The Point of Adoption (PoA) model is a distillation of three implementation phases: readiness, capability, and maturity. As a term, PoA identifies the juncture(s) where organizational readiness transforms into organizational capability/maturity. It also identifies the juncture(s) where technological invention and a procedural innovation transforms into organizational - as well as market wide - diffusion:

Point of Adoption model v1.1 (full size, current version)

As explored in Figure 1 above, transformative BIM adoption starts at the Point of Adoption (PoA) when an organization, after a period of planning and preparation (readiness), successfully adopts object-based modelling tools and workflows. The PoA[1] thus marks the initial capability jump from no BIM abilities (pre-BIM status) to minimum BIM capability (Stage 1). As the adopter interacts with other adopters, a second capability jump (Stage 2) marks the organization’s ability to successfully engage in model-based collaboration. Also, as the organisation starts to engage with multiple stakeholders across the supply chain, a third capability jump (Stage 3) is necessary to benefit from integrated, network-based tools, processes and protocols (refer back to BIM Stages).

Each of these capability jumps is preceded with considerable investment in human and physical resources, and each stage signals new organizational abilities and deliverables not available before the jump. However, the deliverables of different organizations at the same stage may vary in quality, repeatability and predictability (refer to BIM Maturity Index). This variance in performance excellence occurs as organizations climb their respective BIM maturity curve, experience their internal BIM diffusion, and gradually improve their performance over time[2].

The multiple maturity curves depicted in Figure 1 reflect the heterogeneous nature of BIM adoption even within the same organization (e.g. sample Organization X) has a compiled rating of 1c, 2b and 3a). This is due to the phased nature of BIM with each revolutionary stage requiring its own readiness ramp, capability jump, maturity climb, and point of adoption. This is also due to varied abilities across organizational sub-units and project teams: while organizational unit A1 (within Organization A) may have elevated model-based collaboration capabilities, unit A2 may have basic modelling capabilities, and unit A3 may still be preparing to implement BIM software tools. This variance in ability necessitates a compiled rating for organization A as it simultaneously prepares for an innovative solution, implements a system/process, and continually improves its performance.

Update (May, 2016): below is a short video explaining the above on the Framework's YouTube channel:

NBP Relevance Index - Sample Chart v0.2 (Full Size Image - 102Kb)

The Relevance Metric is primarily used to compare the relevance (impact, currency and authority) of one entity relative to another, or relative to a specific stakeholder group. For example the Noteworthy BIM Publication Relevance Index (NBP-RI) compares the relevance of an NBP relative to other NBPs within and across markets. It can be also used to establish the relevance of an NBP to a group of practitioners, policy makers or researchers at a specific organizational scale - e.g. the relevance of NBIMS-US to contractors in the US (OrgScale 2), or relevance of PAS1192-4 to facility owners worldwide (OrgScale1). 

Relevance is measured using a five-level index (R0-R4). Below is an explanation of each level as applied within Paper B2:

• R0 - Redundant: the NBP includes out-dated information which is no longer usable or useful
• R1 - Relevant: the NBP is relevant, current and contains actionable information
• R2 - Regarded: the NBP is highly-relevant, well-cited and well-used in comparison to other similar-topic NBPs
• R3 - Recommended: the NBP is authoritative and impactful and considered a reference (among other references)
• R4 - Requisite: the NBP is the most authoritative document covering a specific topic

Please note that the NBP-RI applies to all types of noteworthy publications. However, academic articles and scientific papers typically resort to more specialised metrics for establishing topical relevance and publications' overall impact.

Macro Maturity Components  - v1.2 full size (500Kb),  older version 1.1 (277Kb)

Also Available in Italian

The Macro Maturity Components model (upadated Nov 17, 2014) identifies eight complementary components for measuring and establishing the relative and absolute BIM maturity of Macro Organizational Scales (Market, Defined Market and Sub-Market). The eight components are:

1. Objectives, stages and milestones
2. Champions and drivers
3. Regulatory framework
4. Noteworthy publications
5. Learning and education
6. Measurements and benchmarks
7. Standardised parts and deliverables
8. Technology infrastructure

The components are measured individually and collectively using the BIM Maturity Index (BIMMI) which includes 5 levels: (a) initial/ad-hoc, (b) defined, (c) managed, (d) integrated, and (e) optimised.

Note: the Macro Maturity Components model is discussed in BIM ThinkSpace Episode 22 (published Jan 27, 2015).

 Individual Competency Index  (v1.4 full size - older version v1.2)

The Individual Competency Index (ICI) measures both  conceptual knowledge (referred to as knowledge) and procedural knowledge (referred to as skill) which are needed by individuals in order to perform a defined activity or deliver a measureable outcome. 

The ICI identifies five competency levels (0-4):

• Level 0 (none) denotes a lack of competence in a specific area or topic;
• Level 1 (basic) denotes an understanding of fundamentals and some initial practical application;
• Level 2 (intermediate) denotes a solid conceptual understanding and some practical application;
• Level 3 (advanced) denotes significant conceptual knowledge and practical experience in performing a competency to a consistently high standard; and
• Level 4 (expert) denotes extensive knowledge, refined skill and prolonged experience in performing a defined competency at the highest standard.

The index also identifies two competency divides: the learning divide separating level 0 from level 1, and the time/repetition divide separating level 3 from level 4.

However, although the ICI measures both knowledge and skill, it does not measure personal traits (typically referred to as attitude) which require specialized psychometric indices similar to Myers-Briggs and RIASEC. Also, the ICI only measures the abilities of individuals and - by extension, the aggregate abilities of a group of individuals -  but does not measure the abilities of organizations, organizational teams or larger organizational scales (refer to BIM Capability Stages and BIM Maturity Levels).

For a BIM perspective of how to apply the ICI in assessing BIM competencies, please refer to this article on BIMThinkspace.

The BIM Maturity Index (BIMMI) is a conceptual model depicting five distinct Maturity Levels:

The progression from lower to higher levels of BIM Maturity indicates (i) better control through minimizing variations between targets and actual results, (ii) better predictability and forecasting by lowering variability in competency, performance and costs and (iii) greater effectiveness in reaching defined goals and setting new more ambitious ones. BIMMI apply to BIM Stages and BIM Steps at organizational or larger scales (e.g. Disciplines, Industries and Markets). 

Update (July, 2015) - below is a short video explaining the above on the Framework's YouTube channel:

The BIM Framework introduces the stages separating Pre-BIM (the status before BIM) from viDCO (virtually integrated Design, Construction and Operation) - the ultimate vision from implementing BIM. These revolutionary stages, and the evolutionary steps separating them, are intended to both clarify and measure BIM adoption.

Note 1: this model depicts BIM Capability Stages at Maturity Level C...Also, starting in Paper A4, the term viDCO replaces the term IPD as used earlier in Papers A2 and A3

Note 2: The ‘BIM Stages’ model was first introduced by the author through BIM ThinkSpace (Episode 8 – Feb 18, 2008) and then published in Paper A2 as ‘BIM Maturity Stages’. As of Paper A3, the BIM capability/maturity concept embedded in the original model was split into two metrics/models: BIM Capability Stages and BIM Maturity Levels.

Update (July, 2015) - below is a short video explaining the above on the Framework's YouTube channel: