1. Introduction
The promotion of sustainable long-term economic and social development in societies is greatly influenced by infrastructure mega-projects. These projects have the potential to shape the national economy and boost GDP. However, the benefits of these projects come with a high risk of failure. Even though projects may perform well technically, poor cost performance may jeopardize the project’s existence or its economic justification [1,2]. The detrimental consequences of cost overrun are widely acknowledged among academics, despite ongoing debates on its definition, causes, magnitude, and reference points for measurement [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. A study by Flyvbjerg [11] found that nine out of ten infrastructure mega-projects go over budget. Rail projects, for example, go over budget by an average of 44.7 percent. The cost of these projects justifies the relentless pursuit to avoid cost overrun, as it is not unusual for rail projects to cost USD 100 billion [12] or more [13].
Different parties use various frameworks, tools, and strategies for project governance to address the cost overrun phenomenon. Government agencies/clients focus on preventing cost overrun on the project life cycle level, while contractors, consultants, and operators are concerned about specific project stages. Despite the calls for digitalization in construction and the use of emerging technologies such as building information modeling (BIM), the application of these technologies on the project life cycle level is still limited, and project governance has yet to benefit from technological advancements [14,15].
Effective project governance is essential for the successful delivery of complex and complicated rail projects [16]. These projects demand a wide range of expertise across multiple fields, such as engineering, construction, urban planning, and transportation policy. Moreover, the financing models for these projects are often intricate, involving a mix of public and private funding sources, including tax revenues, government grants, loans, and private sector investments, which further adds to the complexity. Additionally, managing a diverse array of stakeholders, including government agencies, local communities, businesses, and interest groups, is a crucial aspect of these projects [17,18].
The 3D-BIM model used in rail projects can be further enriched by the addition of a wide range of graphical and non-graphical information, such as geographic information system (GIS) data, asset tagging, and maintenance requirements. The 4D-BIM model incorporates time-related information, providing a more complete understanding of the project schedule, while the 5D-BIM model encompasses cost-related information.
5D-BIM offers a comprehensive and collaborative approach for cost management and control, as well as financial decision-making support throughout the project lifecycle [19,20]. Successful implementation of 5D-BIM requires a thorough understanding of the causes of cost overrun phenomena, current cost management and control strategies in transportation/rail and their limitations, the models used for cost estimation, and an understanding of the current uses of 5D-BIM.
The existing literature indicates a noteworthy research gap regarding the integration of 5D-BIM in rail projects. Previous studies have primarily focused on the application of 5D-BIM in other industries, such as construction, with inadequate consideration given to its implementation in rail projects. In light of the potential benefits of integrating 5D-BIM into rail projects’ lifecycles [21,22,23], this paper presents a novel approach to exploring the current application of 5D-BIM in rail projects by using the systematic literature review (SLR) research methodology to determine the current state of 5D-BIM application in rail projects, identify research gaps, and directions for future research.
The SLR is a rigorous and comprehensive method of collecting, evaluating, and synthesizing existing literature on a particular research question or topic. This process involves identifying, selecting, and evaluating the quality of relevant studies and synthesizing the findings to identify trends and gaps in the literature. The SLR follows a structured approach to minimize bias and ensure result replication [24]. The study addresses the following four research questions:
What causes cost overrun in transport projects in general and rail projects in particular?
What are the cost models used to predict and analyse cost overrun in transport projects in general and rail projects in particular?
What cost management and control strategies are used to prevent these cost overruns? What is the efficiency of these strategies and suitability for 5D-BIM modelling?
How can 5D-BIM be successfully integrated into rail projects life cycle to support cost management and control models and minimize/prevent cost overrun?
2. Background and Terminology
This section outlines the key terminology and concepts, including infrastructure mega-projects and its characteristics, the rail industry and its common terminology, cost overrun definitions, BIM dimensions, cost management and its functions: cost estimation, modelling, and cost budgeting, as well as the various techniques used for cost/budget monitoring and control.
2.1. Infrastructure Mega-Projects
The majority of rail projects are indeed mega-projects (or major projects); therefore, it is necessary to understand that they share the same characteristics/challenges/problems by definition.
The definition of mega-projects in the literature is inconsistent, with some sources using the term interchangeably with “large projects” or major projects [25]. Ruuska et al. [26] define mega-projects as complex undertakings involving multiple organizations with different objectives that can have significant socio-political implications. Capka [27] describes them as expensive projects requiring the management of numerous and complicated activities while adhering to strict deadlines and budgets. Flyvbjerg [11] differentiates “major infrastructure projects” from “mega-projects” based on their estimated dollar value, limiting the former to hundreds of millions of dollars and the latter to more than USD one billion. Mega projects pose unique technological, sustainability and acceleration of delivery challenges due to their vast array of stakeholders and associated communication dynamics [28].
Chang et al. [29] distinguish Infrastructure mega-projects by their complexity, ambiguity, and the need for the integration of a large number of units over a long period of time. Mega-projects are distinct from other projects in five key elements, including a budget exceeding USD 500 million, complexity, uncertainty, dynamic interfaces, and running for a period that exceeds the technology cycle time of the technologies involved, attracting high levels of public and political interest, and being defined by effect rather than solution.
2.2. Infrastructure and Rail Projects
Infrastructure projects refer to the tangible assets built for public benefit, including public transportation systems such as rail transit, airports, highways, hospitals, energy and power, and water and wastewater facilities [30,31]. The rail transit system serves as a crucial component of modern cities’ public transportation networks [32]. Rail transportation, a form of terrestrial-guided mass transport, can be categorized based on traction power, traffic volume, track type, and speed, as shown in Figure 1.
The term “railway infrastructure” refers to the railway track, civil engineering structures, systems, and premises necessary for railway traffic [33]. In the US, this is referred to as “railroads” [34]. The rail network consists of tracks (links) and stations (nodes) for traffic transportation [35].
Compared to other construction projects, rail projects are known to be risky [36], both complex and complicated [16], and require efficient stakeholder communication and management [37]. While complicated projects are large and have highly predictable processes [16], complex projects are characterized by unpredictable and ever-changing processes and a delicate political, social, and economical stakeholder environment that can challenge project decisions and strategies [16,38,39]. The complexity of rail projects is mainly attributed to dimensions such as project finance, context, and site, which are outside of project control, and project management, delivery, and tasks, which are internal factors [16]. Additionally, the long construction cycle (up to 50 years) and the sophisticated electromechanical and signaling systems, as well as the high costs (hundreds of billions of dollars) involved, add to the complications associated with rail projects [18].
2.3. Cost Overruns
Cost overruns in infrastructure projects, particularly rail projects, result from uncertainty and misinformation surrounding project costs, benefits, and risks, leading to poor decision-making. This phenomenon is referred to as cost escalation, cost development, or cost increase by different authors [40,41]. Cost overrun refers to the difference between actual and estimated project costs [42]. Flyvbjerg [40] defines cost development as the difference between actual and projected costs as a percentage of projected costs, while cost escalation is defined as actual costs minus estimated costs as a percentage of estimated costs.
However, the definition of cost overrun remains a controversial issue in academic circles, as the reference point to measure cost overrun is a point of disagreement. Some authors, such as Flyvbjerg [40], use the budget estimate at the time of the decision-to-build as the reference point, while others, such as Bolan [43] and Ahiaga-Dagbui and Love [9], argue that this is an interim estimate that should not be used to evaluate cost performance. Infrastructure mega-projects have long life spans and obtaining planning permits can take up to 10 years [44]. During this time, changes in project scope, market conditions, and delivery methods can significantly alter cost estimates, which should not be considered as cost overruns [45].
The stakeholder perspective plays a crucial role in determining what is considered cost overrun, and this should be taken into consideration when reviewing and analysing the literature. For example, politicians may understand that preliminary estimates are unreliable, but still see them as acceptable risk compared to the benefits and overall impact of the project (see Ahiaga-Dagbui and Love [9]).
2.4. Five-Dimensional Building Information Modelling (5D-BIM)
Building information modeling (BIM) is a digital representation of an engineering project’s entity and functional characteristics [46]. This approach encompasses the entire building project lifecycle, including planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and demolition, and facilitates as a project artefact the collaboration, the storage, sharing, exchange, and management of multidisciplinary information among stakeholders [47,48,49].
BIM is more than just software, it is a set of data sources and tools that support various disciplines and build a multidimensional virtual environment for the built environment [50]. The nD in BIM represents the number of dimensions linked to the virtual building model [51,52]. Table 1 shows the different characteristics of BIM dimensions.
The 4D-BIM adds a time dimension to the 3D model, allowing for real-time simulation of construction progress. The 5D-BIM, on the other hand, adds a cost dimension to the 3D model, enabling the instant generation of cost budgets and financial representations of the model over time [19]. 5D-BIM can be created either by adding cost information to the 3D model objects and components or through a live connection to estimation software tools [20,53]. The 5D-BIM enables users to estimate costs, create cost baselines, visualize and track costs over the project life cycle, and evaluate different construction methods and alternatives [20].
2.5. Cost Management
Cost management is a critical component of project success, as it aims to minimize the cost of the project while maintaining acceptable levels of quality and scope. This process provides value for money for the client and ensures that the contract amount remains within the authorized budget or cost limitations [2,54].
In the past, cost management was reactive to changes in project scope, but now there is a shift towards incorporating it as a strategic aspect [55]. The construction industry is heavily influenced by professional standards and bodies such as the International Cost Engineering Council (ICEC), the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI), and the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). These organizations provide expertise in cost engineering and management through professional standards that codify best practices and align understanding across the industry [56,57].
The AACEI defines cost management as a systematic approach to managing cost throughout the life cycle of any enterprise, program, facility, project, product, or service. The AACEI total cost management (TCM) Framework provides a hierarchical structure for best practices in the industry [58]. The RICS introduced the new rules of measurement (NRM) suite in 2009, which serves as a comprehensive reference for cost management in construction projects [59]. The International Cost Management Standard (ICMS) was developed in 2017 and has been revised to incorporate life-cycle costing and environmental sustainability in 2019 and 2021, respectively [60].
Cost management in construction has been traditionally approached with financial measures only, but this approach has been criticized for its limitations. Scholars have pointed out issues such as lacking metrics [61], failure to identify performance problems [1,62], lack of strategic focus, and hindrance to continuous improvement [63].
As a result, alternative approaches to cost management have gained popularity, including key performance indicators (KPIs) [64,65], benchmarking [66,67,68], and BIM [69,70]. KPIs, initially proposed by Cox et al. [71], reflect the quality of project outputs and outcomes and are used for performance evaluation. However, the development of KPIs for mega-projects has yet to reach sufficient levels, and excessive development can be a waste of time and resources [2].
Benchmarking, which involves comparing project processes, practices, and operations to similar projects, aims to identify strengths and weaknesses [68] and find the best practices to implement for improved performance [72]. Despite its benefits, benchmarking can be criticized for lacking objectivity and neglecting intangible factors that impact project performance [73].
Traditional cost management approaches, such as bill of quantities (BoQ) or resource-based costing (RBC) [74], have also been criticized for their uncertain information and arbitrary allocation of overheads [75]. Activity-based costing (ABC) was developed to address these limitations and accurately allocate project overheads based on cost drivers [76,77].
Another promising approach in construction is target value design (TVD) [78,79], which reverses the traditional practice of cost estimation by having cost and value inform design decisions. Derived from target costing, TVD has roots in the manufacturing industry [80] and is implemented in construction through practices such as design–build–own–transfer, public–private partnership, integrated form of agreement, and integrated project delivery. However, successful TVD implementation requires a collaborative effort, and its application in less collaborative project delivery arrangements may lead to unintended consequences.
Cost management includes four major functions: cost estimation; cost modelling; cost budgeting; and cost/budget monitoring and control [81], each of which are outlined in more detail in the sections below.
2.5.1. Cost Estimation
Cost estimation involves the calculation and prediction of the time, cost, and other resources required to meet the project objectives [82]. The accuracy of cost estimation is influenced by the information related to the project’s structure and characteristics [83]. Accurate cost estimation is crucial for making informed decisions and project success [84]. Cost estimates should always be presented with a plus/minus percentage, depending on the project scope definition [85]. Despite the significant investments in infrastructure mega-projects, there is limited research on cost management strategies and methodologies in this domain. Current literature focuses on cost estimation on the project level [86,87]. Cost estimates can be conducted using top-down techniques such as analogy or parametric, or using bottom-up techniques [84].
Lovallo and Kahneman [88] proposed supplementing traditional forecasting methods with “reference class forecasting,” an objective forecasting method that overcomes sources of optimism. However, this approach was criticized for underrating deliberate forecast fabrication as a source of bias [89].
2.5.2. Cost Modelling
A Cost model is a framework for calculating the overall project value, aggregating cost estimating details into a total cost estimate [90]. Cost estimating methodologies have been classified in various ways, including analogy-based, parametric, engineering [91], qualitative (intuitive and analogical), and quantitative (parametric and analytical) [92].
2.5.3. Cost Budgeting
Cost budgeting is the process of aggregating estimated costs of individual activities or work packages to create a cost baseline and allocate resources for executing different project activities [93]. This budget provides the basis for management to make decisions, plan, control, and govern the project [94]. The early cost estimates serve as the foundation for the project budget. Before it can be termed a budget, early cost estimates must go through a prescribed process of reviewing asset development plans, project screening, and resources commitment for future project development [85]. The cost estimation process consists of five steps: defining the estimate basis, developing a base estimate, assessing risk and setting contingencies, reviewing the total estimate, and conveying the estimate [95]. Contingency is the amount of funds required above the budget to reduce the risk of overruns to an acceptable level for the organization. A common risk management strategy is to have a contingency reserve for known unknowns and a management reserve for unknown unknowns [96].
Despite the use of various approaches to determine contingencies, including traditional percentage [97,98], Monte Carlo simulation [99,100,101], artificial neural networks [102], theory of constraints [103], and reference class forecasting [104], these methods were criticized for being inefficient when it comes to cost overruns [96,105].
2.5.4. Cost/Budget Monitoring and Control
Cost and budget monitoring and control are vital to deliver the project on time, within budget, and within scope. The process includes assessing project progress, comparing it to the plan, analyzing variances, and implementing corrective actions [106]. There is a debate on whether project performance should be measured against the budget and schedule (focused on addressing deviations from the project plan (difference between should and did) [107,108,109]) or the value delivered to the client [108]. Techniques for budget control include project management information systems (PMIS) [110], earned value management (EVM) [111,112], work breakdown structure (WBS) [113] and, as a recent addition, building information modelling (BIM) [114]. Effective cost management in mega-projects requires careful planning, with the WBS and cost breakdown structure (CBS) codes commonly combined to support financial decisions and budget [20,115].
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Approach
The present study aims to investigate the complex interplay between various domains concerning the implementation of 5D-BIM for cost control and management in rail infrastructure projects. Given the complexity of the research problem and the need to synthesize existing knowledge from multiple sources, a systematic literature review (SLR) approach was adopted.
The SLR approach offers two key advantages: transparency and exhaustiveness. It enables other researchers to replicate the study and facilitates the identification, evaluation, and synthesis of existing literature on the topic. Moreover, it aims to communicate the known and unknown aspects of a topic and provide recommendations for future research [24]. The following section provides a brief description of the SLR methodology employed in this study.
The previous literature review studies on cost overruns and 5D-BIM implementation have used a range of research approaches. Vigneault et al. [19] conducted a systematic literature review and introduced an innovative 5D-BIM framework for construction cost management. Sepasgozar et al. [116] used a mixed method of bibliographic analysis and content review to identify different uses of BIM to improve cost management. Shishehgarkhaneh et al. [117] conducted a bibliometric and systematic literature review on the use of BIM and digital technologies in the construction industry. Meanwhile, publications on BIM in the rail sector cover a broad range of topics with intriguing recommendations for future research. The authors of [22] presented a case study on integrating BIM into rail projects, while [118] called for strategic BIM adoption from the Korean railroad public owner’s perspective. This research focuses on the implementation of 5D-BIM in rail mega-projects.
3.1.1. Systematic Literature Review Stages
Following an initial desktop study and literature exploration, a rigorous protocol and search strategy were developed based on the observations. According to Moher [119], “The preparation of a protocol is an essential component of the systematic review process; it ensured that a systematic review is carefully planned and that what is planned is explicitly documented before the review starts, thus promoting consistent conduct by the review team, accountability, research integrity, and transparency of the eventual completed review”. The protocol outlined the rationale and planned methods for the review, including the defined SLR boundaries, by identifying inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on the period between 2000 and 2023. The SLR followed the five-stage review approach as described by Pawson et al. [120] (see Figure 2).
The stages included: (1) clarifying the research question(s); (2) searching for relevant literature; (3) selecting relevant studies; (4) appraising the quality of the selected studies; and (5) synthesizing the results of the selected studies.
To report the SLR findings, the preferred reporting of items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) [121] guidelines and flow chart were used. PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which ensures the completeness and transparency of the reporting process.
3.1.2. Tools and Software Packages
A combination of software packages was used for data collection, processing and exporting, as shown in Table 2 below.
3.1.3. Data Sources
As shown in Table 3, The following electronic databases were used for data collection. The search algorithm for Google scholar is not known and cannot be controlled; Google adapts the search to each user in order to personalize information and, as a result, a systematic search is quite probably not replicable [128]. Consequently, Google Scholar was considered as an additional source only for this SLR.
The PRISMA flow chart in Figure 3 summarizes the initial search process, which resulted in a total of 4342 papers from four databases: Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The search results were verified through external access provided by researchers from Chalmers University of Technology and Northumbria University, and were then imported to EndNote and exported to Covidence in RIS format.
After removing duplicates using Covidence, a blind review was conducted by the author and another team member, resulting in the identification and resolution of 270 conflicts.
The blind review considered the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in Appendix F, as well as relevance to the research domain. Despite the application of search filters, a considerable number of publications originating from the healthcare and medical domain surfaced, where the acronym BIM denotes a protein named Bcl-2-interacting mediator of cell death. Therefore, the blind review resulted in the exclusion of 1358 results, with 1888 results remaining.
Five themes surfaced during the initial review of the SLR data: BIM for construction, BIM for infrastructure, BIM for rail, cost management and control, and rail. These themes were used to tag and categorize data in Covidence.
Of the 1888 publications, 896 (47%) were tagged as “Cost Management and Control” by blind reviewers. This indicates a significant amount of coverage in the literature, with 611 journal papers, 259 conference papers, 18 books/book chapters, and 8 theses. However, the tag combination of “BIM for Infrastructure,” “BIM for Rail,” “Cost Management and Control,” and “Rail” yielded only 35 results (20 journal papers, 12 conference papers, and 3 theses), suggesting that this sector is underrepresented in the literature.
The 1888 results remained after the initial blind review were used for thematic analysis to identify research trends and gaps. A second screening round using the same blind review technique was conducted in order to address the four research questions. During this stage, publications discussing topics such as cost overruns in transportation and rail projects, cost models, various cost management and control strategies, and 5D-BIM were included for full-text review. As a result of the second screening stage, 364 publications were retained for further analysis. Additionally, sixteen publications that were not captured in the search were added to the review process.
The final number of records included in the analysis was 380 publications. To aid in further analysis, a thesaurus file was created and uploaded to VOS viewer, allowing for the combination of synonyms such as BIM, Building Information Modelling, and Building Information Modelling under a single term. Similarly, terms such as Cost Overrun, Cost Escalation, and Budget Overrun were combined under the term Cost Overruns. Finally, CiteSpace was used to analyze clusters, trends, and patterns among the results.
3.2. Network Representation
The application of network theory was utilized to understand the structure of the literature. This structure can be represented by two key components: network actors and network ties. Keywords were used to describe the contents and discussion topics of each study [129]. To map the occurrence of keywords, a network representation was created using VOS viewer. In this representation, colors indicate knowledge areas while node size represents the number of occurrences in the literature; a larger node indicates a larger knowledge area. The links between nodes represent the citations in pair and group articles, and these links become stronger (closer nodes) when two neighboring nodes have similar co-authors or frequent pair citations [122].
The network analysis in this study was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, networks were created using VOS Viewer by analyzing keyword co-occurrence and co-authorship. In the second stage, maps were generated using CiteSpace to extract useful information, make sense of the generated networks, and reveal trends and patterns.
4. Results
4.1. Publication Sources
As shown in Table 4, out of 1888 result 1277 were journal articles (67.6%) and 565 conference papers (30%). Other sources included in the study are: 23 books (1.2%) and 23 thesis (1.2%). It was noticed from the analysis that the number of conferences papers covering rail and BIM exceeds the journal articles, while cost overrun is covered mostly by journal articles.
4.2. Analysis of Publication Source
Figure 4 illustrates the yearly count of BIM publications. Although the trend indicates a general increase in BIM publications over time, there were two noticeable drops in the years 2007 and 2015, which is supported by both BIM literature [130,131] and industry reports [132]. Such trend aligns with the typical life cycle of technology [133], which suggests a shift from research and development towards wider adoption. In 2016, the UK government mandated the use of BIM in the public sector, which triggered a new cycle and led to increased industry funding and a subsequent surge in BIM publications [130].
The drop in BIM publications during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022 may be due to the impact of COVID-19. The pandemic caused significant setbacks to scientific research worldwide, as travel, social, and funding restrictions took their toll. As a result, research personnel and resources were intentionally directed towards COVID-19 activities, above all other endeavours [134].
In 2023, as life returns to normal, a significant increase in BIM publications can be observed. In the first two months of the year, the number of BIM publications has already reached 48.
As shown in Figure 5, the highest number of relevant publications came from two journals: Automation in Construction, and Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. BIM can be used to automate various construction processes, such as design, cost estimation, and scheduling. As a result, the Automation in Construction journal, which focuses on advancements in construction automation and decision support systems, attracts a significant number of publications related to BIM.
Likewise, research articles related to BIM are highly relevant to the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, which focuses on advancements in the theory and practice of construction engineering and management.
Other active journals in the field include Shanxi Architecture, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, and the Journal of Railway Engineering Cost Management.
4.3. Location Analysis
Analysing the distribution of publications by country is crucial to understand the current state of academic research and knowledge production worldwide. By examining which countries are publishing the most, as well as which disciplines and topics are being researched, researchers and policymakers can gain insights into the strengths and weaknesses of various national research systems, identify disparities in research funding, as well as highlighting areas where greater collaboration and knowledge sharing might be beneficial [135,136].
The wrapper data mining platform [137] was utilized to produce a publication analysis based on the lead author’s country of origin, using the data related to their country. Figure 6 shows the distribution of publications by country of lead author; top contributors include the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. Australia, Germany, Italy are following the lead. The results show a noticeable surge in BIM publications published by authors from China. This could be attributed to a combination of government support, rapid urbanization, technological advancement, and growing industry, which overall created a strong demand for BIM [138,139].
4.4. Co-Authorship Network
Knowledge exchange, idea sharing, and creativity are all facilitated by collaborations between or among researchers [140]. These collaborations are also effective in joint funding applications [141]. Co-authorship and citation are good indexes for research productivity and synergy between different knowledge areas, thereby a co-authorship network was created to highlight the links between active authors.
A co-authorship network is a visual representation of the collaboration patterns among authors of academic publications in a specific field or topic. The nodes represent the authors, and the links represent (denote) the coloration through co-authorship. A minimum of two publications was considered to create the network.
Fifteen co-authorship networks came out as significantly relating to themes and expertise; Figure 7 and Table 5 shows different research groups/authors and their area of contribution.
4.5. Keywords Re-Occurrence and Cluster Analysis
In Figure 8, the SLR results are presented as five main clusters: Cost overrun, BIM, life cycle, Railway, and Cost estimation, each comprising closely related themes. The BIM cluster, for example, includes themes such as buildings, BIM adoption and implementation, and quantity surveying.
5. Findings and Discussion
VOS Viewer has limited cluster analysis capabilities, so CiteSpace was employed for a more comprehensive analysis of clusters. CiteSpace can automatically organize nodes into clusters, which can uncover the underlying class structure of a network [209,210].
After filtering small clusters, nine main clusters were identified using CiteSpace, as shown in Figure 9 and Table 6. These clusters have a modularity value (Q) of 0.45 and silhouette ranging from 0.61 to 0.94, indicating reasonable intra-cluster similarity.
5.1. Cluster # 0 Railway Infrastructure
The largest cluster (#0) has 179 publications and a silhouette value of 0.628. This cluster is mainly associated with economic analysis and life cycle costing for rail projects. The major five citing articles of the cluster are [211,212,213,214,215]
The most cited words in this cluster are: 253 life cycle,172 railroad, and 144 railroad transportation.
Conceptual Debates in Cluster # 0
In this cluster we find deep conceptual debate about the directionality of cost overrun, where the definitions come from, and different perspectives.
The cluster discusses the issue of cost overrun in rail projects which continues to be a persistent challenge despite efforts to ensure cost-effective delivery. Studies and government reports have highlighted the prevalence of cost overruns in infrastructure projects, including rail [3,6]. According to Flyvbjerg [144], rail projects have the highest mean cost overrun compared to other transportation projects at 44.7 percent. However, the reported mean varies among studies due to differences in how cost overrun is defined and measured. Canteralli et al. [216] define cost overrun as the difference between initial forecasted budget and actual construction costs, while Odeck [42] proposes that the reference point should be at the detailed planning stage where the final cost is determined. Love et al. [6] suggest that cost overrun should be measured from the point of construction contract signature. However, traditional research methods and designs have resulted in misleading conclusions regarding cost overrun. Therefore, developing a robust theoretical frameworks to understand and predict cost overrun is crucial to mitigate its occurrence in rail projects (see Love et al. [105]).
When it comes to the relationship between BIM and rail projects, this cluster highlights that the use of BIM in infrastructure, particularly in rail projects, is gaining momentum. While BIM is commonly used in the Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations (AECO) industry, its implementation in infrastructure is three years behind [217]. However, recent literature shows an increase in its use. Although the concepts of BIM in AECO and rail are the same, the key advantage of BIM in AECO, such as visual aid, is less significant in linear projects such as rail. The rail project lifecycle has five stages: planning, survey, design, construction, and operation. Figure 10 illustrates the benefits of BIM at each stage of the rail project lifecycle.
Although the benefits of BIM implementation in rail projects are evident, many companies are facing significant challenges in its implementation [219,220].
These challenges include complex network topology, high environmental requirements, compliance with international and national standards, and the need to meet various supply divisions and track requirements [221,222].
Bawono et al. [221] categorized these challenges as technical, personal, and process-related, as per Table 7.
5.2. Cluster # 1 Building Information Modelling
The second largest cluster (#1) has 155 publications and a silhouette value of 0.62. This cluster refers to BIM benefits, different BIM uses in construction industry, and the evolution of GIS, the Internet of Things (IoT), and BIM application in the rail industry. The major five citing articles of the cluster are [223,224,225,226,227]. The most cited words in this cluster are: 285 architectural design, 164 BIM, and 157 construction.
This cluster discuss the integration of BIM into rail projects which continues to be a growing trend worldwide [228], with the majority of publications on rail infrastructure coming from the United Kingdom and China [229]. Deployment of the BIM process in railways is expected to continue between 2020 and 2030, and the benefits of BIM have been demonstrated in railway station construction projects, rail track rehabilitation, stakeholder management, and decision-making processes. However, despite the efforts to develop a 5D-BIM system that combines cost, schedule, and a 3D-BIM model, few have been successful due to its complexity. Once developed, the advantages of a 5D-BIM system are numerous, including real-time visualization and verification of the cost and schedule, as well as forecasting the future cost and schedule [21,188,219,227,230].
This cluster also looks at BIM and its potential to mitigate cost overruns, which has been a topic of interest in the literature. 5D-BIM, which combines cost, schedule, and 3D-BIM models, has been proposed as a solution, but its complex technology has hindered successful implementation. However, if developed, 5D-BIM has the potential to provide real-time visualization and verification of cost and schedule, as well as the ability to forecast future costs and schedules [231]. Through a thorough literature review, a correlation between the causes of cost overruns and the benefits of BIM was identified and is presented in Table 8.
Another topic which is discussed in this cluster is the different uses of 5D-BIM cost management in the rail industry. The current 5D-BIM uses in the industry include quantity take-off, cost estimation, cost budgeting, cost control and lifecycle cost analysis.
5.2.1. Quantity Take-Off (Quantification)
Building and infrastructure projects require quantification to estimate their costs, but traditional methods are time-consuming and prone to human error and poor coordination of information [245]. Using BIM models for quantity take-off allows for faster and more efficient production of materials schedules, as discussed by Gaur and Tawalare [227], Aibinu and Venkatesh [246], and Stanley et al. [247]. However certain quantities cannot be extracted directly from the models due to the current tool’s capabilities, the information structure in the model, or simply because some elements are not modelled. Cost engineers /quantity surveyors will need a mix of traditional methods/experience to model missing information [248,249].
5.2.2. Cost Estimation
5D-BIM allow more precise cost estimates and overall costs reduction [249]. It also allows designers to be aware of the cost effects/consequences of their changes early enough to help curb excessive budget overruns caused by modifications [250].
The quantity take off tools in 5D-BIM can be used to generate accurate project estimates [243]. Employing 5D-BIM tools could be deceptive; instead, it is preferable to export 5D-BIM metadata, process it externally, and use the outcome for more realistic estimates [251,252].
Developing cost estimation practice guidelines and sharing the benefits of 5D-BIM estimation techniques with clients is crucial for the effective use of 5D-BIM in cost estimation [253].
5.2.3. Cost Monitoring and Control
Cost monitoring and control through the project lifecycle can be improved by adopting 5D-BIM; the positive impacts include: automated cash flow forecast and progress payments [254], direct procurement for different 5D-BIM elements [47], better change orders management [115,255], and better claim management [256].
5.2.4. Lifecycle Cost Analysis
Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is one of the important tools to support decision making in infrastructure and rail projects. The strict budget limits and increasing performance and reliability requirements led infrastructure managers to develop computer-based tools (such as BIM) to better manage LCCA [257].
A LCCA’s aim is to assess the overall costs of project alternatives and choose the design that assures the asset has the lowest overall cost of ownership compatible with its quality and function [258].
The LCCA should be undertaken early in the design process when there is still the possibility to modify the design to ensure a saving in life-cycle costs (LCC).
Lu et al. [259] emphasized the importance of using BIM for LCCA; they conducted a critical review for the integration of LCCA and LCC using BIM and introduced a framework for BIM-integrated LCCA and LCC.
Bensalah et al. [260] simulated an LCCA for a rail project (tram) using BIM; the analysis revealed that BIM would reduce 8.4% of the overall cost of the project, as well as 10% of maintenance costs over a 30-year period.
Zhao and Tang [261] focused on developing a full life-cycle cost management system module based on BIM. This module included a cost management platform and cost application software, which aimed to improve cost engineers’ productivity, accuracy, and change management capabilities.
Despite 5D-BIM benefits and potential, overall development and the boundary of 5D-BIM is unclear and still at the early stage of adoption [20]. Appendix A shows different 5D-BIM uses as discussed in the literature.
5.3. Cluster # 4 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Cluster # 6 Cost Deviation, and Cluster # 8 Cost Control
The fourth, the sixth, and eighth largest clusters (#4, #6 and #8) have 252 publications and an average silhouette value of 0.7.
The main focus of clusters #4, #6 and #8 is on: the cost overrun phenomenon in transport projects, its definition, causes, and impact; and risk management and contingency calculation.
The major citing articles of the cluster are [4,8,9,94,262,263,264,265]. The most cited words in this cluster are: 595 cost overrun, 503 cost, and 345 project management.
A number of studies in these clusters have examined the landscape of cost overruns in this area [3,4,5,6,7]. Factors that contribute to cost overruns, including ambiguous project design and lack of coordination for design decisions among stakeholders, result in scope creep and rightful critique of unrealistic cost targets at the budget sign off [6,236,266]. Cost overruns can be grouped into several major categories, such as changes in project scope, construction delays, and unreasonable cost estimation. Some studies have also explored the use of earned value management systems to prevent cost overruns [116].
However, there is debate about the root causes of cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects. Flyvbjerg et al. [40] suggested that strategic misrepresentation (i.e., lying) is the primary cause of cost underestimation in public works projects. Love and Ahiaga-Dagbui [8] challenged this claim, arguing that it is based on supposition and misinformation. They introduced two schools of thought to examine the phenomenon: evolutionists, who attribute overruns to changes in project scope, and psycho-strategists, who see deception, planning fallacy, and unjustifiable optimism as the primary causes of cost overruns.
Love et al. [105] refuted Flyvbjerg’s suggestion that misrepresentation and optimism bias are the primary causes of cost overruns, arguing that these explanations ignore the complex array of conditions and variables that interact during project procurement. Flyvbjerg [267] accused Love et al. [105] of ignoring the basics of behavioral science and stressed that planners and managers consistently underestimate complexity and scope changes in projects. Several studies have attempted to use statistical measures of correlations between variables [268,269,270], but these have failed to provide convenient explanations, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation [6].
Cost overrun causes can be dependent on the viewpoint, and auditors often explain cost overruns as technical challenges with forecasting and delivering infrastructure [271]. The economic literature focuses on the perspective of the public decision-maker, while construction engineering managerial analysis focuses on contractual incompetence and related technical consequences [5]. Appendix C provides a list of key papers on cost overruns in transport and rail projects and a brief description of their contributions and conclusions.
The research collaboration on cost overrun and project lifecycle has focused on two main areas: cost escalation analysis and lifecycle perspective. The prevalent methodology in the cost overrun literature is to analyse the overall cost escalation between the project’s early and final stages, with a particular emphasis on the execution stage.
Cavalieri et al. [272] analysed the cost overrun for transport projects, looking at how cost overrun changes over the different stages of the project life cycle. Government entities (contracting authorities) tend to overcommit to figures/numbers in the early stages when allocating budget, developing forecasts, and during budget approval stages. This can be linked to the current “optimism bias” and “risk aversion” outlined by Lovallo and Kahneman [88].
In the same context, Terrill et al. [273] examined the timing and magnitude of cost overrun in rail and road projects in Australia. The study revealed that poor compliance with project appraisal processes is correlated with a higher probability of cost overrun.
These clusters also discuss cost overrun prediction/estimation and analysis. The cost estimates during the early stages can harm the asset owner as well as the project team. Cost estimates affect project screening/budget approval, resource allocation, and further project development. In addition, one of the key performance assessment criteria for the project team’s success is budget management and control; unrealistic early cost estimates lead to budget/cost overrun [274,275].
Different methods/techniques are used for cost overrun prediction, cost estimation, and cost contingency calculations in the literature [276]. Appendix E provides a summary for the most popular ones.
Cost Estimation Models
Another main discussion topic in these clusters is cost estimation models, which provide the basis for budget allocation and resource planning. Qualitative methods rely on the estimator’s knowledge and experience to identify project characteristics and influencing factors. Quantitative methods use historical data analysis and quantitative techniques to estimate project costs [277]. Appendix B provides a summary of quantitative and qualitative cost estimation models.
Parametric cost estimating calculates project costs based on project parameters without considering minor details [278]. Analogous estimating uses similar past project data to estimate costs for new projects [279], while analytical methods provide detailed cost estimates for each project element or activity, resulting in a more accurate estimate.
Top-down estimates (analogous approach), which use historical project cost data to estimate the cost of the current project, are typically used in the conceptual phase of a project. In contrast, bottom-up estimates utilize the project work breakdown structure (WBS) and detailed information on each activity [280].
The choice of cost estimation method should be precise, accurate, and well-documented while remaining practical, easy to use, and cost-effective [281]. Various cost estimation models have been developed for rail and transport projects, including fuzzy expert systems, BIM, expert judgment, Monte Carlo simulation, use of historical data, case-based reasoning (CBR), unit cost, parametric, and artificial neural networks (ANNs).
For example, Byung Soo Kim [282] used case-based reasoning (CBR) with a genetic algorithm (GA) and multiple regression analysis (MRA) to design railway bridges. Shin et al. [283] confirmed the benefits of BIM in cost analysis in railway projects, and Barakchi et al. [284] found that parametric, artificial neural networks (ANNs), and Monte Carlo simulation are the most commonly used cost estimation models in rail projects.
Figure 11 provides a summary of the different cost estimation models used in the construction industry.
Key publications covering cost models used for cost estimation, prediction, and analysis in transport and rail projects are shown in Appendix D. Another main discussion topic in this cluster is cost overrun mitigation/prevention.
Cost mitigation is a popular topic in the literature. Flyvbjerg [285] proposed using reference class forecasting (RCF) to overcome optimism bias and misrepresentation. RCF is based on planning and decision-making theories that received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002.
However, Love and Ahiaga-Dagbui [9] have identified limitations to RCF and caution that it can be misleading if an inappropriate distribution is used to determine uplifts. Another strategy is better resource management and effective communication between a project’s internal and external stakeholders, which Ahiaga-Dagbui et al. [242] have identified.
De Jong et al. [286] have suggested improving project estimates, mitigating project risks, promoting an accountability culture, and ensuring clear project scope and goals to avoid cost overruns in transport projects. Siemiatycki [271] recommends enhancing performance monitoring, reporting, and information sharing, accountability and responsibility for errors and overruns, management capabilities of staff, and applying state-of-the-art forecasting techniques. Additionally, historical project cost databases and data mining methodologies can create decision support systems that reduce cost overruns, according to Ahiaga-Dagbui and Smith [287].
Construction rework is another cause of cost overruns, as discussed by Love and Li [288], who recommend greater attention to quality management practices and implementation. Finally, Love et al. [8] recommend including a contingency in the final approved budget to accommodate possible cost overruns, although this approach has its own drawbacks. While these strategies are effective, they only target discrete elements of the project lifecycle, and their overall applicability is unclear.
5.4. Citation Burst and Trend Analysis
A citation burst shows that specific keywords appeared frequently in published studies over a specific time period, indicating activity on the topic and highlighting fast-growing areas of research [289].
Figure 12 shows that the fields of project management, mathematical modelling, and cost control are quite mature areas of research that received a lot of attention from 2010 to 2011.
Beginning in 2013, BIM studies saw a surge in citation activity, which lasted until 2019, when new terms such as digital engineering emerged. Other terms related to cost management and control are included in the list because this field is mature and has constantly evolved with applications.
Although the extant literature on the topic is limited, the findings suggest an emerging tendency for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) publications in the railway domain [290]. Currently, rail projects are utilizing AI and ML to optimize the effectiveness and performance of railway systems by different means, including resources and equipment planning during the construction stage [291], delving into the causation factors of highway–rail crossing crashes [292], categorizing fatality rates for accidents [293], improving safety measures [294,295], mitigating collision risks [296], and integrating building information modeling (BIM) and ML to enhance the operation and maintenance of railway networks [297].
Figure 13 and Figure 14 give a more detailed look at the outcomes. VOS Viewer automatically adjusted the contrast of the results, which revealed that prior to 2010, both cost overrun and economics were mature areas of research that have been studied extensively over several decades and have developed a robust body of literature and empirical evidence.
Researchers have developed different standards, theoretical frameworks, models, and statistical methods to identify and predict cost overruns in different contexts. The research in this area has also led to the development of best practices and tools for managing cost overruns in various industries, such as construction, transportation, and defence.
During this period, cost management research primarily focused on risk management, project cost, finance, and profitability.
Similarly, railway transport is part of the broader transport infrastructure research and public sector projects domain, with increased focus/emphasis on strategic planning.
The results further demonstrate a clear shift in cost management research after 2015, with a growing focus on utilizing information technology and computer-aided design in cost estimation, cost analysis, budget control, and life-cycle costing. Concurrently, distinct research themes emerged within the rail industry, including the technical aspects of various railway network components, such as bridges, tunnels, and railroads, and the use of computer aided design to facilitate/support decision making on the project management side, including cost engineering, quality control, lean construction, and innovation.
Moreover, the results indicated that from 2017 onwards, there was an increased emphasis on exploring the theory and application/integration of emerging technologies in railway construction and asset management. The theoretical research focused on information theory, fuzzy logic, artificial intelligence, interoperability, and systems integration. On the other hand, the application/integration research delved into the advancements of BIM technology, such as 5D-BIM and digital twins, as well as big data and geographic information systems (GIS).
6. Conclusions
In conclusion, this systematic literature review has provided insights into the current state of 5D-BIM implementation in rail projects, identified research gaps and trends, and highlighted the potential of 5D-BIM to address cost overrun issues. The study analyzed various aspects of cost overrun, including causes, estimation methods, management and control strategies, and the applications of 5D-BIM in rail projects. The study also identified technical, personal, and process challenges associated with 5D-BIM implementation.
Based on the 1888 papers, the study presented, analysed and discussed the trend of BIM publications in the last 23 years, key journals, influential authors, and top contributing nations in the research field.
The analysis has revealed eight clusters: railway infrastructure, BIM, construction projects, demand forecast, cost-effectiveness analysis, supply chain, cost deviation, construction contract, cost control, and troubled projects. These clusters were carefully aggregated and analysed to address the research questions. The key findings against the research questions could be summarized as follows:
The study underscored the considerable conceptual controversy regarding the directionality of cost overrun, its definitions, and the diversity of perspectives and underlying theories. The study found that cost overrun causes could be dependent on the viewpoint, with auditors explaining cost overruns as technical challenges, the economic, psychological and political literature focusing on the perspective of the public decision maker, and construction engineering managerial analysis focusing on contractual incompetence and related technical consequences.
The study also analysed various quantitative and qualitative cost estimation methods employed in transportation and rail projects, with the rail industry primarily relying on parametric, artificial neural network (ANN), and Monte Carlo simulation-based techniques. Qualitative approaches used in rail projects, such as the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), artificial neural network (ANN), fuzzy neural network (NN), case-based reasoning (CBR), and expert judgment (EJ), depend on the estimator’s understanding of the project and the scope of work, while quantitative methods, such as unit cost, analytical hierarchy process (AHP), BIM, graphical evaluation and review technique (GERT), program evaluation and review technique (PERT), structural equation modeling (SEM), and regression analysis (RA), rely on historical data collection and analysis.
The study further revealed that despite extensive research efforts and the implementation of various cost management and control strategies, such as reference class forecasting (RCF), data mining, historical data analysis, and contingency planning, most of these strategies have significant limitations and theoretical flaws. Therefore, the study emphasizes the potential of recent advancements in 5D-BIM to address the root causes of the problem.
The study also examined the various applications of 5D-BIM in rail and transport projects, identifying its use in quantity take-off, cost estimation, cost budgeting, cost control, and lifecycle cost analysis. The benefits of BIM at different stages of the typical rail project lifecycle were identified, including creating a unified platform for data storage and management during the survey stage, design visualization and collaborative work during the design stage, schedule and site management during the construction stage, and operation and disaster emergency simulation in the operation stage. Alongside the BIM benefits, the study identified technical, personal, and process challenges for BIM implementation in rail projects.
The results of this study can be valuable for both researchers and practitioners in the field of rail project management. For researchers, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of the 5D-BIM research field and highlights the most relevant topics for future research. Practitioners can benefit from the insights into 5D-BIM implementation in practical settings, including the benefits and challenges associated with its use.
To fully harness the capabilities of 5D-BIM implementation, a robust framework that considers BIM policies and standards, tools and techniques, and overall project governance is necessary. Additionally, prevailing cost estimation and management techniques, which are driven by professional standards in the rail industry, should also be taken into consideration.
Finally, while limitations associated with the specific keywords and databases chosen for this systematic literature review exist, the main themes and trends identified are expected to remain relevant. Overall, this study provides valuable insights for researchers and practitioners looking to deploy 5D-BIM to minimize cost overruns in rail projects.
Conceptualization and methodology, all authors; software and visualization O.A.I.H.; project administration, writing—original draft preparation, funding acquisition, investigation, validation, resources, data curation, and formal analysis, O.A.I.H. and R.C.M.; writing—review and editing, all authors; supervision, R.C.M., S.D.C.W. and D.D.A.-D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The data employed in this review were downloaded from Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The data could be replicated using the search strategy in
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial assistance provided by Monash University, Clayton, Australia under the Monash Graduate Scholarship.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
The below abbreviations are used in this paper:
| 5D-BIM | Five-Dimensional Building Information Modelling |
| AACEI | Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International |
| ABC | Activity-Based Costing |
| AECO | Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations |
| AHP | Analytical Hierarchy Process |
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| ANNs | Artefactual Neural Networks |
| BIM | Building Information Modeling |
| CBR | Case-Based Reasoning |
| CBS | Cost Breakdown Structure |
| EVM | Earned Value Management |
| EJ | Expert Judgment |
| FIG | International Federation of Surveyors |
| GA | Genetic Algorithm |
| GIS | Geographic Information System |
| GERT | Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique |
| ICEC | Cost Engineering Council |
| ICMS | International Cost Management Standard |
| IFC | Industry Foundation Classes |
| IoT | Internet of Things |
| KPIs | Key Performance Indicators |
| LCC | Life-Cycle Costs |
| LCCA | Life-Cycle Cost Analysis |
| ML | Machine Learning |
| MRA | Multiple Regression Analysis |
| NRM | New Rules of Measurement |
| PBO | Parliamentary Budget Office |
| PRISMA | Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses |
| RBC | Resource-Based Costing |
| RCF | Reference Class Forecasting |
| RA | Regression Analysis |
| RICS | Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors |
| SLR | Systematic Literature Review |
| SEM | Structural Equation Modeling |
| TCM | Total Cost Management |
| TVD | Target Value Design |
| WBS | Work Breakdown Structure |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
![View Image - Figure 1. Types of Trains [33] Copyright 2022 by Taylor and Francis Group. Reprinted with permission.](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/2/kqunR?_a=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%3D%3D&_s=G7JDz6ZAnxa%2FH2Ffdruyucd7gSQ%3D "View Image - Figure 1. Types of Trains [33] Copyright 2022 by Taylor and Francis Group. Reprinted with permission.")
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Types of Trains [33] Copyright 2022 by Taylor and Francis Group. Reprinted with permission.
Enlarge this image.Figure 8. Network representation of keywords re-occurrence in the literature based on 1888 records.
![View Image - Figure 10. Schematic diagram on the makeup of railway engineering, adopted from [218]. Copyright 2018 by ASCE. Reprinted with permission.](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/28/kqunR?_a=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%3D%3D&_s=MlKiE5mBDaWpMZ9B2tf%2F681fnUQ%3D "View Image - Figure 10. Schematic diagram on the makeup of railway engineering, adopted from [218]. Copyright 2018 by ASCE. Reprinted with permission.")
Enlarge this image.Figure 10. Schematic diagram on the makeup of railway engineering, adopted from [218]. Copyright 2018 by ASCE. Reprinted with permission.
![View Image - Figure 11. Cost estimation methods by each transport mode [284]. Copyright 2017 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/4/kqunR?_a=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%3D%3D&_s=8AhBT6LR8Spgn8B9UszkiPWQ13k%3D "View Image - Figure 11. Cost estimation methods by each transport mode [284]. Copyright 2017 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.")
Enlarge this image.Figure 11. Cost estimation methods by each transport mode [284]. Copyright 2017 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.
Characteristics of BIM dimensions. Adopted from [
| BIM Dimension | Descriptions | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| 3D | Geometry dimensions | 3D building data and information, field layout and civil data, |
| 4D | 3D + Scheduling data (time) | Project schedule and phasing, just-in-time schedule, |
| 5D | 4D + Cost data | Conceptual cost planning, quantity extraction to cost |
| 6D | 5D + Sustainability data | Energy analysis, green building element, green building |
| 7D | 6D + Lifecycle info (operation and maintenance) | Building life cycles, BIM as built data, BIM cost operation |
Tools and Software packages.
| Software Package/Tool | Utilization | References |
|---|---|---|
| VOS viewer | SLR data visualization and analysis. | [ |
| Covidence | References screening, filtering, tagging and blind review. | [ |
| CiteSpace | Analysing SLR clusters/trends and patterns. | [ |
| EndNote and Mendeley | Manage/share/sort references library throughout the SLR process. | [ |
| Microsoft Excel | Data collection, storage and visualisation. | [ |
Search databases.
| Main Sources | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scopus | |
| 2 | Science Direct | |
| 3 | Web of Science (new website) | |
| Additional sources | ||
| 4 | Google Scholar | |
Distribution of tags among publications based on 1888 records.
| Tag | No | Conference Paper | Journal Paper | Book | Thesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BIM for Construction | 136 | 34 | 100 | 1 | 1 |
| BIM for Construction; Cost Management and Control | 244 | 76 | 165 | 0 | 3 |
| BIM for Infrastructure | 51 | 19 | 31 | 0 | 1 |
| BIM for Infrastructure; BIM for Rail; Cost Management and Control; Rail | 35 | 12 | 20 | 0 | 3 |
| BIM for Infrastructure; BIM for Rail; Rail | 191 | 67 | 118 | 2 | 4 |
| BIM for Infrastructure; Cost Management and Control | 55 | 18 | 37 | 0 | 0 |
| Cost Management and Control | 896 | 259 | 611 | 18 | 8 |
| Cost Management and Control; Rail | 180 | 51 | 127 | 0 | 2 |
| Rail | 100 | 29 | 68 | 2 | 1 |
| Total | 1888 | 565 | 1277 | 23 | 23 |
Different research groups/authors and their area of contribution.
| Group | Research Theme | Key Authors/References |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cost overrun | [ |
| 2 | Cost causation | [ |
| 3 | BIM implementation impact on project cost management | [ |
| 4 | Integrating BIM into railway projects | [ |
| 5 | BIM utilization in railway design | [ |
| 6 | Cost overrun typology in infrastructure projects | [ |
| 7 | Smart railway systems | [ |
| 8 | Cost modelling, risk and contingency calculations | [ |
| 9 | Cost overrun impact assessment | [ |
| 10 | Target costing process and design | [ |
| 11 | Railway lifecycle costing | [ |
| 12 | Project performance and cost control | [ |
| 13 | BIM and sustainability | [ |
| 14 | BIM implementation analysis | [ |
| 15 | Utilizing BIM and immerging technologies in railway industry | [ |
Key network clusters.
| Cluster ID | Size | Silhouette | Label (LLR) | Average Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 179 | 0.628 | Railway infrastructure | 2011 |
| 1 | 155 | 0.617 | Building Information Modeling | 2014 |
| 2 | 153 | 0.668 | Construction project | 2008 |
| 3 | 107 | 0.609 | Demand forecast | 2015 |
| 4 | 95 | 0.830 | Cost-effectiveness analysis | 2009 |
| 5 | 75 | 0.744 | Supply chain | 2008 |
| 6 | 67 | 0.817 | Cost deviation | 2013 |
| 7 | 51 | 0.820 | Construction contract | 2008 |
| 8 | 32 | 0.882 | Cost control | 2012 |
| 9 | 17 | 0.943 | Troubled project | 2007 |
BIM implementation challenges in rail projects [
| Issues | Challenges |
|---|---|
| Technical | Handling of growing file sizes |
| Lack of standardized data exchange | |
| Lack of proper design software | |
| Personal | Change attitude and mindset of people |
| Motivate people | |
| To have the same understanding of BIM within the whole project team | |
| Process | Transition from 2D to 3D design characteristics |
| Absence of standardized data exchange | |
| BIM only works if the client is completely convinced to use BIM |
Key cost overrun causes from the literature and corresponding BIM advantage.
| Key Cost Overrun Causes | Corresponding BIM Advantage |
|---|---|
| Poor planning [ |
Improved planning processes [ |
| Strategic misrepresentation, i.e., lying [ |
Transparency in decision making and data sharing [ |
| Forecasting errors including price rises, poor project design, and incompleteness of estimations [ |
Improved cost management for design stage [ |
| Scope changes [ |
Improved scope control [ |
| Poor cost estimation [ |
Improved cost estimation processes [ |
| Frequent design change during construction phase [ |
Improved change management during design process [ |
Appendix A. Different 5D-BIM Uses as Discussed in the Literature
| Research Method | Source | Region | Project Phase | Perspective | Purpose of Using 5D-BIM | Industry | Conclusion/Findings | |||||
|
Quantity Take-Off
|
Cost
|
Cost Monitoring and Control | Lifecycle Cost Analysis | Rail/Transport | Infrastructure | Construction | ||||||
| Case study | Digital project management in infrastructure project: a case study of Nagpur Metro Rail Project [ |
India | Construction | Contractor | X | X | X | X | X | - | - | The deployment of a BIM-based integrated digital project management system in the Nagpur Metro Rail Project has benefited the project in a variety of ways, including improved cost management and control. |
| Case Study | 5D-BIM applied to cost estimating, scheduling, and project control in underground projects [ |
Europe | Construction | Client | X | - | X | - | X | - | - | 5D-BIM is highly recommended in case of alternative project delivery such as design–build and P3 Projects. BIM’s best added value is appreciated in complex projects such as urban tunnelling and complex projects such as underground hydropower plants, railway and highway twin tube tunnel projects and repository underground structures. |
| Questionnaire | Benefits of integrating 5D-BIM in cost management practices in quantity surveying firms [ |
Nigeria | ALL | - | X | X | X | X | - | - | X | Cost managers will benefit from 5D-BIM in a variety of ways, including automated quantity take-off and improved project visualisation during the design and construction stages. |
| Case Study | Time and cost control of construction project using 5D- BIM process [ |
India | Construction | Client | X | X | X | - | - | X | 5D-BIM provides various advantages in terms of time and cost management for building projects, including faster procurement process, precise/fast decision making. | |
| Review | Analysis on the BIM application in the whole life cycle of railway engineering [ |
China | ALL | Client | - | - | - | X | X | - | - | BIM technology will progressively advance railway construction and, in the near future, will replace CAD. It will propel railway construction to a greater degree of informatization and intelligence growth. |
| Modelling simulation of a railway station | Digital twin for sustainability evaluation of railway station buildings [ |
UK | Construction | Client | X | X | X | X | X | - | - | The adoption of BIM in railway station construction projects provides several benefits. |
| Review | Overview: the opportunity of BIM in railway [ |
Morocco | ALL | - | X | X | X | X | X | - | - | BIM integration in rail is becoming a worldwide trend. This integration requires government decisions, more political impulse and a maturation of technology and tools. |
| Case study | Applying building information modelling to integrate schedule and cost for establishing construction progress curves [ |
Taiwan | Construction | Client | X | X | X | X | - | - | X | A four-step model incorporating BIM objects was used to establish a construction S-Curve. |
| Case study | Research on cost control of construction project based on the theory of lean construction and BIM: Case Study [ |
China | Construction | Client | - | - | X | - | - | - | X | Demonstrated by a case study, it is shown how a combination of lean theory and BIM can improve cost control in construction projects. |
| Case study | Implementing earned value management using bridge information modelling [ |
Egypt | Construction | Client | X | X | X | X | - | - | X | Presented a case study for the application of BIM in cost and time management of infrastructure bridge. |
| Case study | Project cost control using five dimensions building information modelling [ |
Egypt | Construction | Contractor | X | X | X | - | - | - | X | Using 5D-BIM improves project financial decision making (including stakeholder communications, cost estimation and control process). |
Appendix B. Cost Estimation Methods (Models)
| Approach | Category | Cost Estimation Method (Model) | Description |
| Quantitative | Parametric | Regression Analysis (RA) | Regression analysis is a statistical technique used to investigate the relationship between variables [ |
| Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) | Monte Carlo simulation uses random sampling and statistical modelling to estimate mathematical functions and simulate the processes of complex systems [ |
||
| Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) | SEM is a comprehensive statistical method that tests hypotheses about relations between observed and latent variables [ |
||
| Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) | PERT uses random variables with the following parameters to estimate the cost/duration of an activity: |
||
| Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique (GERT) | GERT was introduced by [ |
||
| Analytical | Decision Tree | Decision tree approach is a popular data mining method for constructing prediction algorithms for a target variable or establishing classification systems based on many variables [ |
|
| BIM | BIM object-oriented system helps facilitate generating bottom-up estimates and quantity take-off [ |
||
| Unit Cost | The unit cost estimate method focuses on determining the cost of materials, equipment, and labour for each component of a construction, which requires a detailed quantities take-off [ |
||
| Qualitative | Intuitive | Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) | AHP is a decision-making support approach for selecting a solution from alternatives based on a set of evaluation criteria [ |
| Analogous | Artificial Neural Network (ANN) | A neural network simulates the operation of the human brain. It excels at tackling complicated non-linear mathematical problems [ |
|
| Fuzzy Neural Network (NN) | Neural networks (NNs) are modelled after biological neural systems [ |
||
| Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) | CBR is an approach for solving new problem cases by reusing findings from old cases. The CBR systems consist of a data base to store old cases along with their solutions [ |
||
| Expert Judgment (EJ) | Expert judgement (EJ) approach relies on the understanding/thinking and reasoning of experts on processing historical cost data to make sound judgment on project cost [ |
||
| Support Vector Machine (SVM) | SVM is a computer algorithm that uses examples to learn how to label objects [ |
Appendix C. Key Publications Covering Cost Overrun Causes in Transport and Rail Projects
| Research Method | Source | Region | Project Phase | Industry | Cost Overrun | Conclusion/Findings | ||
| Rail | Transport | Perspective | Category | |||||
| A study based on a sample of 258 transportation infrastructure projects. | Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie? [ |
USA | ALL | - | X | Client | Psychological/Technical | Cost underestimation cannot be explained by error and seems to be best explained by strategic misrepresentation, i.e., lying. |
| Investigated the causes of project cost overruns reported in the construction-management-related articles since 1985. | Review of construction journals on causes of project cost overruns [ |
Worldwide | ALL | X | X | - | Technical/Economic/Psychological/Political | The study identified 79 causes of cost overruns, the top causes that have received the highest number of citations includes: design problems, inaccurate estimation, poor planning, poor communication, and poor financial management. |
| A study based on a sample of 258 transportation infrastructure projects. | What causes cost overrun in transport infrastructure projects? [ |
USA | ALL | X | X | Client | Technical/Economic/Psychological/Political | Cost escalation is highly dependent on length of project implementation phase. |
| Case study | Cost overruns and delays in infrastructure projects: the case of Stuttgart 21 [ |
Germany | All | X | X | Client | Technical/Economic | Cost overrun causes include: scope changes, geological conditions, high risk-taking propensity, extended implementation, price overshoot, conflict of interests and lack of citizens’ participation. |
| Case studies | Cost overruns in Australian transport infrastructure projects [ |
Australia | All | X | X | Client | Technical | Studied the magnitude of cost overruns on Australian transport infrastructure projects. |
| Literature study | Cost overruns in large-scale transportation infrastructure projects: Explanations and their theoretical embeddedness [ |
Worldwide | All | - | X | Client | Technical/Economic/Psychological/Political | Discussed agency theory, eclectic theory, rational choice theory and prospect theory. |
| Statistical analysis of case studies. | Cost overruns in road construction—what are their sizes and determinants? [ |
Norway | All | - | X | Client | Technical | Investigated the statistical relationship between actual and estimated cost, cost overrun is found to be more predominant as compared to cost savings, there are significant number of projects being completed with actual costs less than estimated. Provided policy implications. |
| Analysed government project data. | On the magnitude of cost overruns throughout the project life cycle: An assessment for the Italian transport infrastructure projects [ |
Italy | All | - | X | Client | Technical | Analysed government project data and the whole process of cost generation for transport infrastructure works. |
| Analysed rail project data set. | Cost overrun and demand shortfalls in urban rail and other infrastructure [ |
Worldwide | All | X | X | Client | Technical/Economic/Psychological/Political | The analysis of construction costs shows that urban rail projects on average turn out to be substantially more costly than forecast. At the same time, the analysis of ridership shows urban rail to achieve considerably fewer passengers than forecast and thus lower revenues. The article showed that urban rail projects are particularly risky ventures, although other transportation projects, such as tunnels and bridges, are also highly risky, as are projects in policy areas other than transportation: Average cost escalation for urban rail is 45% in constant prices. For 25% of urban rail projects cost escalations are at least 60%. Actual ridership is on average 51% lower than forecast. For 25% of urban rail projects, actual ridership is at least 68% lower than forecast. When cost risk and revenue risk are combined, a risk profile emerges for urban rail, which proves such projects to be economically risky to the second degree. |
| Analysed a data set of 1091 transport projects developed by the Portuguese government. | The determinants of cost deviations and overruns in transport projects, an endogenous model’s approach [ |
Portugal | All | - | X | Client | Technical | Profound implications concerning public policy, because when undertaking large infrastructure developments plans, and estimating their potential cost (and overruns), it is fundamental to understand the current economic dynamics, as well as acting on improving the overall legal (particularly regarding public procurement laws) and governance environment, particularly regarding the government’s efficiency, corruption, and the overall rule of law. |
| Investigated the risk factors leading to substantial cost overruns of highway projects and develop a more definitive risk contingency allocation regime for overall highway projects to supersede the arbitrary models currently present. | Evaluation of risk factors leading to cost overrun in delivery of highway construction projects [ |
Australia | project development. | - | X | Client | Technical | Investigated the statistical models that can explain the correlation between the cause, effect, and other relationships relating to the cost overrun in highway construction projects. The regression analysis demonstrated a weak correlation between the size of highway projects, as measured in the indexed programmed cost, and the size of cost overruns. It can also be concluded from the research that the arbitrary application of a base contingency percentage figure, such as 10%, to accommodate project risk can lead to those projects reporting a substantial budget overrun. |
| Analysed a project data set (a sample of 258 projects worth approximately USD 90 billion). | How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects? [ |
USA | ALL | X | X | Client | Technical/Economic/Psychological/Political | Cost estimates used in public debates, media coverage and decision-making for transport infrastructure development are highly, systematically, and significantly deceptive. The risks generated from misleading cost estimates are typically ignored or underplayed in infrastructure decision-making. |
| Analysed a project data set (a sample of 78 projects). | Characteristics of cost overruns for |
Netherlands | ALL | - | X | Client | Psychological/Political | Found that cost overruns have been a problem for the last 20 years. Furthermore, although in the Netherlands cost overruns are about as common as cost underruns, the average overrun is larger than the average underrun. Overall, projects have an average overrun of 16.5%. |
| Literature study | How to Build Major Transport Infrastructure Projects within Budget, in Time and with the Expected Output; a Literature Review [ |
Worldwide | ALL | - | X | Client | Technical/Economic/Psychological/Political | The main conclusion from the review is that in the current scientific literature on major transportation infrastructure projects, four main factors are mentioned that might help to build these projects in time, on budget and with the expected output: improving cost and benefit estimates, risk-containment measures, increasing |
| Analysed a project data set (a sample of 78 projects) | Different cost performance: Different determinants? The case of cost overruns in Dutch transport infrastructure projects [ |
Netherlands | ALL | X | X | Client | Technical | The study showed that in the Netherlands, cost overruns for rail projects are relatively low, both when compared nationally with roads and fixed links, and internationally when compared with worldwide findings. The difference between project types may be related to the organisational set-up and institutional settings, which is different for rail projects (with ProRail as project owner) and for road projects (with RWS as project owner). This research furthermore concluded that small projects have the largest average cost overrun. This suggests that smaller projects deserve more attention than is currently the case, as they result in similar percentage cost overruns as the large projects. |
| Systematic Literature Review | Tales on the dark side of the transport infrastructure provision: a systematic literature review of the determinants of cost overruns [ |
Worldwide | - | X | Different perspectives | Technical/Economic/Psychological/Political | This study provides a systematic review of the broad and heterogeneous literature that investigates the determinants of cost overruns in transport infrastructure provision. It focuses on empirical analyses, published between 2000 and 2016. | |
| Case studies | Cost overruns in Swedish transport projects [ |
Sweden | ALL | X | X | Client | - | A good strategy to improve cost calculation would be to develop a cost estimation method which considers the risks of the costs in each individual component based on the experiences of a class of similar projects. This is the same concept as the risk-based estimating method used in Australia. It combines advantages from both the successive calculation and the reference class forecasting method. |
| Literature study | Debunking fake news in a post-truth era: The plausible untruths of cost underestimation in transport infrastructure projects [ |
Worldwide | ALL | - | X | Client | - | A detailed examination of the Flyvbjerg, Holm and Buhl research raises serious questions regarding the methodology adopted, the analysis undertaken, and unfounded conclusions reached. |
| Critical analysis | Explaining cost overruns of large-scale transportation infrastructure projects using a signalling game [ |
Worldwide | Biding | - | X | Client/Contractor | Political-economic | The signalling game gives useful insights into the way in which strategic behaviour results in cost underestimation. It is, furthermore, a valuable tool to predict the impact of policy measures on the behaviour of the market party. Measurements are aimed to reprimand or prevent the strategic behaviour of the market party and they should be focused on changing the incentive structure in such a way that the signal of the game becomes effective. |
| Critical analysis/Literature study | Cost overruns in transportation infrastructure projects: Sowing the seeds for a probabilistic theory of causation [ |
Worldwide | All | - | X | Client | Probabilistic causal inferences about cost overruns can be acquired from a combination of assumptions, experiments, and data. | |
| Review | Toward a Systemic View to Cost Overrun Causation in Infrastructure Projects: A Review and Implications for Research [ |
Worldwide | All | - | X | - | - | Explored some of the methodological deficiencies in the approaches adopted in a majority of the cost overrun research. These deficiencies include a poor understanding of systemicity and embeddedness of the sources of overruns, a dependence on correlational analysis, a lack of demonstrable causality, and superficiality of the research design. Found that cost overrun research has largely stagnated in the refinement and advancement of the knowledge area; the bulk of it has largely been replicative. |
| Critical analysis/Literature study | On de-bunking “fake news” in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short? [ |
Worldwide | All | - | X | Client | - | Critically questioned the work presented by Bent Flyvbjerg. |
| Analysed a project data set | Cost Overrun and Cause in Korean Social Overhead Capital Projects: Roads, Rails, Airports, and Ports [ |
Korea | All | - | X | Client | - | In Korea, the causes of cost overruns can be grouped into several major categories: changes in the scope of a project, delays in construction, unreasonable estimations and adjustments of the project costs, and no practical use of the earned value management system. |
| Critical literature review | Construction Projects Cost Overrun: What Does the Literature Tell Us? [ |
Worldwide | All | - | X | - | - | 173 causes of cost overrun have been found in seventeen contexts, with the main potential causes being: frequent design change, contractors’ financing, payment delay for completed work, lack of contractor experience, poor cost estimation, poor tendering documentation, and poor material management. |
| Systematic literature review | Cost Overrun Causative Factors in Road Infrastructure Projects: A Frequency and Importance Analysis [ |
Worldwide | All | - | X | - | - | It is recommended that the mitigation of cost overruns in road projects be undertaken from the early stages. This due to the fact that several causal factors with high influence values are observed among the top 20 factors with the greatest influence, which are related to different processes that belong to the initial stages of the projects, factors that are under the control of the project stakeholders and therefore have high viability to be addressed. |
| Systematic literature review | Systematic Review of Cost Overrun Research in the Developed and Developing Countries [ |
Developing Countries | All | - | X | - | - | The findings of this study have shown that there have been broad studies conducted on cost overrun in both developing nations and developed nations. However, there is a slight lack in comprehensiveness of cost overrun studies in the developing nations; perhaps future studies on cost overrun in developing nations can be directed to more specific areas of construction projects such as those that have been performed by researchers of the developed nations. |
| Literature review | Academics and Auditors Comparing Perspectives on Transportation Project Cost Overruns [ |
Worldwide | All | - | X | - | - | There are divergences between the technical and managerial explanations prioritized by the auditors and the political, economic, and psychological explanations prioritized in much of the academic literature. Moreover, the independent government audits place considerably less weight on willful deception and strategic misrepresentation as systematic causes of cost overruns than some of the highest-profile academic studies on the topic [ |
| Analysed a project data set (Seven large bridge and tunnel projects) | Inaccuracy of traffic forecasts and cost estimates on large transport projects [ |
Denmark | All | X | X | Client | Technical | Forecasts of project viability for large transport infrastructure projects are often over-optimistic to a degree where such forecasts correspond poorly with actual development. |
| Analysed a project data set (six major European railway projects) | A New Paradigm for the Assessment of High-Speed Rail Projects and How to Contain Cost Overruns: Lessons from the EVA-TREN Project [ |
Europe | All | X | X | - | - | Highlighted cost overrun and lessons learned from EVA-TREN Project. |
| Analysed a project data set (Sixteen rail projects) | Trends in U.S. rail transit project cost |
USA | All | X | X | Client | - | There is evidence to suggest that cost overruns for projects completed before 1990 are different from that of projects completed after 1994 (i.e., cost overruns have become smaller—positive trend). |
Appendix D. Cost Models Used for Cost Estimation, Prediction, and Analysis in Transport and Rail Projects
| Cost Estimation Method/Model | Source | Region | Project Phase | Industry | Conclusion/Findings | |
| Rail | Transport | |||||
| Earned value | The control model of engineering cost in construction phase of high-speed railway [ |
China | Construction | X | X | To improve the efficiency of cost control in the high speed railway construction phase, the researchers set up the model of earned value and install FBCWS index, through the contrast between FBCWS index and ACWP index, they have improved the efficiency of cost control in construction stage, so that they can do the better in the direction and control before costs incurred and make the construction cost control management more scientific and effective in the construction phase of high speed rail project. |
| Life Cycle Costing | An application of a generalized life cycle cost model to boxn wagons of Indian railways [ |
India | Operation and Maintenance | X | X | A generalized life cycle cost model for repairable and non-repairable products based on reliability and maintainability (M) aspects is applied to BOXN wagons used by Indian railways and the results obtained are discussed. |
| Multiple | Cost Estimation Methods for Transport Infrastructure: A Systematic Literature Review [ |
Worldwide | All | X | X | According to the SLR, 12 different cost estimation methods have been used in different transport infrastructure modes. Among these, the parametric method has been used the most, followed by artificial neural networks. With respect to infrastructure type, the focus was mostly on roads. The trend shows that research on cost estimation methods has been increasing over the years and more types of methods are being used. Most of the research found focused on the experimental use of different methods, and not the analysis of the methods practiced in the industry. |
| Case-based Reasoning (CBR) estimate | The Approximate Cost Estimating Model for Railway Bridge Project in the Planning Phase Using CBR Method [ |
Korea | Planning | X | X | Suggested the cost estimation model which uses CBR and makes the database reflect the character of the railroad bridge. The study examined combinations of attributes, criteria of similarities, and retrieval ranks and applied GA for an optimization of attribute weights throughout learning process. |
| Linear Regression Analysis and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) | Cost and Material Quantities Prediction Models for theConstruction of Underground Metro Stations. [ |
Greece | Construction | X | X | Using linear regression analysis and ANNs in comparing the actual values of costs and quantities with the corresponding predictions proved to be efficient and reliable cost estimation methodology. |
| Multiple regression analysis | Early cost estimation models based on multiple regression analysis for road and railway tunnel projects [ |
Western Europe | Planning | X | X | Developed tunnel cost estimation models that can be used for various applications in the planning stage of road and railway projects. The models were developed using data from 25 constructed projects in western European countries. |
| BIM | Optimization of cost of a tram through the integration of BIM: A theoretical analysis [ |
Morocco | Construction | X | X | Conducted a theoretical analysis of the optimization of the cost of a tram by integrating the building information modelling (BIM) from the sketching phase and throughout the life cycle of the infrastructure. |
| Life Cycle Costing | Development of a life cycle cost estimate system for structures of light rail transit infrastructure [ |
Korea | Construction | X | X | An LRT-LCC system was developed in this study, based on existing studies on LRT construction cost estimation and LCC estimation studies for bridges, tunnels, and buildings. The system was composed to provide a feasibility analysis based on the existing economic analytical results of each structure required for LRT construction. |
| Pairwise comparisons | Modelling the cost of railway asset renewal |
UK | Design | X | X | Presented the development process of a cost-estimating model for railway renewal projects at the early stage of a project life cycle. The practical implications of the developed model are its ability to estimate renewal project costs of railway assets when there is a lack of quantitative data and detailed project definition. |
| Statistical methods | Determining the Probability of Project Cost Overruns [ |
Australia | All | - | X | Developed a Fréchet probability function that can be used to calculate the probability of cost overruns. |
| Parametric cost estimation | Parametric cost estimation system for light rail transit and metro track works [ |
Turkey | Concept | X | X | Developed a multivariable regression and artificial neural network models for cost estimation of the construction costs of track works for light rail transit and metro projects at the early stages of the construction process. |
| Present Worth Analysis, Internal Rate of Return and Cost-Benefit Analysis | Railway Investment Appraisal Techniques [ |
Europe | Concept | X | X | Presented the basic principles and applications of the most important investment appraisal techniques in a clearly written fashion, supported by a number of railway-related examples. |
| A set of cost functions | A tool for railway transport cost evaluation [ |
Italy | Feasibility study | X | X | Provided a systematic process for cost estimation and decision support. The methodology can be used as an intermediate tool to allow rail planners to more easily perform railroad analysis and planning activities on their own, prior to contracting out feasibility studies. |
Appendix E. Popular Methods/Techniques Used for Cost Overrun Prediction, Cost Estimate and Cost Contingency Calculations
| Method/Technique | Type | Definition | Method Uses from the Literature | ||
| Cost Overrun Prediction |
Cost
|
Cost Estimation | |||
| Case-based reasoning (CBR) | Analogical method | “A case-based reasoner solves new problems by adapting solutions that were used to solve old problems.” [ |
[ |
[ |
|
| Multiple regression analysis (MRA) | Statistical method | “Multiple regression is used as a data-analytic strategy to explain or predict a criterion (dependent) variable with a set of predictor (independent) variables” [ |
[ |
[ |
[ |
| Artificial neural networks (ANN) | Repetitive learning | “A massively parallel combination of simple processing unit which can acquire knowledge from environment through a learning process and store the knowledge |
[ |
[ |
|
| Monte-Carlo simulation (MCS) | Stochastic method | “The Monte Carlo method is an application of the laws of probability and statistics to the natural sciences” [ |
[ |
||
Appendix F. Systematic Literature Review (SLR) Protocol
Minimizing Cost Overrun in Rail Projects Through 5D-BIM: A Systematic Literature Review.
Review Protocol.
| Organization, city, country | Monash University, Melbourne, Australia |
| Prepared by | Osama Hussain |
| Date | Updated on 8 January 2023 |
| Review team members | Dr. Robert Moehler—Monash University |
Appendix F.1. Background
This systematic literature is the first step of a broader research to investigate the use of 5D-BIM modelling to minimize cost overrun in rail projects.
The research will consider different cost management and control frameworks that employ 5D-BIM and evaluate their impact on cost control. It aims to produce a framework and guide on the best practices for using BIM to control cost overruns in the rail industry, with a long-term goal of informing regulation and policy.
Appendix F.2. Objective
The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) is to give a quick, detailed overview of the literature and the main trends. The SLR will be used to map the knowledge gaps and synthesise the existing body of knowledge [
Appendix F.3. Researchers
First reviewer: Osama Hussain—Monash University—Department of Civil Engineering
Review Team members:
-
Dr. Robert Moehler—Monash University
-
Dr. Stuart Walsh—Monash University
Appendix F.4. Research Questions
The specific review questions to be addressed are as follows:
-
What causes cost overrun in transport projects in general and rail projects in particular?
-
What are the cost models used to predict and analyse cost overrun in transport projects in general and rail projects in particular?
-
What cost management and control strategies are used to prevent these cost overruns? What is the efficiency of these strategies and suitability for 5D-BIM modelling?
-
How can 5D-BIM be successfully integrated into rail projects life cycle to support cost management and control models and minimize/prevent cost overrun?
-
What is the validity and reliability of using 5D-BIM modelling for different types of rail projects?
Appendix F.5. Time Line for the Review
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Protocol | 2½ weeks |
| 2 | Literature searching | 2 weeks |
| 3 | Screening/Quality appraisal | 2 weeks |
| 4 | Data extraction | 6 weeks |
| 5 | Synthesis | 4 weeks |
| 6 | Writing up | 4½ week |
| Total | 21weeks |
Appendix F.6. Electronic Databases
The following electronic databases will be used for data collection.
| 1 | Scopus | |
| 2 | Science Direct | |
| 3 | Web of Science (new website) | |
| 4 | Google Scholar | |
| Note: The search algorithm for Google scholar is not known and cannot be controlled. Google adapts the search to each user in order to personalize information and, as a result, a systematic search is quite probably not replicable [ | ||
Appendix F.7. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
|
|
|
|
| Databases | Indexed in: |
Not indexed in: |
| Document Types | Journal articles, conference papers, books, and theses. | All other types of publications |
| Years | 2000–2023 | Prior to 2000 |
| Language | English | Non-English |
For detailed search inclusions/exclusions, please refer to search strategy.
Appendix F.8. Search Strategy
The search strategy will be designed to access published material in the electronic databases as follows:
(Please refer to the search strategy for details).
-
Search in Scopus, Science Direct, and the new website for Web of Science will be conducted using keyword to identify cluster and specific words to identify research focus (in all fields).
-
Search in Google Scholar will be conducted using specific words in the article title.
Appendix F.9. Tools and Software Packages
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), guidelines and flowchart will be used for this systematic review [
A combination of software packages will be used for data collection, processing and exporting. These include: EndNote [
Appendix F.10. Screening /Quality Appraisal
Identified articles that meet the criteria will be grouped into one of the following categories:
Cost overrun, Cost management and control, BIM, and Rail projects. These articles will then be assessed independently by two reviewers.
A clearer definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria will be written based on discussion and agreements. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion and with the assistance of a third reviewer where required. Screening steps will be as follows:
Title/abstract review: Determine relevancy to the subject area.
Full text review: Verification of the decision of inclusion performed in the first step.
Appendix F.11. Data Extraction
Data will be extracted and exported in different formats for further processing. VOS Viewer will be used to visualize the data.
Appendix G. Search Strategy
(8 January 2023)
Search query string
Scopus search
(1—Cost Overrun)
(KEY (“cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“transport” OR “rail” OR “railway” OR “BIM” OR “5D BIM” OR “cost management” OR “cost control” OR “project” OR “cost model” OR “causes” OR “sources” OR “driver” OR “life cycle cost”)) AND DOCTYPE (ar OR cp) AND PUBYEAR > 1999 AND PUBYEAR > 2000 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND (EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENVI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “EART”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATH”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATE”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “AGRI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “CHEM”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PHYS”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “BIOC”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PSYC”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MEDI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))
(2—Cost Management and Control)
(KEY (“cost management” OR “cost control” OR “project cost management” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“transport” OR “rail” OR “railway” OR “BIM” OR “5d BIM” OR “cost model” OR “life cycle cost” OR “strategies” OR “ polices” OR “cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun”)) AND DOCTYPE (ar OR cp) AND PUBYEAR > 1999 AND DOCTYPE (ar OR cp) AND PUBYEAR > 1999 AND PUBYEAR > 2000 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND (EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MEDI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “BIOC”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENVI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PHAR”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “NURS”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “AGRI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “IMMU”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “HEAL”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “CHEM”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATH”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATE”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “NEUR”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “VETE”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “EART”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PSYC”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “DENT”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PHYS”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))
(3—BIM)
(KEY (“BIM” OR “5d BIM” OR “building information modelling” OR “building information modeling” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“transport” OR “rail” OR “railway” OR “cost management” OR “cost control” OR “cost model” OR “life cycle cost” OR “cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun”)) AND DOCTYPE (ar OR cp) AND PUBYEAR > 1999 AND PUBYEAR > 2000 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND (EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “BIOC”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MEDI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENVI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “EART”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “NEUR”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “IMMU”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATH”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATE”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PHAR”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “AGRI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “CHEM”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PHYS”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))
(4—Rail projects)
(KEY (“rail” OR “railway” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“BIM” OR “5d BIM” OR “cost management” OR “cost control” OR “cost model” OR “life cycle cost” OR “cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun”)) AND DOCTYPE (ar OR cp) AND PUBYEAR > 1999 AND PUBYEAR > 2000 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND (EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENVI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATE”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “EART”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PHYS”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATH”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “CHEM”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MEDI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “AGRI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “BIOC”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “HEAL”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “NEUR”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))
Web of science
The new website for (Web of science) was used:
(1—Cost Overrun)
link
Search query string
((((AK=(“cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)) AND DOP=(2000-2023)) AND ALL=(“transport” OR “rail” OR “railway” OR “BIM” OR “5D BIM” OR “cost management” OR “cost control” OR “project” OR “cost model” OR “causes” OR “sources” OR “driver” OR “life cycle cost”)) AND LA=(English)) NOT DT=(Book OR Book Chapter OR Book Review)
(2—Cost Management and Control)
link
Search query string
((((AK=(“cost management” OR “cost control” OR “project cost management”OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)) AND PY=(2021-2023)) AND LA=(English)) AND ALL=(“transport” OR “rail” OR “railway” OR “BIM” OR “5d BIM” OR “cost model” OR “life cycle cost” OR “strategies” OR “ polices” OR “cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun”)) NOT DT=(Book OR Book Chapter OR Book Review)
(3—BIM)
link
Search query string
((((AK=(“BIM” OR “5d BIM” OR “building information modelling” OR “building information modeling” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)) AND ALL=(“transport” OR “rail” OR “railway” OR “cost management” OR “cost control” OR “cost model” OR “life cycle cost” OR “cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun”)) AND LA=(English)) AND PY=(2000-2023)) NOT DT=(Book OR Book Chapter OR Book Review)
(4—Rail projects)
link
Search query string
(((AK=(“rail” OR “railway” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)) AND PY=(2000-2023)) NOT DT=(Book OR Book Chapter OR Book Review)) AND ALL=(“BIM” OR “5d BIM” OR “cost management” OR “cost control” OR “cost model” OR “life cycle cost” OR “cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun”)
Science Direct
Science direct only allow max eight boolean connector per field, as a result the search was divided into 2 groups.
* Year 2021–2023
** Exclude book chapters
*** Review articles + Research Article + Short communications
**** English Language
(1—Cost Overrun)
First group:
KEY(“cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)
AND
ALL (“transport” OR “rail” OR “railway” OR “BIM” OR “5D BIM” OR “cost management” OR “cost control” OR “project” OR “cost model”)
Second group:
KEY(“cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)
AND
ALL (“causes” OR “sources” OR “drivers” OR “life cycle cost”)
(2—Cost Management and Control)
First group:
KEY (“cost management” OR “cost control” OR “project cost management” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)
AND
ALL (“transport” OR “rail” OR “railway” OR “BIM” OR “5d BIM” OR “cost model” OR “life cycle cost” OR “strategies” OR “ polices”))
Second group:
KEY (“cost management” OR “cost control” OR “project cost management” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)
ALL (“causes” OR “sources” OR “drivers” OR “life cycle cost”)
(3—BIM)
First group:
KEY (“BIM” OR “5d BIM” OR “building information modelling” OR “building information modeling” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)
AND
ALL (“transport” OR “rail” OR “railway” OR “cost management” OR “cost control” OR “cost model” OR “life cycle cost”))
Second group:
KEY (“BIM” OR “5d BIM” OR “building information modelling” OR “building information modeling” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)
AND
ALL (“cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun”)
(4—Rail projects)
First group:
KEY (“rail” OR “railway” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)
AND
ALL (“BIM” OR “5d BIM” OR “cost management” OR “cost control” OR “cost model” OR “life cycle cost”)
Second group:
KEY (“rail” OR “railway” OR “cost growth” OR “cost underestimation”)
AND
ALL (“cost overrun” OR “cost overruns” OR “cost escalation” OR “budget overrun”)
Google Scholar
The search algorithm for Google scholar is not known and cannot be controlled, Google adapts the search to each user in order to personalize information and, as a result, a systematic search is quite probably not replicable.
Google Scholar was considered as additional source only for this Systematic literature review
* Year 2000–2023
** Search exact phrases in document title only
(1—Cost Overrun)
-
allintitle: Cost overrn model
-
allintitle: Cost overrns model
-
allintitle: cost overruns cause
-
allintitle: cost overruns causes
-
allintitle: cost overrun cause
-
allintitle: cost overruns drivers
-
allintitle: cost overrun drivers
-
allintitle: cost overun transport
-
allintitle: cost overuns transport
-
allintitle: cost overrun rail
-
allintitle: cost overruns rail
-
allintitle: cost overruns life cycle cost
-
allintitle: cost overrun BIM
(2—Cost Management and Control)
-
allintitle: Cost management transport
-
allintitle: cost management rail
-
allintitle: cost management railway
-
allintitle: cost management BIM
-
allintitle: cost management overrun
-
allintitle: cost management overruns
-
allintitle: cost control transport
-
allintitle: cost control rail
-
allintitle: cost control railway
-
allintitle: cost control BIM
-
allintitle: cost control life cycle cost
-
allintitle: project cost management BIM
(3—BIM)
-
allintitle: BIM transport
-
allintitle: BIM rail
-
allintitle: BIM railway
-
allintitle: BIM cost model
(4—Rail projects)
-
allintitle: Rail life cycle cost
-
allintitle: Railway life cycle cost
Search terms and boolean operators
| Scopus | ||||||
| * Year 2000–2023 | ||||||
| ** English Language | ||||||
| *** Journal articles, conference papers | ||||||
| No | Cluster | Keywords | Research Focus (All fields) | Excluded subject areas | ||
| 1 | Cost overrun | cost overrun | + | Transport | - | Earth and Planetary Sciences |
| cost overruns | Rail OR Railway | Mathematics | ||||
| cost escalation | BIM OR 5D BIM | Materials Science | ||||
| budget overrun | Cost Management OR Cost control | Physics and Astronomy | ||||
| project | Agricultural and Biological Sciences | |||||
| cost model | Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | |||||
| causes OR sources OR drivers | Psychology | |||||
| life cycle cost | Environmental Science | |||||
| Medicine | ||||||
| Chemistry | ||||||
| 2 | Cost Management & Control | cost management | + | Transport | - | Earth and Planetary Sciences |
| cost control | Rail OR Railway | Mathematics | ||||
| Project cost management | BIM OR 5D BIM | Materials Science | ||||
| cost model | Physics and Astronomy | |||||
| life cycle cost | Agricultural and Biological Sciences | |||||
| strategies OR policies | Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | |||||
| cost overrun OR cost overruns OR cost escalation OR budget overrun | Psychology | |||||
| Environmental Science | ||||||
| Medicine | ||||||
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics | ||||||
| Chemistry | ||||||
| Health Professions | ||||||
| Immunology and Microbiology | ||||||
| Neuroscience | ||||||
| Nursing | ||||||
| Dentistry | ||||||
| Veterinary | ||||||
| 3 | BIM | BIM | + | Transport | Earth and Planetary Sciences | |
| 5D BIM | Rail OR Railway | Mathematics | ||||
| Building information modelling | Cost Management OR Cost control | Materials Science | ||||
| Physics and Astronomy | ||||||
| cost model | Agricultural and Biological Sciences | |||||
| life cycle cost | Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | |||||
| cost overrun OR cost overruns OR cost escalation OR budget overrun | Environmental Science | |||||
| Medicine | ||||||
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics | ||||||
| Chemistry | ||||||
| Immunology and Microbiology | ||||||
| Neuroscience | ||||||
| 4 | Rail projects | Rail | + | BIM OR 5D BIM | Earth and Planetary Sciences | |
| Railway | Cost Management OR Cost control | Mathematics | ||||
| cost model | Materials Science | |||||
| life cycle cost | Physics and Astronomy | |||||
| cost overrun OR cost overruns OR cost escalation OR budget overrun | Agricultural and Biological Sciences | |||||
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | ||||||
| Environmental Science | ||||||
| Medicine | ||||||
| Health Professions | ||||||
| Chemistry | ||||||
| Neuroscience | ||||||
| Total | ||||||
| Web of Science | ||||||
| * Year 2000–2023 | ||||||
| ** English Language | ||||||
| No | Cluster | Keywords | Research Focus (All fields) | Excluded subject areas | ||
| 1 | Cost overrun | cost overrun | + | Transport | - | Environmental Sciences Ecology |
| cost overruns | Rail OR Railway | Materials Science | ||||
| cost escalation | BIM OR 5D BIM | Chemistry | ||||
| budget overrun | Cost Management OR Cost control | Geography | ||||
| project | Physics | |||||
| cost model | Mathematics | |||||
| causes OR sources OR drivers | ||||||
| life cycle cost | ||||||
| 2 | Cost Management & Control | cost management | + | Transport | - | Environmental Sciences Ecology |
| cost control | Rail OR Railway | Agriculture | ||||
| Project cost management | BIM OR 5D BIM | Materials Science | ||||
| cost model | Health Care Sciences Services | |||||
| life cycle cost | Physical Geography | |||||
| strategies OR policies | Biomedical social sciences | |||||
| cost overrun OR cost overruns OR cost escalation OR budget overrun | Physics | |||||
| Mathematics | ||||||
| Biotechnology Applied Microbiology | ||||||
| Chemistry | ||||||
| Energy fuels | ||||||
| Food Science technology | ||||||
| Forestry | ||||||
| Geology | ||||||
| Infectious diseases | ||||||
| Metallurgy Metallurgical Engineering | ||||||
| Nursing | ||||||
| Obstetrics Gynecology | ||||||
| Otorhinolaryngology | ||||||
| Pharmacology Pharmacy | ||||||
| Instrument Instrumentation | ||||||
| General Internal Medicine | ||||||
| Mechanics | ||||||
| 3 | BIM | BIM | + | Transport | Environmental Sciences Ecology | |
| 5D BIM | Rail OR Railway | Materials Science | ||||
| Building information modelling | Cost Management OR Cost control | Chemistry | ||||
| Physics | ||||||
| cost model | Physical Geography | |||||
| life cycle cost | Energy fuels | |||||
| cost overrun OR cost overruns OR cost escalation OR budget overrun | Remote Sensing | |||||
| Instrument Instrumentation | ||||||
| Biotechnology Applied Microbiology | ||||||
| Geology | ||||||
| Imaging Science Photographic Technology | ||||||
| Robotics | ||||||
| Agriculture | ||||||
| Biophysics | ||||||
| Cell Biology | ||||||
| Mechanics | ||||||
| Oncology | ||||||
| Acoustics | ||||||
| Astronomy Astrophysics | ||||||
| Biomedical social science | ||||||
| Endocrinology Metabolism | ||||||
| Food science technology | ||||||
| Geography | ||||||
| Hematology | ||||||
| Mechanics | ||||||
| Neuroscience Neurology | ||||||
| Optics | ||||||
| Physiology | ||||||
| Sociology | ||||||
| 4 | Rail projects | Rail | + | BIM OR 5D BIM | Environmental Sciences | |
| Railway | Cost Management OR Cost control | Environmental Sturdies | ||||
| cost model | Material Sciences Multidisciplinary | |||||
| life cycle cost | Automation control systems | |||||
| cost overrun OR cost overruns OR cost escalation OR budget overrun | Chemistry Multidisciplinary | |||||
| Geography Physical | ||||||
| Instrument Instrumentation | ||||||
| Robotics | ||||||
| Geography | ||||||
| Energy fuels | ||||||
| Geoscience Multidisciplinary | ||||||
| Health Care Sciences Services | ||||||
| Medical informatics | ||||||
| Remote sensing | ||||||
| Total | ||||||
| Science Direct | ||||||
| * Year 2000–2023 | ||||||
| ** Exclude book chapters | ||||||
| *** Review articles + Research Article + Short communications | ||||||
| No | Cluster | Keywords | Research Focus (All fields) | Excluded subject areas | ||
| 1 | Cost Overrun | cost overrun | + | Transport | - | Medicine and Dentistry |
| cost overruns | Rail OR Railway | Environmental Science | ||||
| cost escalation | BIM OR 5D BIM | |||||
| budget overrun | Cost Management OR Cost control | |||||
| project | ||||||
| cost model | ||||||
| causes OR sources OR drivers | ||||||
| life cycle cost | ||||||
| 2 | Cost Management & Control | cost management | + | Transport | - | Medicine and Dentistry |
| cost control | Rail OR Railway | Environmental Science | ||||
| Project cost management | BIM OR 5D BIM | Agricultural and Biological Sciences | ||||
| cost model | ||||||
| life cycle cost | ||||||
| strategies OR policies | ||||||
| cost overrun OR cost overruns OR cost escalation OR budget overrun | ||||||
| 3 | BIM | BIM | + | Transport | - | Medicine and Dentistry |
| 5D BIM | Rail OR Railway | Environmental Science | ||||
| Building information modelling | Cost Management OR Cost control | Agricultural and Biological Sciences | ||||
| cost model | ||||||
| life cycle cost | ||||||
| cost overrun OR cost overruns OR cost escalation OR budget overrun | ||||||
| 4 | Rail Projects | Rail | + | BIM OR 5D BIM | Mathematics | |
| Railway | Cost Management OR Cost control | Environmental Science | ||||
| cost model | Psychology | |||||
| life cycle cost | ||||||
| cost overrun OR cost overruns OR cost escalation OR budget overrun | ||||||
| Total | ||||||
| Google Scholar | |||
| * Year 2000–2023 | |||
| ** Document title only | |||
| No | Cluster | search words (in title only) | |
| 1 | Cost overrun | Cost overrun model | |
| Cost overruns model | |||
| cost overruns cause | |||
| cost overruns causes | |||
| cost overrun cause | |||
| cost overruns drivers | |||
| cost overrun drivers | |||
| cost overrun transport | |||
| cost overruns transport | |||
| cost overrun rail | |||
| cost overruns rail | |||
| cost overruns life cycle cost | |||
| cost overrun BIM | |||
| 2 | Cost Management & Control | Cost management transport | |
| cost management rail | |||
| cost management railway | |||
| cost management BIM | |||
| cost management overrun | |||
| cost management overruns | |||
| cost control transport | |||
| cost control rail | |||
| cost control railway | |||
| cost control BIM | |||
| cost control life cycle cost | |||
| project cost management BIM | |||
| 3 | BIM | BIM transport | |
| BIM rail | |||
| BIM railway | |||
| BIM cost model | |||
| 4 | Rail projects | Rail life cycle cost | |
| Railway life cycle cost | |||
| Total | |||
References
1. Atkinson, R. Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 1999; 17, pp. 337-342. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-6]
2. Chan, A.P.C.; Chan, A.P.L. Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2004; 11, pp. 203-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770410532624]
3. Love, P.E.D.; Smith, J.; Simpson, I.; Regan, M.; Olatunji, O. Understanding the landscape of overruns in transport infrastructure projects. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des.; 2015; 42, pp. 490-509. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b130102p]
4. Flyvbjerg, B.; Ansar, A.; Budzier, A.; Buhl, S.; Cantarelli, C.; Garbuio, M.; Glenting, C.; Holm, M.S.; Lovallo, D.; Lunn, D. et al. Five things you should know about cost overrun. Transp. Res. Part a-Policy Pract.; 2018; 118, pp. 174-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.07.013]
5. Cavalieri, M.; Cristaudo, R.; Guccio, C. Tales on the dark side of the transport infrastructure provision: A systematic literature review of the determinants of cost overruns. Transp. Rev.; 2019; 39, pp. 774-794. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1636895]
6. Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.D.; Love, P.E.D.; Smith, S.D.; Ackermann, F. Toward a Systemic View to Cost Overrun Causation in Infrastructure Projects: A Review and Implications for Research. Proj. Manag. J.; 2017; 48, pp. 88-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800207]
7. Balali, A.; Moehler, R.C.; Valipour, A. Ranking cost overrun factors in the mega hospital construction projects using Delphi-SWARA method: An Iranian case study. Int. J. Constr. Manag.; 2022; 22, pp. 2577-2585. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1811465]
8. Love, P.E.D.; Sing, C.P.; Carey, B.; Kim, J.T. Estimating construction contingency: Accommodating the potential for cost overruns in road construction projects. J. Infrastruct. Syst.; 2015; 21, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000221]
9. Love, P.E.D.; Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.D. Debunking fake news in a post-truth era: The plausible untruths of cost underestimation in transport infrastructure projects. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.; 2018; 113, pp. 357-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.04.019]
10. Babaei, A.; Locatelli, G.; Sainati, T. What is wrong with the front-end of infrastructure megaprojects and how to fix it: A systematic literature review. Proj. Leadersh. Soc.; 2021; 2, 100032. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2021.100032]
11. Flyvbjerg, B. What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Proj. Manag. J.; 2014; 45, pp. 6-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21409]
12. Flyvbjerg, B. Megaprojects: Over Budget, Over Time, Over and Over. Cato Policy Rep.; 2017; 39, pp. 5-8.
13. Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO). SRL Cost Estimate; PBO: Melbourne, Australian, 2022.
14. Hong, Y.; Hammad, A.W.A.; Sepasgozar, S.; Akbarnezhad, A. BIM adoption model for small and medium construction organisations in Australia. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.; 2018; 26, pp. 154-183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2017-0064]
15. Kuiper, I.; Holzer, D. Rethinking the contractual context for Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Australian built environment industry. Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build.; 2013; 13, pp. 1-17.
16. Chapman, R.J. A framework for examining the dimensions and characteristics of complexity inherent within rail megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2016; 34, pp. 937-956. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.001]
17. Salet, W.; Bertolini, L.; Giezen, M. Complexity and uncertainty: Problem or asset in decision making of mega infrastructure projects?. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.; 2013; 37, pp. 1984-2000. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01133.x]
18. Gharehbaghi, K.; McManus, K.; Hurst, N.; Robson, K.; Myers, M. Complexities in mega rail transportation projects: “Sydney metro” and “Melbourne metro rail” insight. J. Eng. Des. Technol.; 2020; 18, pp. 973-990. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-08-2019-0207]
19. Smith, P. BIM and the 5D Project Cost Manager. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2014; 119, pp. 475-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.053]
20. Antoine, M.; Conrad, V.; Heap, B.; Chong, Y.; Cooper, B. An Innovative Framework of 5D BIM Solutions for Construction Cost Management: A Systematic Review. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng.; 2020; 27, pp. 1013-1030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09341-z]
21. Pakhale, P.D.; Pal, A. Digital project management in infrastructure project: A case study of Nagpur Metro Rail Project. Asian J. Civ. Eng.; 2020; 21, pp. 639-647. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42107-020-00224-4]
22. Bensalah, M.; Elouadi, A.; Mharzi, H. Overview: The opportunity of BIM in railway. Smart Sustain. Built Environ.; 2019; 8, 103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-11-2017-0060]
23. Smith, S. Building information modelling—Moving Crossrail, UK, forward. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Manag. Procure. Law; 2014; 167, pp. 141-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1680/mpal.13.00024]
24. Booth, A. Systematic reviews of health information services and systems. Health Info. Libr. J.; 2001; 18, pp. 60-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2532.2001.00309.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11260296]
25. Zidane, Y.J.-T.; Johansen, A.; Ekambaram, A. Megaprojects-Challenges and lessons learned. Procedia-Social Behav. Sci.; 2013; 74, pp. 349-357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.03.041]
26. Ruuska, I.; Artto, K.; Aaltonen, K.; Lehtonen, P. Dimensions of distance in a project network: Exploring Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant project. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2009; 27, pp. 142-153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.09.003]
27. Capka, J.R. Megaprojects: Managing a Public Journey. Public Roads; 2004; 68, 1.
28. Ahmad, S.; Algeo, C.; Foster, S.; Sohal, A.; Prajogo, D.; Moehler, R. Review of the key challenges in major infrastructure construction projects: How do project managers ‘skill-up’?. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the European Academy of Management; Lisbon, Portugal, 26–28 June 2019; European Academy of Management (EURAM), Brussels, Belgium: Lisbon, Portugal, 2019.
29. Chang, A.; Hatcher, C.; Kim, J. Temporal boundary objects in megaprojects: Mapping the system with the Integrated Master Schedule. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2013; 31, pp. 323-332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.08.007]
30. Shen, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, X. Key assessment indicators for the sustainability of infrastructure projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2011; 137, pp. 441-451. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000315]
31. Mohanty, S.P.; Choppali, U.; Kougianos, E. Everything you wanted to know about smart cities: The Internet of things is the backbone. IEEE Consum. Electron. Mag.; 2016; 5, pp. 60-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCE.2016.2556879]
32. Tang, Y.Q. Use of Value Management Theory to Control the Cost of Railway Transportation Project. Proceedings of the Applied Mechanics and Materials; Macau, China, 14–15 November 2012; Trans Tech Publications: Stafa, Switzerland, 2012; Volume 174, pp. 3263-3267.
33. Pyrgidis, C.N. Railway Transportation Systems: Design, Construction and Operation; 2nd ed. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022.
34. Middleton, W.D.; MORGAN, R.; Diehl, R.L. Encyclopedia of North American Railroads; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2007; ISBN 0253027993
35. Bababeik, M.; Khademi, N.; Chen, A.; Nasiri, M.M. Vulnerability Analysis of Railway Networks in Case of Multi-Link Blockage. Transp. Res. Procedia; 2017; 22, pp. 275-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.03.034]
36. Xue, Y.; Xiang, P.; Jia, F.; Liu, Z. Risk assessment of high-speed rail projects: A risk coupling model based on system dynamics. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 5307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155307] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32717994]
37. Wang, G.B.; Zhang, Z.J. BIM implementation in handover management for underground rail transit project: A case study approach. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol.; 2021; 108, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103684]
38. Maylor, H.; Vidgen, R.; Carver, S. Managerial complexity in project-based operations: A grounded model and its implications for practice. Proj. Mgmt. Jrnl.; 2008; 39, pp. S15-S26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20057]
39. Whitty, S.J.; Maylor, H. And then came Complex Project Management (revised). Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2009; 27, pp. 304-310. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.03.004]
40. Flyvbjerg, B.; Holm, M.S.; Buhl, S. Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie?. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.; 2002; 68, pp. 279-295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360208976273]
41. Al-Hazim, N.; Salem, Z.A.; Ahmad, H. Delay and Cost Overrun in Infrastructure Projects in Jordan. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management, EPPM 2016; Białystok, Poland, 21–23 September 2016; Halicka, K.; Nazarko, L.; Wasiak, A. Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 182, pp. 18-24.
42. Odeck, J. Cost overruns in road construction—What are their sizes and determinants?. Transp. Policy; 2004; 11, pp. 43-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(03)00017-9]
43. Bolan, R.S. Letter to the Editor of Cities. Cities; 2015; 42, pp. 274-275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.10.008]
44. Sidwell, A.C. The time performance of construction projects. Archit. Sci. Rev.; 1984; 27, pp. 85-91. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.1984.9696557]
45. Adafin, J.; Rotimi, J.O.B.; Wilkinson, S. Why do the design stage elemental cost plan and final tender sum differ in New Zealand?. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr.; 2015; 20, pp. 116-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMPC-08-2014-0016]
46. Li, Y.-W.; Cao, K. Establishment and application of intelligent city building information model based on BP neural network model. Comput. Commun.; 2020; 153, pp. 382-389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.02.013]
47. Sacks, R.; Eastman, C.; Lee, G.; Teicholz, P. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Designers, Engineers, Contractors, and Facility Managers; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; ISBN 1119287537
48. Eadie, R.; Browne, M.; Odeyinka, H.; McKeown, C.; McNiff, S. BIM implementation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: An analysis. Autom. Constr.; 2013; 36, pp. 145-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.09.001]
49. Jeong, H.W. A Study on the Development of Standardization for Building Process based on BIM. J. Pharm. Negat. RESULTS; 2022; 13, pp. 618-626. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47750/pnr.2022.13.S03.094]
50. Tang, L.; Chen, C.; Tang, S.; Wu, Z.; Trofimova, P. Building Information Modeling and Building Performance Optimization. Encycl. Sustain. Technol.; 2017; pp. 311-320. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10200-3]
51. Wildenauer, A.A. Critical assessment of the existing definitions of BIM dimensions on the example of Switzerland. Terminology; 2020; 23, 24.
52. Sriyolja, Z.; Harwin, N.; Yahya, K.; Tahir, M.M. Awareness of adopting building information modelling in construction–case study of consultants perception in West Sumatra. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 849, 12006.
53. Elghaish, F.; Abrishami, S.; Hosseini, M.R.; Abu-Samra, S. Revolutionising cost structure for integrated project delivery: A BIM-based solution. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.; 2020; 28, pp. 1214-1240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2019-0222]
54. Kenley, R. Construction Cost Management: Learning from Case Studies. Constr. Manag. Econ.; 2010; 28, pp. 545-546. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190903552502]
55. Shank, J.K.; Shank, J.H.; Govindarajan, V.; Govindarajan, S. Strategic Cost Management: The New Tool for Competitive Advantage; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1993; ISBN 0029126517
56. Nalewaik, A.; Bennett, N. Qualifications and barriers to professional recognition in cost engineering. Proceedings of the ICEC 8th World Congress Proceedings; Durban, South Africa, 23–27 June 2012.
57. Russell, A.L. Standardization in history: A review essay with an eye to the future. Futur. Gener.; 2005; 247, 260.
58. Hollmann, J.K. Total cost management framework to be released at AACE international’s 2006 annual meeting. Cost Eng.; 2006; 48, 8.
59. Benge, D.; Davidson, J. RICS new rules of measurement. R. Inst. Chart. Surv.; 2012; 1, pp. 1-400.
60. ICMS. International Cost Management Standard. 2022; Available online: https://icms-coalition.org/the-standard/ (accessed on 1 October 2022).
61. Ghalayini, A.M.; Noble, J.S. The changing basis of performance measurement. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 1996; 16, pp. 63-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579610125787]
62. Kagioglou, M.; Cooper, R.; Aouad, G. Performance management in construction: A conceptual framework. Constr. Manag. Econ.; 2001; 19, pp. 85-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190010003425]
63. Neely, A. The evolution of performance measurement research: Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2005; 25, pp. 1264-1277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570510633648]
64. Rathnayake, A.; Ranasinghe, M. A KPI based performance measurement framework for Sri Lankan construction projects. Proceedings of the 2020 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon); Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, 28–30 July 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 348-353.
65. Ngacho, C.; Das, D. A performance evaluation framework of development projects: An empirical study of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) construction projects in Kenya. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2014; 32, pp. 492-507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.005]
66. Takim, R.; Akintoye, A. Performance indicators for successful construction project performance. Proceedings of the 18th Annual ARCOM Conference; Northumbria, UK, 2–4 September 2002; Volume 2.
67. Yeung, J.F.Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Chan, D.W.M.; Chiang, Y.H.; Yang, H. Developing a benchmarking model for construction projects in Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2013; 139, pp. 705-716. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000622]
68. McCabe, S. Benchmarking in Construction; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; ISBN 0470695307
69. Cha, H.; Kim, J. A study on 3D/BIM-based on-site performance measurement system for building construction. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.; 2020; 19, pp. 574-585. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2020.1763364]
70. Love, P.E.D.; Liu, J.; Matthews, J.; Sing, C.-P.; Smith, J. Future proofing PPPs: Life-cycle performance measurement and Building Information Modelling. Autom. Constr.; 2015; 56, pp. 26-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.04.008]
71. Cox, R.F.; Issa, R.R.A.; Ahrens, D. Management’s perception of key performance indicators for construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2003; 129, pp. 142-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:2(142)]
72. Hamilton, M.R.; Gibson, G.E., Jr. Benchmarking preproject planning effort. J. Manag. Eng.; 1996; 12, pp. 25-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1996)12:2(25)]
73. Barber, E. Benchmarking the management of projects: A review of current thinking. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2004; 22, pp. 301-307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.08.001]
74. Sutrisna, M.; Potts, K.; Proverbs, D. Quotation Mechanism for Pre-Pricing Variation in Civil Engineering Projects: A Quest for Best Practice. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr.; 2004; 9, pp. 13-25.
75. Mansuy, J.E. Activity-based costing can improve project building. Ind. Manag.; 2000; 42, 6.
76. Jaya, N.M.; Pathirage, C.P.; Sutrisna, M. An application of the activity-based costing for the management of project overheads to increase profit during the construction stage. Proc. Univ. Salford; 2010; 1, pp. 248-266.
77. Kim, Y.-W.; Ballard, G. Activity-based costing and its application to lean construction. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction; Singapore, 6–8 August 2001; pp. 6-8.
78. Zimina, D.; Ballard, G.; Pasquire, C. Target value design: Using collaboration and a lean approach to reduce construction cost. Constr. Manag. Econ.; 2012; 30, pp. 383-398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.676658]
79. Tillmann, P.A.; Do, D.; Ballard, G. A case study on the success factors of target value design. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction; Heraklion, Greece, 9–12 July 2017.
80. Melo, R.S.; Granja, A.D.; Ballard, G. Collaboration to extend target costing to non-multi-party contracted projects: Evidence from literature. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction; Fortaleza, Brazil, 29 July–2 August 2013; Volume 21.
81. Kujala, J.; Brady, T.; Putila, J. Challenges of cost management in complex projects. Int. J. Bus. Manag.; 2014; 9, 48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v9n11p48]
82. Larson, E.W.; Gray, C.F.; Desai, G.V. Project Management: The Managerial Process; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
83. Akintoye, A. Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice. Constr. Manag. Econ.; 2000; 18, pp. 77-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014461900370979]
84. Doloi, H.K. Understanding stakeholders’ perspective of cost estimation in project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2011; 29, pp. 622-636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.001]
85. Oberlender, G.D.; Spencer, G.R.; Lewis, R.M. Early Estimates. Project Management for Engineering and Construction: A Life-Cycle Approach; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2022; ISBN 9781264268443
86. Beste, T.; Klakegg, O.J. Strategic change towards cost-efficient public construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2022; 40, pp. 372-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.04.006]
87. Greiman, V.; Warburton, R. Deconstructing the Big Dig: Best practices for mega-project cost estimating. Proceedings of the PMI® Global Congress; Orlando, FL, USA, 10–13 October 2009.
88. Lovallo, D.; Kahneman, D. Delusions of success. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 2003; 81, pp. 56-63.
89. Flyvbjerg, B. Delusions of success: Comment on Dan Lovallo and Daniel Kahneman. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 2003; 81, pp. 121-122.
90. García de Soto, B. A Methodology To Make Accurate Preliminary Estimates of Construction Material Quantities for Construction Projects. Ph.D. Thesis; ETH Zurich: Zurich, Switzerland, 2014.
91. Cavalieri, S.; Maccarrone, P.; Pinto, R. Parametric vs. neural network models for the estimation of production costs: A case study in the automotive industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2004; 91, pp. 165-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.005]
92. Niazi, A.; Dai, J.S.; Balabani, S.; Seneviratne, L. Product cost estimation: Technique classification and methodology review. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.; 2006; 128, pp. 563-575. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2137750]
93. Hanioglu, M.N. A Cost Based Approach to Project Management: Planning and Controlling Construction Project Costs; CRC Press: Milton, UK, 2022.
94. Azis, A.A.A.; Memon, A.H.; Rahman, I.A.; Latif, Q.; Nagapan, S. Ieee Cost Management of Large Construction Projects in South Malaysia. IEEE Symposium on Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 625-629. ISBN 978-1-4577-1634-8
95. Anderson, S.D.; Molenaar, K.R.; Schexnayder, C.J. Guidance for Cost Estimation and Management for Highway Projects during Planning, Programming, and Preconstruction; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; Volume 574, ISBN 0309098750
96. Baccarini, D.; Love, P.E.D. Statistical Characteristics of Cost Contingency in Water Infrastructure Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2014; 140, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000820]
97. Baccarini, D. Accuracy in estimating project cost construction contingency-a statistical analysis. Proceedings of the Cobra 2004: RICS International Construction Conference, Responding to Change; London, UK, 7–8 September 2004.
98. Moselhi, O. Risk assessment and contingency estimating. Proceedings of the AACE International transactions; Dallas, TX, USA, 13–16 July 1997; pp. 90-95.
99. Traynor, B.A.; Mahmoodian, M. Time and cost contingency management using Monte Carlo simulation. Aust. J. Civ. Eng.; 2019; 17, pp. 11-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14488353.2019.1606499]
100. Hartmann, F.G.H.; Moers, F. Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research: An evaluation of the use of moderated regression analysis. Account. Organ. Soc.; 1999; 24, pp. 291-315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00002-1]
101. Aibinu, A.A.; Jagboro, G.O. The effects of construction delays on project delivery in Nigerian construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2002; 20, pp. 593-599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00028-5]
102. Williams, T.P. Predicting final cost for competitively bid construction projects using regression models. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2003; 21, pp. 593-599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00004-8]
103. Leach, L. Schedule and cost buffer sizing: How to account for the bias between project performance and your model. Proj. Manag. J.; 2003; 34, pp. 34-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/875697280303400205]
104. Flyvbjerg, B. COWI Procedures for dealing with optimism bias in transport planning: Guidance document 2006–09. Br. Dep. Transp.; 2004; 61, 61.
105. Love, P.E.D.; Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.D.; Irani, Z. Cost overruns in transportation infrastructure projects: Sowing the seeds for a probabilistic theory of causation. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.; 2016; 92C, pp. 184-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.08.007]
106. Raz, T.; Erel, E. Optimal timing of project control points. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2000; 127, pp. 252-261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00492-0]
107. Ballard, G.; Tommelein, I. Lean management methods for complex projects. Eng. Proj. Organ. J.; 2012; 2, pp. 85-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2011.641117]
108. Ballard, G. Should Project budgets be based on worth or cost. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction; San Diego, CA, USA, 18–20 July 2012; Citeseer: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 761-770.
109. Thiry, M. Combining value and project management into an effective programme management model. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2002; 20, pp. 221-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00072-2]
110. Raymond, L.; Bergeron, F. Project management information systems: An empirical study of their impact on project managers and project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2008; 26, pp. 213-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.06.002]
111. Anbari, F.T. Earned value project management method and extensions. Proj. Manag. J.; 2003; 34, pp. 12-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/875697280303400403]
112. Song, J.; Martens, A.; Vanhoucke, M. Using Earned Value Management and Schedule Risk Analysis with resource constraints for project control. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2022; 297, pp. 451-466. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.05.036]
113. Postula, F.D. WBS criteria for effective project control. AACE Int. Trans.; 1991; 1, 16.
114. Li, Y.; Li, Q. The Application of BIM Technology in Budget Control of Port Construction Cost. J. Coast. Res.; 2020; 103, pp. 644-648. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI103-131.1]
115. Mitchell, D. 5D BIM: Creating cost certainty and better buildings. Proceedings of the 2012 RICS Cobra Conference; Las Vegas, NV, USA, 11–13 September 2012; pp. 1-9.
116. Sepasgozar, S.M.E.; Costin, A.M.; Karimi, R.; Shirowzhan, S.; Abbasian, E.; Li, J. BIM and Digital Tools for State-of-the-Art Construction Cost Management. Buildings; 2022; 12, 396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings12040396]
117. Shishehgarkhaneh, M.B.; Keivani, A.; Moehler, R.C.; Jelodari, N.; Laleh, S.R. Internet of Things (IoT), Building Information Modeling (BIM), and Digital Twin (DT) in construction industry: A review, bibliometric, and network analysis. Buildings; 2022; 12, 1503. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101503]
118. Lee, G.; Shin, M.H.; Yoo, M.T.; Lee, G. Strategy for BIM adoption from Korean railroad public owner’s perspective. J. Korean Soc. Railw.; 2018; 21, pp. 786-799. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7782/JKSR.2018.21.8.786]
119. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A. PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev.; 2015; 4, 1. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25554246]
120. Pawson, R.; Greenhalgh, T.; Harvey, G.; Walshe, K. Realist review—A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J. Heal. Serv. Res. Policy; 2005. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530]
121. PRISMA. 2020; Available online: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ (accessed on 18 November 2020).
122. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics; 2010; 84, pp. 523-538. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20585380]
123. Covidence Covidence. 2023; Available online: https://www.covidence.org/ (accessed on 18 November 2020).
124. CiteSpace. 2023; Available online: https://citespace.podia.com/ebook-how-to-use-citespace (accessed on 25 January 2023).
125. EndNote EndNote. 2023; Available online: https://endnote.com (accessed on 18 November 2020).
126. Mendeley Mendeley. 2023; Available online: https://www.mendeley.com (accessed on 18 November 2020).
127. Microsoft Excel. 2023; Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/excel (accessed on 25 January 2023).
128. Piasecki, J.; Waligora, M.; Dranseika, V. Google Search as an Additional Source in Systematic Reviews. Sci. Eng. Ethics; 2018; 24, pp. 809-810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0010-4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29249022]
129. Su, H.N.; Lee, P.C. Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics; 2010; 85, pp. 65-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0259-8]
130. Zhao, X. A scientometric review of global BIM research: Analysis and visualization. Autom. Constr.; 2017; 80, pp. 37-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.04.002]
131. Badrinath, A.C.; Chang, Y.-T.; Hsieh, S.-H. An overview of global research trends in BIM from analysis of BIM publications. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, ICCCBE; Osaka, Japan, 6–8 July 2016.
132. NBS (National Building Specification). NBS National BIM Report 2015; NBS: Newcastle, UK, 2015.
133. Kim, B. Managing the transition of technology life cycle. Technovation; 2003; 23, pp. 371-381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00168-2]
134. Harper, L.; Kalfa, N.; Beckers, G.M.A.; Kaefer, M.; Nieuwhof-Leppink, A.J.; Fossum, M.; Herbst, K.W.; Bagli, D. ESPU Research Committee. The impact of COVID-19 on research. J. Pediatr. Urol.; 2020; 16, 715. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.07.002]
135. Jaffe, K.; Ter Horst, E.; Gunn, L.H.; Zambrano, J.D.; Molina, G. A network analysis of research productivity by country, discipline, and wealth. PLoS ONE; 2020; 15, e0232458. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232458]
136. Barik, N.; Jena, P. Bibliometric portrait of select Open Access Journals in the field of Library and Information Science: A Scopus based analysis. Libr. Philos. Pract.; 2019; 1, pp. 1-18.
137. Datawrapper Platform. 2023; Available online: https://www.datawrapper.de/ (accessed on 11 January 2023).
138. Wang, R.; Liu, B.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, A. Review and prospect of BIM policy in China. Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Republic of Korea; 25–27 August 2017; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 245, 22021.
139. Lu, K.; Han, B.; Lu, F.; Wang, Z. Urban rail transit in China: Progress report and analysis (2008–2015). Urban Rail Transit; 2016; 2, pp. 93-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40864-016-0048-7]
140. Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q.P.; Osei-Kyei, R. Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018. Energy Build.; 2019; 190, pp. 69-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.02.010]
141. Hosseini, M.R.; Martek, I.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Aibinu, A.A.; Arashpour, M.; Chileshe, N. Critical evaluation of off-site construction research: A Scientometric analysis. Autom. Constr.; 2018; 87, pp. 235-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.002]
142. Flyvbjerg, B.; Skamris Holm, M.K.; Buhl, S.L. What causes cost overrun in transport infrastructure projects?. Transp. Rev.; 2004; 24, pp. 3-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144164032000080494a]
143. Cantarelli, C.C.; Flybjerg, B.; Molin, E.J.E.; Van Wee, B. Cost overruns in large-scale transportation infrastructure projects: Explanations and their theoretical embeddedness. arXiv; 2013; arXiv: 1307.2176
144. Flyvbjerg, B. Cost overruns and demand shortfalls in urban rail and other infrastructure. Transp. Plan. Technol.; 2007; 30, pp. 9-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03081060701207938]
145. Flyvbjerg, B.; Holm, M.K.S.; Buhl, S.L. How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?. Transp. Rev.; 2003; 23, pp. 71-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441640309904]
146. Love, P.E.D.; Ika, L.A.; Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.D. On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.; 2019; 126, pp. 397-408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.06.013]
147. Skamris, M.K.; Flyvbjerg, B. Inaccuracy of traffic forecasts and cost estimates on large transport projects. Transp. Policy; 1997; 4, pp. 141-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(97)00007-3]
148. Memon, A.H.; Rahman, I.A.; Azis, A.A.A. Time and cost performance in construction projects in southern and central regions of Peninsular Malaysia. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci.; 2012; 1, pp. 45-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11591/ijaas.v1i1.537]
149. Rahman, I.A.; Memon, A.H.; Karim, A.T.A. Significant factors causing cost overruns in large construction projects in Malaysia. J. Appl. Sci.; 2013; 13, pp. 286-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/jas.2013.286.293]
150. Ahmed, S.; Memon, A.H.; Memon, N.A.; Laghari, A.N.; Akhund, M.A.; Imad, H.U. Common Factors of Cost Escalation in Construction Industry of Pakistan. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res.; 2018; 8, pp. 3508-3511. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48084/etasr.2278]
151. Memon, A.H.; Abdul Rahman, I.; Abdul Aziz, A.A. The cause factors of large project’s cost overrun: A survey in the southern part of Peninsular Malaysia. Int. J. Real Estate Stud.; 2012; 7, pp. 1-15.
152. Koo, B.; Shin, B.; Lee, G. A cost-plus estimating framework for BIM related design and engineering services. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.; 2017; 21, pp. 2558-2566. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1808-y]
153. Park, J.H.; Lee, G. Design coordination strategies in a 2D and BIM mixed-project environment: Social dynamics and productivity. Build. Res. Inf.; 2017; 45, pp. 631-648. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1288998]
154. Love, P.E.D.; Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.; Welde, M.; Odeck, J. Light rail transit cost performance: Opportunities for future-proofing. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.; 2017; 100, pp. 27-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.002]
155. Bensalah, M.; Elouadi, A.; Mharzi, H. BIM integration into railway projects—Case study. Contemp. Eng. Sci.; 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12988/ces.2018.85217]
156. Bensalah, M.; Elouadi, A.; Mharzi, H.; Bim, H.M. BIM-Technological development and software tools to integrate railway libraries, special and normative constraints of large linear projects. Proceedings of the 5th European Conference JOIN-TRANS 2018 on Joining and Construction of Rail Vehicles; Halle, Germany, 16–17 May 2018; pp. 68-73.
157. Bensalah, M.; Elouadi, A.; Mharzi, H. Railway Information Modeling RIM; 1st ed. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119649229] ISBN 9781786303875
158. Häußler, M.; Esser, S.; Borrmann, A. Code compliance checking of railway designs by integrating BIM, BPMN and DMN. Autom. Constr.; 2021; 121, 103427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103427]
159. Lee, G.; Borrmann, A. BIM policy and management. Constr. Manag. Econ.; 2020; 38, pp. 413-419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2020.1726979]
160. Häußler, M.; Borrmann, A. Model-based quality assurance in railway infrastructure planning. Autom. Constr.; 2020; 109, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102971]
161. Jubierre, J.R.; Borrmann, A. Knowledge-based engineering for infrastructure facilities: Assisted design of railway tunnels based on logic models and advanced procedural geometry dependencies. J. Inf. Technol. Constr.; 2015; 20, pp. 421-441.
162. Häußler, M.; Borrmann, A. Knowledge-based engineering in the context of railway design by integrating BIM, BPMN, DMN and the methodology for knowledge-based engineering applications (MOKA). J. Inf. Technol. Constr.; 2021; 26, pp. 193-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.36680/j.itcon.2021.012]
163. Esser, S.; Borrmann, A. Integrating Railway Subdomain-Specific Data Standards into a Common IFC-based Data Model. Proceedings of the EG-ICE; Lausanne, Switzerland, 10–13 June 2018.
164. Vilgertshofer, S.; Stoitchkov, D.; Esser, S.; Borrmann, A.; Muhič, S.; Winkelbauer, T. The rimcomb research project: Towards the application of building information modeling in railway equipment engineering. eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Product and Process Modelling, ECPPM 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark, 12–14 September 2018; Karlshoj, J.; Scherer, R. CRC Press/Balkema: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 439-445.
165. Allahaim, F.S.; Liu, L. Toward a Typology: Cost overrun causes framework in infrastructure projects. Constr. Ind. Econ.; 2012; 2012, 103.
166. Allahaim, F.D.; Liu, L. Understanding major causes cost overrun for infrastructure projects; a typology approach. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australasian Universities Building Educators Association; Sydney, Australia, 20–22 November 2013.
167. Allahaim, F.S.A.; Liu, L. An empirical classification of cost overrun in infrastructure projects by using cluster analysis. Proceedings of the 4th International Utzon Symposium; Sydney, Australia, 12 March 2014; pp. 1346520788-1583734867.
168. Allahaim, F.; Liu, L.; Kong, X. Developing a risk-based cost contingency estimation model based on the influence of cost overrun causes. Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress; Queensland University of Technology: Brisbane, Australia, 2016.
169. Wang, Y.; Wang, Z.W.; Ma, T.T.; Li, G.W.; Tie, H.X. Research on the Realization Path of Railway Intelligent Construction Based on System Engineering. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 6945. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14116945]
170. Shi, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, W. Development of Life Cycle Cost Model for Urban Rail Transit Equipment. Proceedings of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering; Liang, J.; Jia, L.; Qin, Y.; Liu, Z.; Diao, L.; An, M. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; Volume 867, pp. 309-315. LNEE (Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering)
171. Touran, A.; Dantata, N.A.; Schneck, D.C. Rail Transit Projects’ Cost Overrun Trend in the United States. Proceedings of the 85th Annual Meeting; Washington, DC, USA, 22–26 January 2006.
172. Gao, N.; Touran, A. Cost Overruns and Formal Risk Assessment Program in US Rail Transit Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2020; 146, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001827]
173. Gao, N.; Touran, A. Cost Overruns in U.S. Rail Transit Projects: A Statistical Analysis. Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2020: Project Management and Controls, Materials, and Contracts-Selected Papers from the Construction Research Congress 2020; Tempe, AZ, USA, 8–10 March 2020; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2020; pp. 593-601.
174. Touran, A.; Lopez, R. Modeling cost escalation as a risk factor in construction projects. Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives-Proceedings of the Congress; Tommelein, I.D. American Society of Civil Engineers: San Diego, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 665-673.
175. Touran, A. Calculation of contingency in construction projects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.; 2003; 50, pp. 135-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2003.810824]
176. Touran, A. Probabilistic Approach for Budgeting in Portfolio of Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2010; 136, pp. 361-366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000128]
177. Touran, A. Probabilistic model for cost contingency. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2003; 129, pp. 280-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:3(280)]
178. Touran, A.; Gransberg, D.D.; Molenaar, K.R.; Ghavamifar, K. Selection of project delivery method in transit: Drivers and objectives. J. Manag. Eng.; 2011; 27, pp. 21-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000027]
179. Touran, A.; Lopez, R. Modeling Cost Escalation in Large Infrastructure Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2006; 132, pp. 853-860. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:8(853)]
180. Touran, A.; Dantata, N.A.; Schneck, D.C. Trends in U.S. Rail Transit Project Cost Overrun. Transp. Res. Board; 2006; 1, pp. 1-20.
181. Pham, H.; Van Luu, T.; Kim, S.Y.; Vien, D.T. Assessing the Impact of Cost Overrun Causes in Transmission Lines Construction Projects. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.; 2020; 24, pp. 1029-1036. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12205-020-1391-5]
182. Pennanen, A.; Ballard, G. Determining expected cost in the target costing process. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, IGLC16; Manchester, UK, 16–18 July 2008; pp. 589-600.
183. Do, D.; Chen, C.; Ballard, G.; Tommelein, I.D. Target value design as a method for controlling project cost overruns. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production, IGLC 2014; Oslo, Norway, 25–27 June 2014; Kalsaas, B.T.; Koskela, L.; Saurin, T.A. The International Group for Lean Construction: Lille, France, 2014; pp. 171-181.
184. Ballard, G.; Dilsworth, B.; Do, D.; Low, W.; Mobley, J.; Phillips, P.; Reed, D.; Sargent, Z.; Tillmann, P.; Wood, N. How to make shared risk and reward sustainable. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, IGLC 2015; Perth, Australia, 29–31 July 2015; Arroyo, P.; Seppanen, O.; Gonzalez, V.A. The International Group for Lean Construction: Lille, France, 2015; pp. 257-266.
185. Pennanen, A.; Ballard, G.; Haahtela, Y. Designing to targets in a target costing process. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, IGLC 18; Haifa, Israel, 14–16 July 2010; pp. 161-170.
186. Gigante-Barrera, A.; Dindar, S.; Kaewunruen, S.; Ruikar, D. LOD BIM Element specification for Railway Turnout Systems Risk Mitigation using the Information Delivery Manual. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.; 2017; 245, 42022. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/245/4/042022]
187. Luangboriboon, N.; Kaewunruen, S.; Sussman, J.M. Lifecycle cost analysis for operations and maintenance planning of railway bridge transition. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Business and Industrial Research, ICBIR 2018; Bangkok, Thailand, 17–18 May 2018; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 407-412.
188. Kaewunruen, S.; Xu, N.F. Digital Twin for Sustainability Evaluation of Railway Station Buildings. Front. Built Environ.; 2018; 4, 77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2018.00077]
189. Sresakoolchai, J.; Kaewunruen, S. Comparative studies into public private partnership and traditional investment approaches on the high-speed rail project linking 3 airports in Thailand. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect.; 2020; 5, 100116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100116]
190. Hamarat, M.; Kaewunruen, S. A Stochastic Approach for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Railway Turnouts Exposed to Climate Uncertainties. i-RISE 2018; MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 2, 1142.
191. Maharjan, R.; Shrestha, P.P. Relationship between Project Performance and Contract Procurement Factors for Design-Bid-Build Texas Highway Projects; Wang, C.; Harper, C.; Lee, Y.; Harris, R.; Berryman, C. American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-0-7844-8129-5
192. Shrestha, P.P.; Fernane, J.D. Performance of design-build and design-bid-build projects for public universities. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2017; 143, 04016101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001241]
193. Shrestha, P.P.; Maharjan, R. Effect of Change Orders on Cost and Schedule for Small Low-Bid Highway Contracts. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr.; 2019; 11, 04519025. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000323]
194. Shrestha, P.P.; Zeleke, H. Effect of Change Orders on Cost and Schedule Overruns of School Building Renovation Projects. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr.; 2018; 10, 04518018. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000271]
195. Shrestha, P.P.; Neupane, K.P. Identification of Geotechnical-Related Problems Impacting Cost, Schedule, and Claims on Bridge Construction Projects. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr.; 2020; 12, 04520005. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000375]
196. Shrestha, P.P.; Fathi, M. Impacts of Change Orders on Cost and Schedule Performance and the Correlation with Project Size of DB Building Projects. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr.; 2019; 11, 04519010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000311]
197. Shrestha, P.P.; Mani, N. Impact of Design Cost on Project Performance of Design-Bid-Build Road Projects. J. Manag. Eng.; 2014; 30, 04014007. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000220]
198. Liu, Y.; van Nederveen, S.; Hertogh, M. Government’s perspective on BIM and Sustainability in transport infrastructure in Europe and China. Life-Cycle of Engineering Systems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 632-639. ISBN 1315375176
199. Jung, N.; Lee, G. Automated classification of building information modeling (BIM) case studies by BIM use based on natural language processing (NLP) and unsupervised learning. Adv. Eng. Informatics; 2019; 41, 100917. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2019.04.007]
200. Uhm, M.; Lee, G.; Park, Y.; Kim, S.; Jung, J.; Lee, J.K. Requirements for computational rule checking of requests for proposals (RFPs) for building designs in South Korea. Adv. Eng. Inform.; 2015; 29, pp. 602-615. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.05.006]
201. Uhm, M.; Lee, G.; Jeon, B. An analysis of BIM jobs and competencies based on the use of terms in the industry. Autom. Constr.; 2017; 81, pp. 67-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.002]
202. Won, J.; Lee, G. How to tell if a BIM project is successful: A goal-driven approach. Autom. Constr.; 2016; 69, pp. 34-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.05.022]
203. Jang, S.; Lee, G. Process, productivity, and economic analyses of BIM based multi-trade prefabrication—A case study. Autom. Constr.; 2018; 89, pp. 86-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.035]
204. Jung, W.; Lee, G. Slim BIM Charts for Rapidly Visualizing and Quantifying Levels of BIM Adoption and Implementation. J. Comput. Civ. Eng.; 2016; 30, 04015072. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000554]
205. Jang, S.; Jeong, Y.; Lee, G.; Kang, Y. Enhancing Subcontractors’ Participation in BIM-Based Design Coordination under a DBB Contract. J. Manag. Eng.; 2019; 35, 04019022. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000714]
206. Kupriyanovsky, V.; Alenkov, V.; Stepanenko, A.; Pokusaev, O.; Katzin, D.; Akimov, A.; Utkin, N.; Volokitin, Y.; Namiot, D.; Shakhramanyan, M. et al. On development of transport and logistics industries in the European Union: Open BIM, Internet of Things and cyber-physical systems. Int. J. Open Inf. Technol.; 2018; 6, pp. 54-100.
207. Klimov, A.; Kupriyanovsky, V.; Stepanenko, A.; Pokusaev, O.; Petrunina, I.; Katzin, D.; Sinyagov, S.; Lipuntsov, Y.; Chebotarev, E. BIM and engineering formalized ontologies on the European digital railway in the EULYNX-data economy. Int. J. Open Inf. Technol.; 2018; 6, pp. 38-65.
208. Kupriyanovsky, V.; Pokusaev, O.; Klimov, A.; Volodin, A. BIM on the way to IFC5-alignment and development of IFC semantics and ontologies with UML and OWL for road and rail structures, bridges, tunnels, ports, and waterways. Int. J. Open Inf. Technol.; 2020; 8, pp. 69-78.
209. Tsui, K.-L.; Chen, Z.-S.; Yang, Y.; Wang, X.-J.; Chin, K.-S. Fostering linguistic decision-making under uncertainty: A proportional interval type-2 hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on Hamacher aggregation operators and andness optimization models. Inf. Sci. (Ny).; 2019; 500, pp. 229-258.
210. Chen, C.; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F.; Hou, J. The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol.; 2010; 61, pp. 1386-1409. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21309]
211. Kim, G.T.; Kim, K.T.; Lee, D.H.; Han, C.H.; Kim, H.B.; Jun, J.T. Development of a life cycle cost estimate system for structures of light rail transit infrastructure. Autom. Constr.; 2010; 19, pp. 308-325. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.12.001]
212. Dawood, M.H. BIM based optimal life cycle cost of sustainable house framework. Proceedings of the 3rd MEC International Conference on Big Data and Smart City, ICBDSC 2016; Muscat, Oman, 15–16 March 2016; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 279-283.
213. Vidaud, M.; Bernard, O.; Crouïgneau, S.; Putallaz, Y.; Lévêque, J.; Jacquier, R. Financing railway infrastructure: How to invest and what maintenance policy?. WIT Trans. Built Environ.; 2012; 127, pp. 663-671. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2495/CR120561]
214. Garramone, M.; Tonelli, E.; Scaioni, M. A Multi-Scale Bim/gis Framework for Railways Asset Management. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci.; 2022; XLVI-5/W1-2022, pp. 95-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVI-5-W1-2022-95-2022]
215. Trabo, I.; Landex, A.; Schneider-Tilli, J.E.; Nielsen, O.A. The New Line Copenhagen-Ringsted: The benefits from EU railway benchmarking. Comput. Railw. XIII Comput. Syst. Des. Oper. Railw. Other Transit Syst.; 2013; 127, 369.
216. Cantarelli, C.C.; Molin, E.J.E.; van Wee, B.; Flyvbjerg, B. Characteristics of cost overruns for Dutch transport infrastructure projects and the importance of the decision to build and project phases. Transp. Policy; 2012; 22, pp. 49-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.04.001]
217. Bradley, A.; Li, H.; Lark, R.; Dunn, S. BIM for infrastructure: An overall review and constructor perspective. Autom. Constr.; 2016; 71, pp. 139-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.019]
218. Han, X.; Yuan, F.; Hou, L.; Liu, W. Analysis on the BIM Application in the Whole Life Cycle of Railway Engineering. Proceedings of the ICRT 2017; Chengdu, China, 10-12 July 2017; Zhai, W.; Wang, K.C.P. American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2018; Volume 2017, pp. 331-338.
219. Neves, J.; Sampaio, Z.; Vilela, M. A case study of BIM implementation in rail track rehabilitation. Infrastructures; 2019; 4, 8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures4010008]
220. Kapogiannis, G.; Mlilo, A. Digital Construction Strategies and BIM in Railway Tunnelling Engineering. Tunnel Engineering-Selected Topics; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; ISBN 1789854660
221. Bawono, A.A.; von Schumann, C.M.; Lechner, B. Study of Building Information Modelling Implementation on Railway Infrastructure. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 372-382.
222. Ehrbar, H. Building Information Modelling–A new tool for the successful implementation of major projects of German railways/Building Information Modelling–Ein neues Werkzeug zur erfolgreichen Realisierung von Großprojekten der Deutschen Bahn. Geomech. Tunn.; 2016; 9, pp. 659-673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/geot.201600053]
223. Vimonsatit, V.; Foo, A.C.M. Benefits of BIM in construction projects. Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference: Implementing Innovative Ideas in Structural Engineering and Project Management; Sydney, Australia, 23–28 November 2015; Saha, S.; Zhang, Y.X.; Yazdani, S.; Singh, A. ISEC Press: Fargo, ND, USA, 2015; pp. 1133-1138.
224. Xia, H.S.; Liu, Z.S.; Efremochkina, M.; Liu, X.T.; Lin, C.X. Study on city digital twin technologies for sustainable smart city design: A review and bibliometric analysis of geographic information system and building information modeling integration. Sustain. CITIES Soc.; 2022; 84, 104009. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104009]
225. Liang, D.H.; Liang, D.S.; Lii, P. The innovation management of engineering planning and Design-Specifically in engineering consulting industry. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Summer Conference of Asia Pacific Business Innovation and Technology Management, APBITM 2011; Dalian, China, 10–12 July 2011; pp. 278-283.
226. Carneiro, J.; Rossetti, R.J.F.; Silva, D.C.; Oliveira, E.C. BIM, GIS, IoT, and AR/VR Integration for Smart Maintenance and Management of Road Networks: A Review. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference, ISC2 2018; Casablanca, Morocco, 14–17 October 2019; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019.
227. Gaur, S.; Tawalare, A. Investigating the Role of BIM in Stakeholder Management: Evidence from a Metro-Rail Project. J. Manag. Eng.; 2022; 38, 05021013. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000979]
228. Bensalah, M.; Elouadi, A.; Mharzi, H. BIM Integration to Railway Projects—Case Study. Proceedings of the 2018 ASME Joint Rail Conference JRC; Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 18–20 April 2018; The American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 2018-6269.
229. Matejov, A.; Šestáková, J. The Experiences with utilization of BIM in railway infrastructure in Slovak Republic and Czech Republic. Transp. Res. Procedia; 2021; 55, pp. 1139-1146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.07.084]
230. Kurwi, S.; Demian, P.; Hassan, T.M. Integrating BIM and GIS in railway projects: A critical review. Proceedings of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management, ARCOM-33rd Annual Conference 2017, Proceeding; Association of Researchers in Construction Management, School of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University: Leicestershire, UK, 2017.
231. Kim, H.; Benghi, C.; Dawood, N.; Jung, D.; Kim, J.; Baek, Y. Developing 5D system connecting cost, schedule and 3D model. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality; Sendai, Japan, 4–5 November 2010; CONVR2010 Organizing Committee: Sendai, Japan, 2010; pp. 123-130.
232. Foster, S.; Ahmad, S.; Sohal, A.; Prajogo, D.; Algeo, C.; Moehler, R. A Multi-Level Competencies Framework for the Successful Delivery of Major Infrastructure Projects. Proceedings of the International Project Management Association Research Conference 2019: Trust in Major and Mega Projects; Croatian Association for Construction Management; Zagreb, Croatia, 4–7 September 2019; pp. 403-423.
233. Crowther, J.; Ajayi, S.O. Impacts of 4D BIM on construction project performance. Int. J. Constr. Manag.; 2021; 21, pp. 724-737. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1580832]
234. Hardin, B.; McCool, D. BIM and Construction Management: Proven Tools, Methods, and Workflows; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; ISBN 1118942760
235. Leicht, R.; Messner, J. Moving toward an’intelligent’shop modeling process. Electron. J. Inf. Technol. Constr.; 2008; 13, pp. 286-302.
236. Morris, S. Cost And Time Overruns In Public Sector Projects. Econ. Polit. Weekly.; 1990; 24, pp. 154-168.
237. Nijkamp, P.; Ubbels, B. How reliable are estimates of infrastructure costs? A comparative analysis. Int. J. Transp. Econ. Internazionale di Econ. dei Trasp.; 1999; 26, pp. 23-53.
238. Fouracre, P.R.; Allport, R.J.; Thomson, J.M. The Performance and Impact of Rail Mass Transit in Developing Countries; Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL): Berkshire, UK, 1990.
239. Smith, P. Project Cost Management with 5D BIM. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2016; 226, pp. 193-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.179]
240. Bryde, D.; Broquetas, M.; Volm, J.M. The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM). Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2013; 31, pp. 971-980. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.001]
241. Mackie, P.; Preston, J. Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal. Transp. Policy; 1998; 5, pp. 1-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(98)00004-3]
242. Aljohani, A.; Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.; Moore, D. Construction projects cost overrun: What does the literature tell us?. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol.; 2017; 8, 137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18178/ijimt.2017.8.2.717]
243. Azhar, S. Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the AEC industry. Leadersh. Manag. Eng.; 2011; 11, pp. 241-252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000127]
244. Tauriainen, M.; Marttinen, P.; Dave, B.; Koskela, L. The effects of BIM and lean construction on design management practices. Procedia Eng.; 2016; 164, pp. 567-574. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.659]
245. Whang, S.W.; Min, P.S. Building information modeling (BIM) for project value: Quantity take-off of building frame approach. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res.; 2016; 11, pp. 7749-7757.
246. Aibinu, A.; Venkatesh, S. Status of BIM adoption and the BIM experience of cost consultants in Australia. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.; 2014; 140, 4013021. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000193]
247. Stanley, R.; Thurnell, D. The benefits of, and barriers to, implementation of 5D BIM for quantity surveying in New Zealand. Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build.; 2014; 14, pp. 105-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v14i1.3786]
248. Eastman, C.M.; Eastman, C.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, K. BIM Handbook: A Guide To Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; ISBN 0470541377
249. Monteiro, A.; Martins, J.P. A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design. Autom. Constr.; 2013; 35, pp. 238-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005]
250. Pilyay, A.; Shilova, L. The use of normative basis for the construction cost for introduction of 5D BIM in Russia. Xxi International Scientific Conference on Advanced in Civil Engineering Construction-the Formation of Living Environment; Iop Publishing Ltd: Bristol, UK, 2018; Volume 365, ISBN 1757-8981
251. Yan, W. Environment-Behavior Simulation: From CAD to BIM and Beyond. Proceedings of the ACADIA Conference; CUMINCAD: Minneopolis, MN, USA, 2008.
252. Zhiliang, M.; Zhenhua, W.; Wu, S.; Zhe, L. Application and extension of the IFC standard in construction cost estimating for tendering in China. Autom. Constr.; 2011; 20, pp. 196-204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.017]
253. Olatunji, O.A.; Sher, W. Perspectives on modelling BIM-enabled estimating practices. Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build.; 2014; 14, pp. 32-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v14i4.4102]
254. Kim, H.; Grobler, F. Preparing a construction cash flow analysis using Building Information Modeling (BIM) technology. J. Constr. Eng. Proj. Manag.; 2013; 3, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6106/JCEPM.2013.3.1.001]
255. Chong, H.-Y.; Wong, J.S.; Wang, X. An explanatory case study on cloud computing applications in the built environment. Autom. Constr.; 2014; 44, pp. 152-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.04.010]
256. Gibbs, D.-J.; Emmitt, S.; Ruikar, K.; Lord, W. An investigation into whether building information modelling (BIM) can assist with construction delay claims. Int. J. 3-D Inf. Model.; 2013; 2, pp. 45-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ij3dim.2013010105]
257. Zoeteman, A. Life Cycle Costing applied to railway design and maintenance. Proceedings of the Urban Transport 2003; Wessex Institute of Technology: Southampton, UK, 2003; pp. 1-9.
258. Fuller, S. Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA). Natl. Inst. Build. Sci. An Authoritative Source Innov. Solut. Built Environ.; 2010; 1090, pp. 1-10.
259. Lu, K.; Jiang, X.Y.; Yu, J.Y.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Skitmore, M. Integration of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost using building information modeling: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 285, 125438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125438]
260. Bensalah, M.; Elouadi, A.; Mharzi, H. Optimization of Cost of a Tram through the Integration of BIM: A Theoretical Analysis. Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng.; 2017; 5, pp. 138-142.
261. Zhao, Y.; Tang, W. Design of project cost information management and analysis system based on BIM technology. Proceedings of the 2021 2nd International Conference on Computers, Information Processing and Advanced Education; Ottawa, ON, Canada, 25–27 May 2021; pp. 1516-1519.
262. Xu, J.W.; Moon, S. Stochastic forecast of construction cost index using a cointegrated vector autoregression model. J. Manag. Eng.; 2013; 29, pp. 10-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000112]
263. Shane, J.S.; Molenaar, K.R.; Anderson, S.; Schexnayder, C. Construction project cost escalation factors. J. Manag. Eng.; 2009; 25, pp. 221-229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2009)25:4(221)]
264. Bhargava, A.; Anastasopoulos, P.C.; Labi, S.; Sinha, K.C.; Mannering, F.L. Three-stage least-squares analysis of time and cost overruns in construction contracts. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2010; 136, pp. 1207-1218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000225]
265. Creedy, G.D.; Skitmore, M.; Wong, J.K.W. Evaluation of Risk Factors Leading to Cost Overrun in Delivery of Highway Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2010; 136, pp. 528-537. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000160]
266. Flyvbjerg, B. The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management. Flyvbjerg, B. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017; 1, ISBN 9780198732242
267. Flyvbjerg, B. Critics don’t understand behavioral science. Local Transp. Today; 2018; 1, pp. 1-5.
268. Mansfield, N.; Ugwu, O.; Doran, T. Causes of delay and cost overruns in Nigerian construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 1994; 12, pp. 254-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(94)90050-7]
269. Ubani, E.C.; Okorocha, K.A.; Emeribe, S.C. Analysis of factors influencing time and cost overruns on construction projects in South Eastern Nigeria. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Bus. Res.; 2013; 2, 4916314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4916314]
270. Rosenfeld, Y. Root-cause analysis of construction-cost overruns. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2014; 140, 4013039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000789]
271. Siemiatycki, M. Academics and auditors: Comparing perspectives on transportation project cost overruns. J. Plan. Educ. Res.; 2009; 29, pp. 142-156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X09348798]
272. Cavalieri, M.; Cristaudo, R.; Guccio, C. On the magnitude of cost overruns throughout the project life-cycle: An assessment for the Italian transport infrastructure projects. Transp. Policy; 2019; 79, pp. 21-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.04.001]
273. Terrill, M.; Coates, B.; Danks, L. Cost overruns in Australian transport infrastructure projects. Proceedings of the Australasian Transport Research Forum; Melbourne, Australia, 16–18 November 2016; Volume 16, 18.
274. Kim, G.-H.; An, S.-H.; Kang, K.-I. Comparison of construction cost estimating models based on regression analysis, neural networks, and case-based reasoning. Build. Environ.; 2004; 39, pp. 1235-1242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.02.013]
275. Oberlender, G.D.; Trost, S.M. Predicting accuracy of early cost estimates based on estimate quality. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2001; 127, pp. 173-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:3(173)]
276. El-Kholy, A.M. Predicting cost overrun in construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2015; 4, pp. 95-105.
277. Tayefeh Hashemi, S.; Ebadati, O.M.; Kaur, H. Cost estimation and prediction in construction projects: A systematic review on machine learning techniques. SN Appl. Sci.; 2020; 2, pp. 1-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03497-1]
278. Qian, L.; Ben-Arieh, D. Parametric cost estimation based on activity-based costing: A case study for design and development of rotational parts. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2008; 113, pp. 805-818. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.08.010]
279. Caputo, A.C.; Pelagagge, P.M. Parametric and neural methods for cost estimation of process vessels. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2008; 112, pp. 934-954. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.08.002]
280. Kim, H.-J.; Seo, Y.-C.; Hyun, C.-T. A hybrid conceptual cost estimating model for large building projects. Autom. Constr.; 2012; 25, pp. 72-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.04.006]
281. Klakegg, O.J.; Torp, O.; Austeng, K. Good and simple–a dilemma in analytical processes?. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus.; 2010; 3, pp. 402-421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538371011056057]
282. Kim, B.S. The approximate cost estimating model for railway bridge project in the planning phase using CBR method. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.; 2011; 15, pp. 1149-1159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12205-011-1342-2]
283. Shin, M.H.; Lee, H.K.; Kim, H.Y. Benefit-Cost analysis of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in a Railway Site. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 4303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10114303]
284. Barakchi, M.; Torp, O.; Belay, A.M. Cost estimation methods for transport infrastructure: A systematic literature review. Procedia Eng.; 2017; 196, pp. 270-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.199]
285. Flyvbjerg, B. Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning: Reference class forecasting in practice. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2008; 16, pp. 3-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310701747936]
286. De Jong, M.; Annema, J.A.; Van Wee, G.P. How to Build Major Transport Infrastructure Projects within Budget, in Time and with the Expected Output; a Literature Review. Transp. Rev.; 2013; 33, pp. 195-218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2013.778912]
287. Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.D.; Smith, S.D. Dealing with construction cost overruns using data mining. Constr. Manag. Econ.; 2014; 32, pp. 682-694. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2014.933854]
288. Love, P.E.D.; Li, H. Quantifying the causes and costs of rework in construction. Constr. Manag. Econ.; 2000; 18, pp. 479-490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190050024897]
289. Chen, C. How to Use CiteSpace. 2023; Available online: https://leanpub.com/howtousecitespace (accessed on 31 January 2023).
290. Tang, R.; De Donato, L.; Bešinović, N.; Flammini, F.; Goverde, R.M.P.; Lin, Z.; Liu, R.; Tang, T.; Vittorini, V.; Wang, Z. A literature review of Artificial Intelligence applications in railway systems. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol.; 2022; 140, 103679. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2022.103679]
291. Shehadeh, A.; Alshboul, O.; Al Mamlook, R.E.; Hamedat, O. Machine learning models for predicting the residual value of heavy construction equipment: An evaluation of modified decision tree, LightGBM, and XGBoost regression. Autom. Constr.; 2021; 129, 103827. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103827]
292. Soleimani, S.; Mohammadi, A.; Chen, J.; Leitner, M. Mining the highway-rail grade crossing crash data: A text mining approach. Proceedings of the 2019 18th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA); Boca Raton, FL, USA, 16–19 December 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1063-1068.
293. Kozłowski, E.; Borucka, A.; Świderski, A.; Skoczyński, P. Classification Trees in the Assessment of the Road–Railway Accidents Mortality. Energies; 2021; 14, 3462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14123462]
294. Oh, K.; Yoo, M.; Jin, N.; Ko, J.; Seo, J.; Joo, H.; Ko, M. A Review of Deep Learning Applications for Railway Safety. Appl. Sci.; 2022; 12, 10572. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app122010572]
295. Singh, P.; Pasha, J.; Moses, R.; Sobanjo, J.; Ozguven, E.E.; Dulebenets, M.A. Development of exact and heuristic optimization methods for safety improvement projects at level crossings under conflicting objectives. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.; 2022; 220, 108296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.108296]
296. Soleimani, S.; Mousa, S.R.; Codjoe, J.; Leitner, M. A comprehensive railroad-highway grade crossing consolidation model: A machine learning approach. Accid. Anal. Prev.; 2019; 128, pp. 65-77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.04.002]
297. Sresakoolchai, J.; Kaewunruen, S. Integration of Building Information Modeling and Machine Learning for Railway Defect Localization. IEEE Access; 2021; 9, pp. 166039-166047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3135451]
298. Venturini, G.; Maltese, F.; Teetes, G. 5D BIM applied to cost estimating, scheduling, and project control in underground projects. Proceedings of the North American Tunneling Conference, NAT 2018; Penrice, D.; Preedy, M.; Howard, A.; Rush, J.; Campbell,, B. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (SME): Englewood, CO, USA, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 1-8.
299. Usman, O.S.; Oaikhena, E.O.; Ojo, L.D. Benefits of Integrating 5D Bim in Cost Management Practices in Quantity Surveying Firms. Proceedings of the The 4th Research Conference of the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors; Enugu, Nigeria, 10–12 September 2019; pp. 67-73.
300. Katke, S.S. Time and Cost Control of Construction Project Using 5D BIM Process. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol.; 2020; 7, pp. 3247-3257.
301. Wang, K.-C.; Wang, W.-C.; Wang, H.-H.; Hsu, P.-Y.; Wu, W.-H.; Kung, C.-J. Applying building information modeling to integrate schedule and cost for establishing construction progress curves. Autom. Constr.; 2016; 72, pp. 397-410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.10.005]
302. Wen, Y. Research on Cost Control of Construction Project Based on the Theory of Lean Construction and BIM: Case Study. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J.; 2015; 8, pp. 382-388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874836801408010382]
303. Marzouk, M.; Hisham, M. Implementing earned value management using bridge information modeling. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.; 2014; 18, pp. 1302-1313. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-0455-9]
304. Abdel-Hamid, M.; Abdelhaleem, H.M. Project cost control using five dimensions building information modelling. Int. J. Constr. Manag.; 2023; 23, pp. 405-409. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1880313]
305. Sykes, A.O. An introduction to regression analysis. Coase-Sandor Inst. Law Econ. Work. Pap.; 1993; 20.
306. Sonmez, R. Parametric range estimating of building costs using regression models and bootstrap. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2008; 134, pp. 1011-1016. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:12(1011)]
307. Harrison, R.L. Introduction to monte carlo simulation. Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings; Penang, Malaysia, 21–23 December 2010; American Institute of Physics: College Park, MD, USA, 2010; Volume 1204, pp. 17-21.
308. Barreras, A.J. Risk Management--Monte Carlo Simulation in Cost Estimating; Project Management Institute: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2011.
309. Hoyle, R.H. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications; Sage Publications, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1995; ISBN 0803953186
310. Fan, Y.; Chen, J.; Shirkey, G.; John, R.; Wu, S.R.; Park, H.; Shao, C. Applications of structural equation modeling (SEM) in ecological studies: An updated review. Ecol. Process.; 2016; 5, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13717-016-0063-3]
311. Plebankiewicz, E.; Juszczyk, M.; Malara, J. Estimation Of Task Completion Times With The Use Of The PERT Method On The Example Of A Real Construction Project. Arch. Civ. Eng.; 2015; 61, pp. 51-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ace-2015-0024]
312. Pritsker, A.A.B. GERT: Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique. Part I. Fundamentals/Pritsker AA B., Happ WW. J. Ind. Eng.; 1966; pp. 267-274.
313. Zhou, L.; Xie, J.; Gu, X.; Lin, Y.; Ieromonachou, P.; Zhang, X. Forecasting return of used products for remanufacturing using Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique (GERT). Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2016; 181, pp. 315-324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.04.016]
314. Song, Y.-Y.; Ying, L.U. Decision tree methods: Applications for classification and prediction. Shanghai Arch. Psychiatry; 2015; 27, 130.
315. Fazeli, A.; Dashti, M.S.; Jalaei, F.; Khanzadi, M. An integrated BIM-based approach for cost estimation in construction projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.; 2020; 28, pp. 2828-2854. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2020-0027]
316. Ji, S.-H.; Ahn, J.; Lee, H.-S.; Han, K. Cost estimation model using modified parameters for construction projects. Adv. Civ. Eng.; 2019; 2019, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/8290935]
317. Wind, Y.; Saaty, T.L. Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Manage. Sci.; 1980; 26, pp. 641-658. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.7.641]
318. Jiang, Q. Estimation of construction project building cost by back-propagation neural network. J. Eng. Des. Technol.; 2019; 18, pp. 601-609. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-08-2019-0195]
319. Kwan, H.K.; Cai, Y. A fuzzy neural network and its application to pattern recognition. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.; 1994; 2, pp. 185-193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/91.298447]
320. Cheng, M.-Y.; Tsai, H.-C.; Hsieh, W.-S. Web-based conceptual cost estimates for construction projects using Evolutionary Fuzzy Neural Inference Model. Autom. Constr.; 2009; 18, pp. 164-172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.07.001]
321. Zima, K. The case-based reasoning model of cost estimation at the preliminary stage of a construction project. Procedia Eng.; 2015; 122, pp. 57-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.007]
322. Rush, C.; Roy, R. Expert judgement in cost estimating: Modelling the reasoning process. Concurr. Eng.; 2001; 9, pp. 271-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1063293X0100900404]
323. Boser, B.E.; Guyon, I.M.; Vapnik, V.N. A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. Proceedings of the fifth annual workshop on Computational Learning Theory; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 27–29 July 1992; pp. 144-152.
324. Wang, Y.-R.; Yu, C.-Y.; Chan, H.-H. Predicting construction cost and schedule success using artificial neural networks ensemble and support vector machines classification models. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2012; 30, pp. 470-478. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.09.002]
325. Cheng, M.-Y.; Peng, H.-S.; Wu, Y.-W.; Chen, T.-L. Estimate at completion for construction projects using evolutionary support vector machine inference model. Autom. Constr.; 2010; 19, pp. 619-629. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.02.008]
326. Durdyev, S. Review of construction journals on causes of project cost overruns. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.; 2021; 28, pp. 1241-1260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2020-0137]
327. Steininger, B.I.; Groth, M.; Weber, B.L. Cost overruns and delays in infrastructure projects: The case of Stuttgart 21. J. Prop. Investig. Financ.; 2021; 39, pp. 256-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPIF-11-2019-0144]
328. Catalão, F.P.; Cruz, C.O.; Sarmento, J.M. The determinants of cost deviations and overruns in transport projects, an endogenous models approach. Transp. Policy; 2019; 74, pp. 224-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.12.008]
329. Cantarelli, C.C.; van Wee, B.; Molin, E.J.E.; Flyvbjerg, B. Different cost performance: Different determinants? The case of cost overruns in Dutch transport infrastructure projects. Transp. Policy; 2012; 22, pp. 88-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.04.002]
330. Lundberg, M.; Jenpanitsub, A.; Pyddoke, R. Cost overruns in Swedish transport projects; Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute: Linköping, Sweden, 2011.
331. Cantarelli, C.C.; Chorus, C.G.; Cunningham, S.W. Explaining cost overruns of large-scale transportation infrastructure projects using a signalling game. Transp. A Transp. Sci.; 2013; 9, pp. 239-258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18128602.2011.565817]
332. Herrera, R.F.; Sánchez, O.; Castañeda, K.; Porras, H. Cost Overrun Causative Factors in Road Infrastructure Projects: A Frequency and Importance Analysis. Appl. Sci.; 2020; 10, 5506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10165506]
333. Ismail, M.Z.B.; Ramly, Z.B.M.; Hamid, R.B.A. Systematic Review of Cost Overrun Research in the Developed and Developing Countries. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol.; 2021; 12, pp. 196-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30880/ijscet.2021.12.01.020]
334. Pickrell, D.H. A desire named streetcar fantasy and fact in rail transit planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.; 1992; 58, pp. 158-176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975791]
335. Kain, J.F. Deception in Dallas: Strategic misrepresentation in rail transit promotion and evaluation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.; 1990; 56, pp. 184-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369008975758]
336. Flyvbjerg, B. The Lying Game; Eur Bus Press Ltd.: Birmingham, UK, 2003; pp. 60-62.
337. Chevroulet, T.; Giorgi, L.; Reynaud, C. A New Paradigm for the Assessment of High Speed Rail Projects and How to Contain Cost Overruns: Lessons from the EVA-TREN Project. SSRN Electron. J.; 2011; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1910565]
338. Lihua, L.; Yikun, S. The control model of engineering cost in construction phase of high-speed railway. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology; Seoul, Republic of Korea, 30 November–2 December 2010; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 766-771.
339. Waghmode, L.Y.; Sahasrabudhe, A.D.; Section, A.T. An application of a generalized life cycle cost model to boxn wagons of Indian railways. Proceedings of the ASME 2010 10th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, ESDA2010; Istanbul, Turkey, 12–14 July 2010; Volume 4, pp. 333-342.
340. Antoniou, F.; Aretoulis, G.; Giannoulakis, D.; Konstantinidis, D. Cost and Material Quantities Prediction Models for the Construction of Underground Metro Stations. Buildings; 2023; 13, 382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020382]
341. Ahmed, C. Early cost estimation models based on multiple regression analysis for road and railway tunnel projects. Arab. J. Geosci.; 2021; 14, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-07359-x]
342. Ling, D.J.; Roy, R.; Shehab, E.; Jaiswal, J.; Stretch, J. Modelling the cost of railway asset renewal projects using pairwise comparisons. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit; 2006; 220, pp. 331-346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1243/09544097JRRT31]
343. Love, P.E.D.; Wang, X.; Sing, C.P.; Tiong, R.L.K. Determining the probability of project cost overruns. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2013; 139, pp. 321-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000575]
344. Gunduz, M.; Ugur, L.O.; Ozturk, E. Parametric cost estimation system for light rail transit and metro trackworks. Expert Syst. Appl.; 2011; 38, pp. 2873-2877. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.080]
345. Milenković, M.; Švadlenka, L.; Bojović, N.; Melichar, V. Railway Investment Appraisal Techniques. Handbook of Research on Emerging Innovations in Rail Transportation Engineering; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 67-99.
346. Gattuso, D.; Restuccia, A. A tool for railway transport cost evaluation. Procedia-Social Behav. Sci.; 2014; 111, pp. 549-558. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.088]
347. Reisbeck, C.K.; Schank, R.C. Inside Case-Based Reasoning Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Taylor and Francis Group: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1989.
348. Kim, K.J.; Kim, K. Preliminary cost estimation model using case-based reasoning and genetic algorithms. J. Comput. Civ. Eng.; 2010; 24, pp. 499-505. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000054]
349. Duverlie, P.; Castelain, J.M. Cost estimation during design step: Parametric method versus case based reasoning method. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.; 1999; 15, pp. 895-906. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001700050147]
350. Petrocelli, J. V Hierarchical multiple regression in counseling research: Common problems and possible remedies. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev.; 2003; 36, pp. 9-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2003.12069076]
351. Attalla, M.; Hegazy, T. Predicting cost deviation in reconstruction projects: Artificial neural network versus regression. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2003; 129, pp. 405-411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:4(405)]
352. Trost, S.M.; Oberlender, G.D. Predicting accuracy of early cost estimates using factor analysis and multivariate regression. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2003; 129, pp. 198-204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:2(198)]
353. Doğan, S.Z.; Arditi, D.; Günaydın, H.M. Determining attribute weights in a CBR model for early cost prediction of structural systems. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2006; 132, pp. 1092-1098. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:10(1092)]
354. Hegazy, T.; Ayed, A. Neural network model for parametric cost estimation of highway projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 1998; 124, pp. 210-218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:3(210)]
355. Hammad, A.A.A.; Ali, S.M.A.; Sweis, G.J.; Bashir, A. Prediction model for construction cost and duration in Jordan. Jordan J. Civ. Eng.; 2008; 2, pp. 250-266.
356. Phaobunjong, K. Parametric Cost Estimating Model for Conceptual Cost Estimating of Building Construction Projects; The University of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX, USA, 2002; ISBN 049634580X
357. Kubat, M. Neural networks: A comprehensive foundation by Simon Haykin, Macmillan, 1994, ISBN 0-02-352781-7. Knowl. Eng. Rev.; 1999; 13, pp. 409-412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269888998214044]
358. Yan, D.; Schneider, U.A.; Schmid, E.; Huang, H.Q.; Pan, L.; Dilly, O. Interactions between land use change, regional development, and climate change in the Poyang Lake district from 1985 to 2035. Agric. Syst.; 2013; 119, pp. 10-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.04.001]
359. Nassar, K.M.; Gunnarsson, H.G.; Hegab, M.Y. Using Weibull analysis for evaluation of cost and schedule performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2005; 131, pp. 1257-1262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:12(1257)]
360. Abdirad, H.; Dossick, C.S. BIM curriculum design in architecture, engineering, and construction education: A systematic review. J. Inf. Technol. Constr.; 2016; 21, pp. 250-271.
361. Crippa, J.; Araujo, A.M.F.; Bem, D.; Ugaya, C.M.L.; Scheer, S. A systematic review of BIM usage for life cycle impact assessment. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag.; 2020; 10, pp. 603-618. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-03-2019-0028]
362. Liu, H.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Ju, Q.; Li, J.; Jiang, H. BIM-enabled construction innovation through collaboration: A mixed-methods systematic review. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.; 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2020-0181]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Moehler, Robert C 1
; Walsh, Stuart D C 1 ; Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D 2 1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia;
2 School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia;