This conceptual model (Figure 1) clarifies how BIM Field types (technology, process and policy) interact with BIM Capability Stages (modelling, collaboration and integration) to generate nine areas for targeted BIM diffusion analysis and BIM diffusion planning:

Figure 1. Diffusion Areas model v1.0 (full size, current version)

The nine diffusion areas, explored in the below table, can be assessed independently or collectively. For example, the diffusion of BIM software tools within a population (modelling technologies [1TE]) can be assessed separately, and using different assessment methods, than establishing the proliferation of integrated project delivery contracts (integration policies [3PO]). Also, the diffusion of multidisciplinary BIM educational curricula (collaboration policies [2PO]) can be assessed separately, or in combination with, the proliferation of collaborative BIM roles and responsibilities (collaboration processes [2PR]).

Table 1. Diffusion Areas matrix (with sample granular metrics within each diffusion area)

The nine diffusion areas, their structured subdivisions and combinations, provide an opportunity for granular assessments of BIM diffusion within a population of adopters. Rather than being treated uniformly as a single set of data, or separated into disparate topics without an underlying conceptual structure, the Diffusion Areas’ model (Figure 1) allows the generation of targeted ratings for comparative market analysis - as exemplified in Figure 2:

Figure 2. Diffusion Areas Comparison sample chart v1.1 - updated April 24, 2016  (full size, current version)

Below is a short video explaining the above, as available on the Framework's YouTube channel:

Please note that the above model, table and chart are part of five macro adoption models collated within "Succar, B., & Kassem, M. (2015). Macro-BIM adoption: Conceptual structures. Automation in Construction, 57, 64-79". Download full paper from here: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA8

Noteworthy BIM publications (NBP)s are publically-available documents developed by various industry and academic entities; aimed at a wide audience; and intended to promote BIM understanding, regulate BIM implementation or mandate BIM requirements. These publications encapsulate extensive BIM-focused knowledge; collate significant domain expertise; and represent a substantial effort within the BIM domain.

NBPs are identified based on explicit ontological structures derived from the interaction of BIM Fields and BIM Lenses:

• NBPs are documents (i.e. not websites, blogs or similar);
• NBPs reflect BIM knowledge (i.e. publications focused on BIM skill are excluded);
• NBPs are the deliverables of BIM players (i.e. publications delivered by players from other industries are excluded);
• NBPs cover relevant BIM topics (i.e. publications covering pre-BIM topics are excluded);
• NBPs are macroscopic (i.e. documents aimed at small groups of practitioners or students are excluded); and
• NBPs are selected and organized by country of origin

Using these framework-based delimitations, NBPs represent numerous types of published documents spanning industry initiatives, peer-reviewed journals, self-published books and other noteworthy publications.

Updated April 18, 2014... BIM Capability Sets is a taxonomy representing BIM Player’s abilities to satisfy a BIM Requirement or generate a BIM Deliverable. A BIM Capability Set is a hierarchical collection of BIM abilities identified using the BIM Framework ( (refer to Structure of BIM Capability Sets) for the purposes of BIM implementation and assessment. 

Please note that the term BIM Capability Sets is used for staged capability improvement at Organizational Scales 1-10 (thus excludes OScales 12 Individual and 11 Group). It should not be confused with the BIM Competency Hierarchy (with Competency Tiers, Competency Sets and Competency Topics), the taxonomy used for contiuous performance improvement at OScales 9-12.

The three BIM Fields overlap as they share players and deliverables. This overlap between fields occurs when:

(1) A deliverable requires players from two or more fields. For example, the development and  implementation of Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) across the construction industry require the joint efforts of Policy players (researchers and policy makers) and Technology players (software developers).

(2) Players pertaining to one field generate deliverables classified in another. For example, the Australian Institute of Architects is an ‘industry body’ whose members are Process players (architects) generating Policy deliverables (guidelines and best practices) rather than Process deliverables (building designs and construction details).

Legend: the letters within the model correspond to the following overlaps:

(a) Sample Policy-Process overlap: Industry body (BIM player) and Continuous Professional Development (CPD) training (BIM deliverable);

(b) Sample Policy-Technology overlap: Interoperability standards (BIM deliverable);

(c) Sample Process-Technology overlap: Communities of Practice  (BIM player); and

(d) Sample Policy-Process-Technology overlap: BIM Implementation (BIM deliverable), BIM specialists – individuals and groups (BIM players). 

BIM Interactions are push-pull knowledge transactions occurring within or between BIM Fields and sub-Fields. Push mechanisms transfer knowledge to another field or sub-field while pull mechanisms transfer knowledge to satisfy a request by another field or sub-field. Sample transactions include data transfers, team dynamics and contractual relationships between fields and sub-fields.

Download full size image (current v2.5 - 2012),  (v2.0 - 2010), (v1.2 - 2008) or (v1.1 - 2007)

This conceptual model represents BIM Fields, the first dimension of the Tri-axial Model. BIM Fields refer to all topics, activities, and actors across the BIM domain. The Venn diagram (three overlapping circles) identifies Field Types (Technology, Process and Policy), Field Components (Players, Deliverables and Requirements), Field interactions and Field overlaps.

The model was first referred to as ‘three interlocking knowledge nodes’ in Paper A1 "A Proposed Framework". The term ‘nodes’ was later replaced with ‘fields’ to match the notion of ‘players’.

Below is a short video briefly explaining the above on the dedicated BIM Framework YouTube channel: