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

Lenses and Filters are investigative tools of enquiry and domain analysis allowing the discovery of concepts and relations. The difference between (BIM) Lenses and Filters can be summarised as such: Lenses are additive and are deployed from the ‘investigator’s side’ of BIM Field observation while Filters are subtractive and are deployed from the ‘data side’. Lenses highlight observables that meet research criteria and identify their relations; example, an infrared lens highlights heat sources in a scene. Filters remove observables that do not meet the research criteria; example, data filters hides non-conforming data within a spreadsheet.

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.

Research Continuum v1.1 (partial, showing sample relations | Full Size - 1.1Mb)

The Research Continuum v1.1 represents a network of conceptual and practical deliverables across a number of papers till December 2013 (model to be updated in 2016). The continuum highlights how each paper delivers a number of conceptual constructs which either extend earlier constructs/tools or support the development of new ones. Constructs are hierarchical  - frameworks, models, taxonomies, classifications and dictionary terms - yet interconnect through explicit ontological relations. At the bottom of the image are sample Knowledge Tools TL1-TL5 (e.g. TL4 is the online BIM Dictionary) which are dependent on these conceptual constructs. 

Updated 19 July 2016: The continuum clarifies how the BIM Maturity Matrix (TL2 - a practical tool introduced in Paper A3 and later released in a number of  languages) is dependent on several models (e.g. MD7-MD9), which are in-turn ontologically-connected to a number of taxonomies, classifications and dictionary terms.

Full Size Image (Research Path v1.3 - 378 kb) 

The Research Path identifies the major milestones along four research sub-paths: literature review, research methodology, conceptual development and data collection. This visual knowledge model (VKM) also identifies a number of ongoing research activities pursuant to each research sub-path. 

Note: the importance of a clearly defined research path cannot be understated. However, allowing oneself to diverge into inter-connected sub-paths (a network of tunnels dug underneath the main topic) is an excellent mechanism for knowledge exploration and discovery.

Full Size Image (Study Timeline v1.0 - 301kb)

The Research Timeline (previously Study Timeline v1.0) is a visual summary of research activities conducted starting June 2005. The graph references main literature reviews, data collection efforts, published papers, relative citations and compiled full-paper downloads (Source 1 + Source 2) till mid December 2013. 

Conceptual Hierarchy Current Version, full-size image (older version v1.0)

The BIM framework is composed of several interrelated conceptual constructs: models, taxonomies, classifications and dictionaries. A common conceptual ontology connects all conceptual constructs and makes explicit the relationship between them. Below is a generic description of the depicted conceptual parts:

Frameworks show “the gestalt, the structure, the anatomy or the morphology of a field of knowledge or the links between seemingly disparate fields or sub-disciplines” (Reisman, 1994, p. 92).

Models (conceptual models) are simplified representations and abstractions of the “enormous richness of this world” (Ritter, 2010, p. 360) (Lave & March, 1993).

Taxonomies are an efficient and effective way to organize and consolidate knowledge (Reisman, 2005) (Hedden, 2010). A well-structured taxonomy allows “the meaningful clustering of experience” (Kwasnik, 1999, p. 24).

Classifications are the “meaningful clustering of experience” (Kwasnik, 1999, p. 24) and “lies at the heart of every scientific field” (Lohse, Biolsi, Walker, & Rueter, 1994, p. 36). Classification is also a heuristic tool useful during the formative stages of discovery, analysis and theorizing (Davies, 1989).

Dictionaries constitute a web of meaning (Cristea, 2004) connecting terms to each other and to other knowledge bases.

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).

Updated April 11, 2016: The Knowledge Content Taxonomy (KCT) - previously referred to as the BIM Knowledge Content (BKC) taxonomy - includes several classifications. The main one identifies three knowledge content clusters (guides, protocols and mandates) which are subdivided into eighteen knowledge content labels (e.g. report, manual, and contract). As described in the Noteworthy BIM Publications image, the KCT and its classifications are derived from the explicit ontological structures of the BIM Framework (Succar, 2009 - Paper A2) (Succar, 2013 - Thesis). KCT labels and clusters classify NBPs according to their actual knowledge content rather than according to each publication’s title or its specific – and sometime conflicting - use of terminology. A succinct definition of the three KCT clusters is provided below:

• Guides: documents which are descriptive and optional. Guides clarify goals, report on       surveys/accomplishments or simplify complex topics. Guides do not provide detailed steps to follow to attain a goal or complete an activity;
• Protocols: documents which are prescriptive and optional. Protocols provide detailed steps or conditions to reach a goal or deliver a measureable outcome. While documents within this cluster are prescriptive, they are optional to follow unless dictated within a Mandate (see next cluster); and
• Mandates: documents which are prescriptive and dictated by an authority. Mandates identify what should be delivered and – in some cases – how, when and by whom it should be delivered.

When used to assess NBPs, the three KCT clusters would inform country-scale BIM maturity assessment. For example, a country, with all its NBPs pertaining to a single cluster (e.g. guides – descriptive and optional), would arguably face different implementation challenges to those faced by a country with its NBPs distributed across guides, protocols and mandates.

Updated Feb 14, 2018 (removed an example): below is the BIM Knowledge Content taxonomy (v1.35): 18 content labels in three content clusters as republished in Paper B1:

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.