Purpose: Over the past decade, national and international organisations concerned with regulating the architecture, engineering, construction and operations industry have been working to create guidelines for the integration of building information modelling (BIM) through the establishment of benchmarks to measure the quality and quantity of information in a given model. Until recently, these benchmarks – and BIM guidelines in general – have been developed for the design and construction of new projects, providing very little guidance for using BIM in the context of conservation and rehabilitation. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new benchmark specific to existing and heritage buildings developed by Carleton Immersive Media Studio (CIMS). Design/methodology/approach: To create the new benchmark, CIMS conducted a critical evaluation of established and emerging BIM guidelines including: Level of Development Specification 2016 (BIMFORUM), architecture, engineering and construction (Can) BIM Protocol (CanBIM), PAS 1102-2: Specification for Information Management for the Capital Delivery Phase of Construction Projects Using BIM (British Standards Institution) and Level of Accuracy Specification Guide (US Institute of Building Documentation). Findings: Using the authors’ on-going work at the Parliament Hill National Historic Site in Ottawa, Canada, the CIMS created and applied a three-category system that evaluated the level of detail, information and accuracy within the building information model independently. Originality/value: In this paper, the authors discuss the CIMS’ work to date and propose next steps.

Architectural heritage, Architecture, BIM standards, Building information modelling, Level of detail, Level of development
Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development
Carleton Immersive Media Studio

Graham, K. (Katie), Chow, L. (Lara), & Fai, S. (2018). Level of detail, information and accuracy in building information modelling of existing and heritage buildings. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development , 8(4), 495–507. doi:10.1108/JCHMSD-09-2018-0067