risks in China’s AEC industries. J. Const. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, Y.; Storey, V.C.; Woo, C.C. Conceptual modeling for financial investment with text mining. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2015, 9381, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Won, J.; Lee, G. How to tell if a BIM project is successful: A goal-driven approach. Autom. Construct. 2016, 69, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barlish, K.; Sullivan, K. How to measure the benefits of BIM: A case study approach. Autom. Construct. 2012, 24, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, G.; Park, H.K.; Won, J. D-3 city project: Economic impact of BIM-assisted design validation. Autom. Construct. 2012, 22, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calculating BIM’s Return on Investment. Available online: http://www.cadalyst.com/aec/calculating-bim039s-return-investment-2858 (accessed on 20 February 2018).
- Return on Investment with Autodesk Revit. Autodesk Building Solutions White Paper. Available online: http://usa.autodesk.com/revit/white-papers/ (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- Chi, H.-L.; Wang, X.; Jiao, Y. BIM-enabled structural design: Impacts and future developments in structural modelling, analysis and optimisation processes. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2015, 22, 135–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashcraft, H.; Shelden, R.D. BIM Implementation Strategies, Hanson Bridgett, Gehry Technologies, 2015. Available online: http://www.nibs.org/?page=bsa_proceedings (accessed on 10 March 2015).
- Reizgevičius, M.; Reizgevičiūtė, L.; Ustinovičius, L. The need of BIM technologies implementation to design companies. Econ. Manag. 2015, 7, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ejdys, J.; Matuszak-Flejszman, A. New management systems as an instrument of implementation sustainable development concept at organizational level. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 16, 202–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazarko, J.; Chodakowska, E. Measuring productivity of construction industry in Europe with data envelopment analysis. Procedia Eng. 2015, 122, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radziszewski, P.; Nazarko, J.; Vilutiene, T.; Dębkowska, K.; Ejdys, J.; Gudanowska, A.; Halicka, K.; Kilon, J.; Kononiuk, A.; Kowalski, J.K. Future trends in road technologies development in the context of environmental protection. Baltic J. Road Bridge Eng. 2016, 11, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Expected productivity loss after starting to use BIM software | 34% |
Time needed to restore efficiency to the previous level | 2.3 month |
Maximum productivity gain after staff training | 31% |
Time period for the productivity to reach the maximum level | 4.8 month |
Alternative | Cost of the Program, € (with Taxes) | Computer Settings | Cost of the Annual Subscription, € | Suggested Training Time, Hours | Cost of the Training for 1 Person, € |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
I (architect work place) | 4485.64 | 64-bit operating system 4GB RAM internal memory Processor: dual-core | 588.74 | 40/1 workplace | 173.77 (4.34 €/hour) |
II | 562.0 | 1GB RAM internal memory Processor: Intel® Pentium 4 1.5 Ghz or equvalent AMD® | 242.0 | Unnecessary | Unnecessary |
III (architect + engineer workplace) | 23,788.6 (8349 + 15,439.60) | 64-bit operating system 4GB RAM internal memory Single- or Multi-Core Intel® Pentium®, Xeon®, or i-Series processor or AMD® | 3218,.6 (1089.0 + 2129.6) | 24/1 workplace | 1250 (52.08 €/hour) |
Variable Symbol | ROI “Autodesk Revit” | Numeric Value | ROI “ROI-DC” | Numeric Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | Cost of software, $ | 6000 $ | Cost of software 1, € | 4485,64; 562 € *; 15,439.60 € |
B | Monthly labor cost, $ | 4200 $ | Monthly labor cost 2, € | (713.9) |
C | Training time, months | 3 months | Training time 3, months | 2 months |
D | Relative productivity loss during training, % | 50% | Relative productivity loss during training 4, % | 0.34 |
E | Relative productivity gain after training, % | 25% | Relative productivity gain after training 5, times | 0.31 |
F | Used in Revit ROI calculations, but direct position was not found | 82% | Direct design work 6, times | 0.82 |
NEW VARIABLES | ||||
G | - | - | Company‘s work specificity 7, times | 0.465 |
First Year ROI, % | 61% | First Year ROI, % | xxx |
Variable Symbol | ROI Autodesk Revit | Numeric Value | ROI “ROI-DC” | Numeric Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | Cost of software, € | 4485.64 € | Cost of software, € | 4485.64 € |
B | Monthly labor cost, € | 714 € | Monthly labor cost, € | 714 € |
C | Training time, months | 2.3 months | Training time, months | 2.3 months |
D | Productivity lost during training, % | 34% | Productivity lost during training, % | 0.34 |
E | Productivity gain after training, % | 0.31% | Productivity gain after training, times | 0.31 |
New Variables | ||||
F | Used in Revit ROI calculations, but direct position was not found | 82% | Direct design work, times | 0.82 |
G | - | - | Company‘s work specificity, times | 0.465 |
First Year ROI, % | 32% | First Year ROI, % | −31.4 |
Variable Symbol | Numeric Value | Numeric Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
A | 4485.64 € | 4485.64 € | ||
B | 1375 € | 1375 € | ||
C | 2.3 months | 2.3 months | ||
D | 34% | 0.34 | ||
E | 31% | 0.31 | ||
F | 82% | 0.82 | ||
G | - | 0.465 | ||
ROI Autodesk Revit | 57% | ROI “ROI-DC” | 20% |
Variable Symbol | Numeric Value | Numeric Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
A | 4485.64 € | 4485.64 € | ||
B | 714 € | 714 € | ||
C | 2.3 months | 2.3 months | ||
D | 34% | 0.34 | ||
E | 31% | 0.31 | ||
F | 82% | 0.82 | ||
G | - | not evaluated | ||
ROI Autodesk Revit | 17% | ROI “ROI-DC” | −22% |
Alternative | General Program (Package) Price (With Taxes) | Cost of One Workplace, € | BIM Design Function | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Architect | Engineer-Constructor | |||
I | 4485.64 | 4485.64 | + | |
II | 562 | 562 | − | |
III | 20,570 | 8349 | 15,439.60 | + |
Variable Symbol | Numeric Value Alternative I | Numeric Value Alternative II | Numeric Value Alternative III |
---|---|---|---|
A | 4485.64 € | 562 € | 8349 € |
B | 714 € | 714 € | 714 € |
C | 2.3 months | - | 2.3 months |
D | 0.34 | - | 0.34 |
E | 0.31 | - | 0.31 |
F | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.82 |
G | 0.465 | 0.465 | 0.465 |
First Year ROI, “ROI-DC” | −31.4% | 481.3% | −61.2% |
Variable Symbol | Numeric Value Alternative I | Numeric Value Alternative III |
---|---|---|
A | 4485.64 € | 8349 € |
B | 1380 € | 2560 € |
C | 2.3 months | 2.3 months |
D | 0.34 | 0.34 |
E | 0.31 | 0.31 |
F | 0.82 | 0.82 |
G | 0.465 | 0.465 |
First year ROI, “ROI-DC” | 20% | 20% |
Rise in price of design services, times | 1.93 | 3.59 |
Variable Symbol | Numeric Value Alternative I | Numeric Value Alternative II | Numeric Value Alternative III |
---|---|---|---|
A | 4485.64 € | 562 € | 15,439.60 € |
B | 714 € | 714 € | 714 € |
C | 2.3 months | - | 2.3 months |
D | 0.34 | - | 0.34 |
E | 0.31 | - | 0.31 |
F | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.82 |
G | 0.465 | 0.465 | 0.465 |
First year ROI, “ROI-DC” | −31.4% | 481.3% | −78.4% |
Variable Symbol | Numerical Value Alternative III |
---|---|
A | 15,439.60 € |
B | 2200 € |
C | 2.3 months |
D | 0.34 |
E | 0.31 |
F | 0.82 |
G | 0.9 |
1 year “ROI-DC” | 20% |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Reizgevičius, M.; Ustinovičius, L.; Cibulskienė, D.; Kutut, V.; Nazarko, L. Promoting Sustainability through Investment in Building Information Modeling (BIM) Technologies: A Design Company Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030600
Reizgevičius M, Ustinovičius L, Cibulskienė D, Kutut V, Nazarko L. Promoting Sustainability through Investment in Building Information Modeling (BIM) Technologies: A Design Company Perspective. Sustainability. 2018; 10(3):600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030600
Chicago/Turabian StyleReizgevičius, Marius, Leonas Ustinovičius, Diana Cibulskienė, Vladislavas Kutut, and Lukasz Nazarko. 2018. "Promoting Sustainability through Investment in Building Information Modeling (BIM) Technologies: A Design Company Perspective" Sustainability 10, no. 3: 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030600