SMEs and Level 2 BIM, the Way Forward

The UK construction industry comprises a very high proportion of SMEs that is companies employing up to 250. A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills research paper, found that SMEs had a 71.2% share of work in the construction industry. Micro and small firms (i.e. those employing up to 50) had a share of 46.7% of work (Ive and Murray 2013). The Government has high ambitions for UK construction. Having been found by successive government commissioned studies to be inefficient and highly fragmented, ambitious targets have been set for the industry to achieve 33% reduction in costs and 50% faster delivery by 2025. As a significant construction client, the Government has mandated the use of Level 2 BIM from 2016 on publicly funded projects over £5 million. The adoption of BIM plays a key role in the 2025 vision but a lack of clarity persists in the industry over BIM and significant barriers are perceived to its implementation, particularly amongst SMEs. However, industry wide transformation will be challenging without serious consideration of the capabilities of this large majority. Many larger firms, having implemented Level 2 BIM are now working towards Level 3 BIM while many of the smaller firms in the industry have not even heard of BIM. It would seem that fears of a ‘two tier’ industry are perhaps being realised. This paper builds on an earlier one (Mellon & Kouider 2014) and investigates, through field work, the level of Level 2 BIM implementation amongst SMEs compared to a large organisation. Challenges and innovative solutions identified through collected data are fully discussed and compared. It is suggested that where the SME perceives barriers towards adoption of the technologies which underpin BIM, they may consider collaborative methods of working as an interim step in order to work towards realising the efficiencies and benefits that these methods can yield. While the barriers to adoption of BIM are significant, it is suggested that they are not insurmountable for the SME and some recommendations for possible solutions are made.

Contract for the great College, 6 May 1813

This is a contract signed between Loammi Baldwin, acting on behalf of the President and Fellows of Harvard College, and Josiah Moore, Esquire; John Walton, Housewright; Thomas Mason, Housewright; Samuel Mason, Housewright; and Joseph Holmes, Housewright, for the construction of University Hall. The agreement was witnessed by William Jenison and Josiah Nottage.

Contract for finding all materials and finishing interior of University Hall, signed copy, 1 February 1814

This is a contract signed between Loammi Baldwin, acting on behalf of the President and Fellows of Harvard College, and Josiah Moore, John Walton, Thomas Mason, Samuel Mason, and Joseph Holmes for completing the dining rooms and chapel of University Hall. The agreement was witnessed by Abraham Edwards and Thomas Edwards.

Contract for finding all materials and finishing interior of University Hall, 1 February 1814

Draft of the official signed copy of the contract in Box 1, Folder 42. This copy is written in a different hand and contains several struck through phrases.

Memorandum of contract with carpenters, Moore, and others, [ca. 1814]

Estimate for $5942.68 for the completion of the interior fixtures of University Hall including folding doors, pew arrangement in the chapel, and architraves to doors, windows, and fireplaces.

Youth Sports: Implementing Findings and Moving Forward with Research

This paper reviews the literature, outlines practical implications, and discusses future studies in youth sport researc h. The literature is discussed in light of three potential benefits of youth sport participation 1) physic al health, 2) psycho- social development, and 3) motor skills acquisition. The ultimate objective of youth sport programs is to consider all the benefits of youth sport participation rather than focusing on one or two at the cost of the other(s). It is suggested that researchers, s port administrators, coaches, and parents work together to promote sporting activities and programs that are more likely to enhance children’s physical health, psychosocia l development and lifelong recreational or elite sport participation.