Bridging the BIM Maturity Gap in Developing Country: A Change and Knowledge Management Framework for Enhancing Project Values

Despite the growing global adoption of Building Information Modeling (BIM), many construction companies, particularly in developing countries, struggle to transform BIM from a digital tool into a value creating capability. This study evaluates the persistent gap between BIM adoption and project performance, particularly in terms of time, cost, and quality. Drawing from a real case in an Indonesian construction company, this study applies a mixed-methods approach to evaluate BIM maturity, identify organizational barriers, and propose an integrated strategy for advancing maturity levels. Guided by the ADKAR change management framework and the SECI knowledge management framework, this study formulates strategic interventions aligned with the project values. The findings reveal that low BIM maturity stems not merely from technological constraints but from deeper organizational issues such as limited interdisciplinary collaboration, weak knowledge retention, and inconsistent digital policies. This study proposes a scalable framework for aligning BIM implementation with value creation in construction projects, providing actionable insights for companies in similar contexts globally. 

Introduction

Background

Digital transformation in the construction industry continues to evolve through the adaptation of technologies such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) with its enabling technologies (Tulubas Gokuc & Arditi, 2017;Abd Jamil & Fathi, 2020), with global adotion rates increasing rapidly (Thulgharia & Sumant, 2023). However, research shows that high BIM adoption does not automatically translate to high BIM maturity or improved project outcomes (Poirieret al., 2017; Succaret al., 2013). Particularly in developing countries such as Indonesia, where construction companies face systemic challenges in embedding BIM across technological, organizational, and cultural layers.

In many cases, BIM still remains a documentation or visualization tool, Failing to fully support integrated project delivery and real time decision making. The BIM Maturity Matrix (BIM3) developed by Succar (2009) highlights achieving higher maturity requires more than software deployment but also demands a shift in organizational capabilities and strategic alignment.

This paper responds to this gap by presenting a real-world case of BIM implementation in a developing country. It frames BIM maturity not as a technical end, but as an enabler for increasing project value through effective change and knowledge management.

The Objectives of the Research

The primary objectives of this research include:

1. Assess the current level of BIM maturity in a construction company in Indonesia and evaluate the underlying barriers that hinder the advancement of the maturity.

2. Develop a strategy as business solution to bridge the gap using a change and knowledge management framework.

Literature Review

The focus of the study includes theories and concepts regarding BIM maturity and its organizational impact, relation of BIM and project values, and adoption challenges in developing country. The results are expected to describe current state of the BIM implementation and then determine the strategy to improve construction project value.

BIM Maturity and Its Organizational Impact

The BIM Maturity Matrix (BIM3) developed by Succar (2009) identify levels of maturity from ad-hoc use to fully integrated and optimized digital environments. The core of the matrix contains three components such as BIM Competency Sets, BIM Capability Stages, and Organizational Hierarchy and Scale. Higher maturity correlates with standardized processes, cross-functional collaboration, and improved information interoperability (Succaret al., 2010). Organizations that achieve maturity are able to use BIM not only as a design tool but as a central platform for project governance and decision making.

However, research also shows that many company plateau at low maturity levels, often due to non-technical factors such as resistance to change, lack of leadership commitment, and inadequate knowledge-sharing mechanisms (Poirieret al., 2017). The absence of a clear roadmap and performance monitoring structures often leads to fragmented adoption, which undermines long term digital transformation goals.

BIM and Project Values

Traditional project success metrics commonly referred to the triple constrains such as time, cost, and quality have evolved toward a broader understanding of project values (Atkinson, 1999; PMI (Project Management Institute), 2015). The project values include tangible outputs (for instance reduced rework, cost saving, increasing in productivity) and intangible outputs (for instance stakeholder satisfaction, innovation, reputation).

In particular, higher maturity enables improved schedule coordination through 4D simulation, more accurate quantity take-offs and budgeting through 5D modeling, and clash detection to prevent costly redesigns. These features align with the triple constrains dimensions and support value creation by minimizing waste and increasing transparency.

Challenges in Developing Country

Studies from developing regions reveal unique barriers to BIM maturity such as fragmented project structures and vision, limited human resource capabilities, unclear policies, and the absence of vendor readiness (Zhaoet al., 2014; Elghaishet al., 2019). These systemic issues hinder full integration of BIM and its intended value creation.

In developing country where digital standards are either non-existent or not enforced, project stakeholders often lack incentives to adopt interoperable models or maintain data fidelity. The supply chain is rarely BIM-ready, and the absence of regulatory pressure means that digital procurement and contract integration remain underdeveloped. These findings support the need for maturity models that go beyond technical checklists to include behavioral and strategic transformation.

Change Management

Change management is a systematic approach that addresses the transition process from a current state to a desired future state within an organization, utilizing knowledge, tools, and resources to achieve sustainable benefits (Winardi, 2015; Wibowo, 2007; Oakland & Tanner, 2007). In this study centers on the ADKAR framework, a phased approach to change developed by Hiatt (2006). The model comprises five key elements: (a) Awareness: recognizing the need for change and fostering early engagement; (b) Desire: an individual’s internal motivation to support and participate in the change process; (c) Knowledge: understanding how to effectively implement the change; (d) Ability: the individual’s skills and competencies required to adopt new behaviors; and (e) Reinforcement: establishing mechanisms to sustain the change over time.

Knowledge Management

Knowledge management has emerged as a strategic organizational asset to enhance performance and gain a competitive edge in the face of growing global complexity and data intensity (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Webb, 1998). It involves a structured approach to capturing, sharing, and utilizing both tacit and explicit knowledge, where tacit knowledge is deeply personal and experiential (Polanyi, 1966), and explicit knowledge is codified and easily disseminated (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) SECI model conceptualizes the dynamic interaction between these two knowledge types through four processes: socialization (tacit to tacit), externalization (tacit to explicit), combination (explicit to explicit), and internalization (explicit to tacit). This spiral of knowledge creation enables continuous organizational learning and innovation by converting individual insights into shared organizational knowledge and vice versa, supported by tools such as mentoring, documentation, databases, training, and practical application.

Methodology of the Research

The research adopts a mixed-methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative methods to ensure comprehensive analysis. The quantitative method uses BIM3 assessment covering five components. The scoring scale follows Succar’s five-point scale with maturity levels categorized as initial, defined, managed, integrated, and optimized. The qualitative method uses focus group discussions (FGDs) and interviews with cross-functional project stakeholders including engineers, project managers, and BIM specialists. Qualitative insights helped contextualize numerical findings and identify root causes. For the mixed-methods approach allowed triangulation of data and more robust strategy formulation. Strategic responses were then designed using the ADKAR framework and the SECI framework.

Results and Discussion

Findings and Analysis

The assessment of BIM maturity in the selected case reveals considerable gaps across all evaluated components. Each component is analyzed in detail to identify strategic implications and potential interventions based on change and knowledge management principles (Table I).

Table I. Finding from the Assessment

No	Component	Finding	Implication
1	Technology competency (score: 2.43-managed; target: 3.00-managed; gap: −0.57).	Software usage has been standardized across several tools (such as Revit, Microsoft Project, Naviswork, Cubicost), but software interoperability is lacking. Premium hardware is centralized, and existing common data environment (CDE) is underutilized across departments.	Effective technology implementation requires role-based digital training aligned with ADKAR’s knowledge and ability stages. SECI-driven documentation platforms can foster peer-based learning. Digital champions and internal helpdesks should be established to reinforce skills and resolve technical constraints.
2	Process competency (score: 1.98-defined; target: 3.00-managed; gap: −1.02).	Although digital workflows exist, teams often revert to conventional methods due to field pressure. Clash detection is incomplete, and LoD 400–500 modeling is rare.	The SECI framework enables structured learning across project. Processes such as clash resolution should be codified and reused. ADKAR’s reinforcement component should be embedded through coaching and project debriefs.
3	Policy competency (score: 2.21-managed; target: 3.00-managed; gap: −0.79).	Existing policies are generic and rarely enforced. Contracts lack of detail regarding BIM data responsibilities.	Policies should be developed as dynamic reference tools. Participatory change mechanisms, including staff involvement in SOP revisions can improve ownership and clarity.
4	BIM capability stage (score: 2.45-managed; target: 3.00-managed; gap: −0.55).	While collaborative workflows have emerged, digital decision making remains inconsistent. Managerial users hesitate to use BIM data.	Cultural change is necessary to build trust in digital data. Management training should reframe leadership roles as facilitators of integration, supported by cross-functional dashboards and data validation.
5	Micro organization scale (score: 2.33-managed; target: 3.00-managed; gap: −0.67).	The project teams show functional BIM role assignments but lack of structured mentoring.	Peer mentoring and BIM bootcamps should be institutionalized. Reflection journals and knowledge-sharing sessions enable tacit knowledge transfer as outlined in the SECI cycle.
6	Meso organization scale (score: 2.01-managed; target: 3.00-managed; gap: −0.99).	Middle-tier roles (QS, scheduler) do not fully engage with BIM data. There is no framework for interdisciplinary training or escalation procedures.	Role-specific BIM applications should be defined, with mandatory simulation sessions involving cross- departmental interaction. Escalation structures should be visible and accessible.
7	Macro organization scale (score: 1.31-defined; target: 3.00-managed; gap: −1.69).	BIM awareness among vendors and external partners is low. The absence of national standards discourages supply chain integration.	The company should initiate partnerships with universities, regulators, and suppliers to promote shared BIM object libraries. Incentive program for BIM-compliant vendors can accelerate industry alignment.

Formulating the Strategy Based on Findings

To address the gaps identified, a dual pronged strategic approach was developed, integrating ADKAR for organizational change and SECI for sustainable knowledge management (Table II).

Table II. Formulating the Strategy Based on Findings

No	Component	Strategy based on ADKAR	Strategy based on SECI	Project values
1	Technology	1. Awareness: socialization of the importance of interoperability.2. Desire: activation of BIM champions.3. Ability: role-based training.	1. Socialization: cross-project technical discussion forum.2. Combination: interoperability SOP template between tools.	Rework reduction, digital input-output efficiency, time-to-decision acceleration.
2	Process	1. Awareness: demo of clash detection benefits.2. Reinforcement: BIM KPI integration.3. Ability: real project case simulation.	1. Externalization: clash solution documentation.2. Internalization: 4D, 5D, and quality staging in model (LoD) real-case training.	Improving design quality, preventing cross-functional coordination errors.
3	Policy	1. Desire: involve users in drafting SOP.2. Knowledge: digital onboarding of policies.3. Reinforcement: compliance-based monitoring.	1. Combination: SOP and contracts as policy library.2. Internalization: training on regulatory obligations.	Encourage formal collaboration, reduce ambiguity and disputed over responsibilities.
4	BIM capability	1. Awareness: trust in model campaign.2. Desire: role reframing managers as BIM champions.3. Reinforcement: feedback loop via CDE.	1. Socialization: FGD between functions for feedback on model usage.2. Externalization: draft cross-function collaboration guide.	Improve quality of design coordination and data-based decisions.
5	Micro organization scale	1. Awareness: visualization of work integration.2. Ability: peer mentoring project based.3. Reinforcement: BIM coaching assignments.	1. Socialization: Pairing junior senior in modeling.2. Combination: internal technical learning modules.	Improved model output accuracy, reduced errors in technical documents.
6	Meso organization scale	1. Desire: use-case role-based training. 2. Ability: cross functional collaborative training. 3. Reinforcement: escalation and collaborative reporting.	1. Socialization: cross-functional workshops.2. Combination: BIM data integration templates for QS, scheduler, and drafter.	Provides integrated real-time data for cost and time control.
7	Macro organization scale	1. Awareness: educate vendors through associations.2. Desire: incentivize digital objects.3. Reinforcement: contractual rules on BIM object standards.	1. Externalization: BIM object guidelines for vendors.2. Combination: benchmark projects with digital standard vendors.	Procurement efficiency, specification consistency, reduced remodeling time.

1. Intervention strategies based on ADKAR framework.

• Awareness: Executives must drive campaigns to educate all levels on the long-term business value of BIM maturity.

• Desire: enhancing KPIs should include specific BIM goals. Rewards and recognition should target both individual contributors and team achievements.

• Knowledge: a modular training structure, tailored to each project role and maturity level, should be institutionalized.

• Ability: BIM champions should lead functional pods that apply BIM daily, supported by toolkits and standard work templates.

• Reinforcement: BIM scorecards should be reviewed quarterly to reinforce expectations. Leaders must consistently communicate progress.

2. Intervention strategies based on using SECI framework.

• Socialization: informal exchanges through community forums, site visits, and paired team arrangements should be structured.

• Externalization: project documentation should include BIM data logs, process maps, and lessons learned.

• Combination: centralized repositories with tagging protocols and visual workflows can reduce duplication and accelerate onboarding

• Internalization: experiential learning model walkthroughs, gamified clash detection exercises, and project retrospectives should be part of every project closeout.

The strategy formulation reveals that efforts to increase the maturity should be integrated with comprehensive change management across organizational and process levels. The identified gaps extend beyond technology and procedures to include user behavior, cross-functional coordination, and external ecosystem readiness. Using the ADKAR framework, each strategy is aligned with the required stage of individual and organizational change. Complementing this, the SECI framework facilitates dynamic knowledge creation and sharing from socialization among personnels at the micro level to the standardization and integration of BIM practices across the supply chain at the macro level.

Conclusion

The BIM maturity in developing country cannot be improved by technology alone. It requires synchronized organizational readiness, behavioral change, and continuous learning. The dual framework proposed in this study offers a pragmatic path for construction companies to align digital adoption with strategic value delivery. This framework contributes both academically, by linking two widely accepted management frameworks, and practically, by offering a flexible roadmap adaptable across firms and regions. Future research should explore how policy environments and public-sector procurement can accelerate BIM maturity across entire ecosystems.

Conflict of Interest

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.