Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose This paper aims to explore and review the critical perspectives of stakeholders in the facility management (FM) industry as regards the barriers to building information modelling (BIM) integration, with the view to providing significant insights to mitigate the barriers to BIM implementation. Design/methodology/approach An extensive literature review was conducted to identify critical barriers to BIM–FM integration. Ten categories of barriers were identified from the literature review and used to design a Likert scale-based questionnaire, which was administered to registered members of International Facility Management Association based in Lagos, Nigeria. The data collected were analysed using both descriptive (mean score, standard deviation, frequency tables and charts) and inferential statistics (Shapiro–Wilk and Kruskal–Wallis tests). Findings The descriptive and inferential analysis demonstrated a disparity in the ranking of the ten barriers among the groups. Six (out of ten) barriers to BIM implementation for FM practices are identified as critical (mean score greater than 4.0): insufficient awareness levels of BIM–FM integration benefits, non-existence of contractual and legal framework for BIM implementation, limited studies on BIM–FM inter-relationship, poor acceptance levels and resistance to change among stakeholders, perception of BIM and inadequacy of mode data. And the results of the one-sample t-tests show that there were statistically significant differences in the six. Practical implications This study offers significant insights to industry stakeholders in understanding BIM implementation barriers in FM, as well as the framework for mitigating them. These findings could also be applied to other developing countries, with special consideration given to locational differences. Originality/value The valuable information provided in this study could be used as a roadmap to improve BIM–FM practice implementation in Nigeria. It also measured differences in the opinions of professionals.
Okwe et al. (Tue,) studied this question.