INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

A Survey on the Current Status of Building Information Modelling

(BIM) Adoption in Quantity Surveying Practice in Kenya

QS. James Muimi Nzangi^1*, Prof. QS. Sylvester Munguti Masu², Dr. QS. Lawrence Mwangi Mbugua³

¹Tutorial Fellow, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Technical University of Mombasa,

Mombasa, Kenya

²Professor, Department of Construction and Property Studies, Technical University of Kenya, Nairobi,

Kenya

³Senior Lecturer, Department of Construction and Property Studies, Technical University of Kenya,

Nairobi,Kenya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000284

Received: 30 October 2025; Accepted: 06 November 2025; Published: 19 November 2025

ABSTRACT

Building Information Modelling (BIM) offers the capability to automate building quantity take-offs directly

from a digital information model. This can save the time spent by the QS manually measuring and counting

items to focus on more valuable cost advice for the success of the projects. However, cost management and

cost control remain the most significant challenges facing construction businesses worldwide. This paper

aimed to establish the current status of BIM adoption in the Quantity Surveying Practice in Kenya. A mixed-

methods research design was used, where quantitative results from the survey questionnaire were validated

using qualitative results from the interviews. 167 responses were received out of 270 targeted respondents, and

5 interviews. The results indicated a below-average adoption rate, with a mix of computer-aided onscreen

measurement and traditional paper-based practices prevalent. BIM use is less planned and more of a by-chance

implementation. Institutions of higher learning should incorporate BIM in their quantity surveying curricula,

and professional bodies in their seminars to build awareness on the benefits of its use for the QS profession.

Keywords: Building Information Modelling, BIM, Model-based cost estimating, Quantity Surveying Practice,

Kenya

INTRODUCTION

The construction industry in Kenya is a vital component of the national economy, contributing to capital

formation, employment creation, and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 2024, it contributed a significant

6.3 per cent of the national GDP, according to the 2024 Economic Survey Report by the Kenya National

Bureau of Statistics (KNBS, 2025). Quantity surveyors are in charge of the cost management of construction

and infrastructure projects. Their work starts with quantity take-off, breaking the project into components

synonymous with the project cost breakdown structure, preparing bills of quantities, pricing, and tendering.

Nevertheless, construction projects are becoming increasingly complex, with modern clients being more

knowledgeable and demanding highly customized non-traditional services from quantity surveyors in terms of

cost advice, financial planning and control, contractual management, and dispute resolution, among other roles

(Shayan et al., 2019). For quantity surveyors to excel in the provision of these services, their work must be

based on very accurate estimations and quantifications of the proposed project. The traditional paper-based

process of quantity take-off, squaring, abstracting, and developing draft bills is time-consuming, prone to error

due to human judgment, and expensive from a business development perspective (Babatunde et.al., 2019).

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3259

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

Given the advances in information and communication technologies, these manual repetitive tasks can be

automated with Building Information Modelling. By definition, Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a

collaborative approach to project delivery that integrates project participants in a single shared project

database, where key information required for making decisions about the facility being built is found and

continually updated. This methodology is enabled by technology through BIM-supporting software. It is based

on the work processes of the people involved in the project, with a recognition of the industry procedures and

government regulations that govern the construction industry (Azhar, 2011; Wu et.al, 2014; Karasu, 2022).

It encourages project participants to be aware of the decision-supporting information requirements of others

and to produce and share the right information, at the right time, in the right file formats, and with the right

details to help them make decisions faster and execute the project efficiently (Autodesk University & Allen,

2016). The underpinning technology and associated software are just enablers due to their automation

capabilities.

Therefore, this paper aimed to establish the current status of the adoption of Building Information Modelling

(BIM) by quantity surveyors in Keya, by investigating the practices that are popular in the projects they

handle, the documents they produce to support its implementation, and how they communicate their

information needs to the other project team members (especially the model authors, because they depend on

this information to do their cost management work).

BIM usage by the quantity surveyors is dependent on the quality of model information produced by model

authors. The 3D model contains intelligent BIM objects, building components, and elements that build up the

information model representing architectural, structural, MEP, and civil infrastructure of the designed facility.

Using this, model-based design coordination and clash detection can be done to help the QS and the whole

project team reduce and eliminate field conflicts. This reduces the number of requests for information

produced, subsequently increasing the productivity on site, therefore serving as a cost control and quality

assurance tool for the QS (AIQS & NZIQS, 2018).

As costs are linked to time, 4D BIM aspects are vital for the QS to visualize the whole construction process

and simulate how the timing of site tasks affects the construction workflows, including resolving time-based

clashes and verifying the sequence of works visually (AIQS & NZIQS, 2018). The 3D model linked to tasks in

the simulated construction schedule then helps support model-based estimating and quantity take-off through

5D BIM. This is where quantity take-offs are generated from the model and linked to a cost database to

compute the estimate. According to Wu et.al (2014), Babatunde et.al. (2019), and Ullah et.al (2019) this

process provides more accurate cost information to the owner during the early decision-making phases of the

design and throughout the lifecycle, considerably reducing the time taken to perform quantity take-offs, and

making it easier to explore different design options and concepts with owner’s budget, while quickly

determining the costs of specific objects.

Further, the ability to do this is dependent on the capabilities of the firms to deliver various aspects and

requirements of BIM in construction projects. These capabilities are technically referred to as the

organization’s BIM maturity levels, and include the following, as summarised by Kontothanasis et.al (2020)

from the BewRichards BIM Maturity model:

1.

2.

3.

Level 0: CAD (low collaboration) – the project promotes zero collaboration and makes use of

paperbased 2D CAD drafting techniques to generate product information in the form of paper or

electronic prints.

Level 1: 2D/3D (partial collaboration) – introduces the 2D drafting (generation of statutory approval

documentation and product information) and 3D CAD (for conceptual work). Data exchange happens

electronically.

Level 2: 4D/5D (full collaboration) - promotes collaborative working by giving each of the stake-

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3260

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

holders their own 3D CAD model, and the information is exchanged through a common data

environment.

4.

Level 3: 6D (full integration) – it promises deeper collaboration, enables the participants to work on

the same model simultaneously, which eliminates the chances of conflicting information.

Full collaboration and integration require project information to be hosted on a Common Data Environment

(CDE), which serves as a central repository that houses all the information pertaining to the project.

Information inputs to this central project information repository are agreed upon by the parties of the project at

specific points in the project cycle from the outset. The software solution then can be used to control access to

this project information via folder-level permissions, tracking and managing upload, read, write and view

activities, and provide a quality assurance process which can track and control the flow of information as

agreed at the employer’s information requirements (EIR) and BIM Execution Plan (BEP) and Model Content

Plans (MCP) (AIQS & NZIQS, 2018). The EIR, BEP, and MCP are important for defining what information

will be produced, how it will be packed, and how it will be shared with other project team members and

transmitted to the next phase of the development of the project, throughout the project’s lifecycle.

Researchers agree that BIM leads to better cost estimates and cost control in a construction project (Wu et.al,

2014; Babatunde et.al., 2019; and Chan et.al, 2019). Combined with visualization to support the quantity

surveyors in better understanding the design, BIM also supports the extraction of building quantities from the

3D digital building model, significantly reducing the time required to perform quantity take-off and prepare

cost estimates. Also, as the quantity extraction reduces the over-reliance on human effort that would have been

in manual quantity take-offs, this reduces human error and improves the accuracy of the quantity take-offs and

cost estimates for better construction cost management at all phases of the project.

Further, 4D phase planning and simulation help in better construction planning and monitoring by painting a

clear picture of how work items in a construction project will be sequenced, and operational challenges the

contractor may face on site, and how to overcome them before the actual work begins on site. Also, by

facilitating the ease of assessment of construction materials, construction plant, equipment, and work

processes, BIM helps improve the quality of the construction project (Chan et.al, 2019). Stakeholders who see

these benefits in other projects and value them are driven to start implementing BIM in their projects.

Therefore, these advantages of BIM are the factors that drive its adoption and implementation in construction

practices.

Also, Chan et.al (2019) in their study of BIM implementation in Hong Kong found that it speeds up the design

process, improves the efficiency of project communication, and enhances the organizational image of the

firms. Project information created at the design stage of the project can be passed over to the construction and

other subsequent stages. At the construction stage, contractors will add construction data into the model,

incorporating any changes that may be introduced to form the as-built model. This can then be passed to the

facility management stage to help maintenance managers efficiently manage the project during its occupation

stage, thus benefiting from the advantage of BIM to support lifecycle data sharing. In the construction stage,

BIM can also be used to simulate safety operations in a virtual environment and integrate safety factors in the

sequencing and scheduling of a project to avoid accidents (Nyabioge et.al, 2023).

Musyimi (2016) cites drivers of BIM adoption as the benefits of improved productivity, better project

performance, and reduced wastage compared to traditional construction project management. These benefits

are brought about by the integrated project delivery approach, which encourages the early involvement of all

stakeholders in the construction project to harness their professional expertise and experiences for the success

of the project.

However, despite these immense benefits that encourage its use, BIM has not achieved widespread adoption

globally. There exist challenges like the high cost of BIM implementation in a construction project. This is

attributable to high initial costs of buying BIM software licenses and subscriptions, and the cost of buying new

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3261

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

hardware tools or upgrading the existing ones to match the computing requirements of these software

(Musyimi, 2016; Chan et.al, 2019). Even with the software, there are still incompatibilities in the way project

data is packaged and digitally presented, which pose serious interoperability issues, making cross-platform

collaboration difficult.

Further, BIM adoption is limited by a lack of educational and training programmes to facilitate the transfer of

knowledge on BIM, a lack of professionals, contractors, and subcontractors with BIM skills, poor

collaboration amongst project stakeholders with a low level of information sharing and coordination in the

industry, and difficulties in measuring the benefits of BIM from an economic perspective. Also, some

organizations have organizational structures that do not support collaboration which is at the heart of BIM,

with parties that hold tight to their existing workflows and systems and resist any change that may come with

BIM, including the lack of BIM demand by clients which means they don’t pay for its use, and limited

policies, standards and guidelines on the implementation of BIM (Musyimi, 2016; Chan et.al, 2019; and Mosse

et.al, 2020).

Although these concerns affect quantity surveyors too because they work in collaboration with other project

team members, there are specific barriers to BIM adoption in quantity surveying work that differ from the

overall concerns of all stakeholders in the construction industry. Wu et.al (2014) identified three key limiting

factors in the adoption of 5D BIM. To begin with, there is an inconsistent level of design information in the

BIM models produced by model authors (architects, engineers, interior designers, etc), which is inadequate to

support the automated extraction of building quantity data from the models. Then, data exchange issues

between cost estimating software and model authoring software persist, making it hard to seamlessly link BIM

models to external cost estimating databases for the production of reliable cost estimates. These, coupled with

the challenge that the outputs from the BIM models are not standardized for direct pricing without further

customizations or manipulations, make quantity surveyors prefer to maintain their existing cost estimating

workflows that pair onscreen take-off software with spreadsheets for the preparation of cost reports and bills of

quantities.

In Kenya, BIM adoption has been studied generally in the construction industry (Nasila & Cloete, 2018), its

uses and influences in engineering contract management (Mosse et.al, 2020), structural design and analysis

(Mwero & Bukachi, 2019), usage in construction project management (Musyimi, 2016), usage by contractors

(Oyuga et.al, 2023), and its applications in construction safety and accident mitigation (Nyabioge et.al, 2023).

This research studies its specific use by the quantity surveying profession, especially to perform model-based

cost estimating.

Overall, the study was guided by a combination of the Task-Technology Fit (TTF) Theory and the Technology

Acceptance Model (TAM). TAM proposes that an individual’s perception of the ease of use and usefulness of a

technology influences their attitudes towards technology use and subsequently drives its actual usage (Davis,

1986), although there are external social, cultural, and political factors that may have an impact on this. The

TTF is based on the argument that the utilisation of technology can be predicted by examining how well the

capabilities of the technology match the requirements of the task, which is the ability of a technology to

support the task (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995; Marikyan & Papagiannidis, 2023). By combining TTF and

TAM, Dishaw and Strong (1999) improved the explanatory strength of the model, with the individual’s

perceptions of ease of use and usefulness of a technology influenced by the fit (or match) between the

technology capabilities and the task characteristics. BIM adoption by quantity surveyors can be explained by

this model, as technology is a key enabler of the process and workflows, which require BIM software

capabilities to support model-based cost estimating tasks. Additionally, since clients and consultants are in a

principal-agent relationship, specific actions by the consultants and clients can be explained by this

relationship, further strengthening the TTF-TAM combined model.

METHODOLOGY

The research adopted a pragmatic approach, which holds that knowledge can be generated by combining

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3262

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

objective expertise with an in-depth investigation of phenomena. As a result, mixed methods were employed,

combining qualitative and quantitative research techniques, methods, and concepts into a single study

(Wambugu et.al., 2015).

Further, a mixed-methods research design was adopted. This involved collecting and analyzing both qualitative

and quantitative data independently, and then interpreting the results based on the two. The qualitative data

were mainly used to validate the quantitative results by providing detailed in-depth explanations, reasoning,

and argument (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2019).

There were 270 survey respondents selected from a population of 833 registered quantity surveyors in the

Nairobi Metropolitan Area, Kenya. This area accounted for 1,238,405 million Kenya Shillings as the value of

construction output in 2023 alone, according to the 2024 Statistical Abstract by the Kenya National Bureau of

Statistics, which is 58.98% of the total value of the country’s construction output that year. This sample size

was arrived at using Taro Yamane’s formula (as cited in Asenahabi and Ikoha, 2023), as follows:

= 1 + ( )₂

Where:

n = sample size N = population size e = level of precision with a value of

0.05, at a 95% confidence level.

After employing the formula, the sample size will be as follows:

=

n =270.23

Therefore, the sample consisted of 270 respondents. The individual respondents for the survey were selected

through a systematic random sampling procedure, while the respondents for the interview were selected using

a purposive non-probability sampling technique. These interviews were conducted according to an interview

guide developed to allow respondents to share their opinions, attitudes, and experiences about the adoption of

5D BIM in quantity surveying practice in Kenya, the benefits, challenges, and barriers encountered.

The research questionnaire underwent pilot testing first. It was hosted on Google Forms and sent out to the

respondents through email to share their responses without having to visit in person. The interviews were done

over Google Meet. The researcher recorded the audio conversation using the OBS Studio App for transcription,

and later referenced it during the data analysis and interpretation of study results.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The researcher received 167 responses out of 270 targeted respondents. This translated to a response rate of

61.9%. Additionally, five expert interviews were conducted. This was aimed at collecting qualitative data to

corroborate the quantitative findings obtained from the survey. As the focus was on in-depth discussions and

understanding of the research area, the interviews did not aim for representativeness, but for the depth and

quality of the information shared.

The majority of the respondents (84%) indicated that the job title that best describes them is “Registered

Quantity Surveyor”, with others (16%) distributed amongst professionals who hold multiple titles, such as

“Project Manager/Construction Project Manager” (3%), and “Assistant Quantity Surveyor” (13%). It is

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3263

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

common to see registered quantity surveyors in their early career stages still working as assistants reporting to

a senior professional in the industry.

3.6%

12.0%

84.4%

Registered Quantity Surveyor

Assistant Quantity Surveyor

Figure 1: Distribution of Respondents' Preferred Job Titles

Source: Authors, 2025.

Further, these respondents were drawn from both public and private sectors of the industry, handling both

publicly and privately funded projects. Those who selected private quantity surveying firms were the majority

(36.5%), followed by construction firms (31.1%), public sector organizations (22.8%), and the independent

consultancy category (20.4%). Some respondents indicated other categories, including “manufacturing

company”, “bank”, and “developer”, with others holding positions in more than one organization type. The

results show that diverse organizational types were represented in the study, indicating the diversity of

experiences of the study participants.

4.8

Other

Independent Consultancy

Construction Firm

Or

20.4

gan

izat

ion

31.1

9.6

Academia (Teaching and Research)

Public Sector (Parastatals, National and

County Governments)

22.8

36.5

40

Private Quantity Surveying Firm

0

20

Percentages

Figure 2: Percentages of Responses for each Organization Type

Source: Authors, 2025.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3264

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

In terms of the years of professional experience, the “6-10 years” cohort formed the majority with 44.9% (75)

share, followed by “0-5 years” with 28.1% (47), and “21 and above” contributed the fewest respondents with

2.4% (4). This is shown in Figure 3. The majority of the respondents are young, early-career professionals with

experiences ranging between 0 and 10 years of professional quantity surveying practice.

80

75

70

60

N

u

50

40

30

20

10

0

47

m

be

r

of

Re

sp

24

17

4

Number of Years

0 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 20

21 and above

Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Years of Experience

Source: Authors, 2025.

Moving on, the research sought to establish the status of BIM adoption amongst the respondents. Respondents

were asked whether they used BIM individually or at the organizational level. It was important to distinguish

adoption at individual and organizational levels as these two are driven by different motivations. Whereas

individual consultants may want to improve their workflows, match current professional trends, and keep up

with continuous professional development, firms and organizations are motivated mainly by profits and the

return on investment. However conflicting, both are important considerations when deciding to invest in BIM

implementation. The responses were as follows:

24.6%

41.9%

33.5%

Y

e

s

No

Planning to Adopt

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3265

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

Figure 1: BIM Use by Individual Professionals

Source: Authors, 2025.

Source: Authso, r2025.

18.00%

40.70%

41.30%

Yes No Planning to Adopt

Figure 1: BIM Use at Organizational Level

Source: Authors, 2025.

It is worth noting that more individual respondents (24.6%) are planning to adopt BIM in the future compared

to 18.0% of firms. This is because individual decision-making is faster, less structured compared to firms that

have to go through multiple stages of discussions before the final approval by the top-level management.

Nevertheless, the trend is positive, as with more individuals adopting BIM in their personal work in the future,

the impact will spread across the organizations where they work.

The low level of BIM adoption by quantity surveyors is consistent with the work of Mosse et. al (2020), who

found an overall 38.7% adoption in the QS profession. However, there has been an improvement in the uptake

compared with these findings, which indicate 41.9% in individual professionals and 40.7% at the

organizational level. Musyimi (2016) found a 25% adoption level of BIM in construction project management

in Kenya. 67% usage of BIM in structural design and analysis in Kenya was reported by Mwero and Bukachi

(2019). Across East Africa, similar low adoption results were reported in Rwanda by Musabyimana (2021),

whose survey respondents comprised 4.3% quantity surveys and reported 29% BIM awareness.

With these findings on BIM adoption levels, the research went further to probe the reasons for no BIM usage

by the majority of the respondents. Several reasons had been identified, with the 97 responses by the

participants distributed as follows:

Table 1: Reasons for Not Using BIM

S/No.

1.

Reason

Frequency (N) Percentage (%) Ranking by

*

Popularity

Lack of experience in BIM

48

20.3

1

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3266

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

2.

3.

4.

5.

BIM is complicated

7

3.0

8

3

2

4

Lack of Training

36

39

34

15.3

16.5

14.4

No client requirement for its use

Satisfied with existing systems and workflows

6.

7.

Lack of standards and guidelines

15

6.4

9.7

7

6

Lack of government policy/legislation guiding 23

BIM use

8.

9.

Other consultants are not using BIM

28

6

11.9

2.5

5

9

Other

Total

236

100.0

*The percentage is obtained by dividing the frequency of each reason by the total number of choices made by

the respondents. The total for the frequencies is 236, which represents the total number of choices made by all

respondents in this multiple-choice question.

Source: Authors, 2025.

The most popular reason for not using BIM in quantity surveying practice is “a lack of experience”. This was

followed by “no client requirement for its use”, “lack of training”, “satisfied with existing systems and

workflows”, and “other consultants are not using BIM” as the top five reasons for not using BIM by the

respondents. Although a lack of standards and guidelines, and a lack of legislation and government policy

guiding BIM use, come immediately after these in terms of the popularity ranking, they are not the major

causes of low levels of BIM adoption in the quantity surveying practice. Similarly, Musabyimana (2021)

reported a lack of training and insufficiency of skilled personnel as BIM adoption challenges in Rwanda, with

Mosse (2022) citing a lack of training, a lack of client requirement for BIM use, and high cost of the software

as some of the limiting factors.

The introduction of BIM into a project tends to disrupt the existing workflows, introducing new ways of

information sharing and management, and software. This means that for a QS to work well, they will need to

be skilled in these by either having undergone some training or learned on another job. Where these miss, they

become the adoption barriers, as people will gravitate towards maintaining consistency by sticking to their

existing systems and workflows. This was summarised by an interviewee who said:

“I think one of the biggest reasons, as a quantity surveyor, is the inability to embrace change… we are very

relaxed with the tools that we have, we think they work for us at the moment. So, in that effect, it makes it

easier for me to only use the tools I have been using or the tools that I was trained with. So that’s the biggest

hindrance.”

In the other reasons, respondents indicated that the cost of implementing BIM, including purchasing the

software tools, is high and does not make business sense for small and medium-sized organizations

(accounting for 2.5%). Switching to BIM requires a business to acquire the relevant software, update its

hardware to be compatible with the technical specifications for running this software, and train its employees.

With respondents indicating there is a lack of training, this shows that cost is a major consideration in deciding

whether or not to use BIM, which agrees with findings by Nasila and Cloete (2018).

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3267

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

Also, clients are the project owners and are responsible for arranging the financing of the project. Where

professionals incur an extra cost in paying for software subscriptions, training, or upgrading hardware, these

will be passed down to the client in the consultancy fees charged, which can later be recovered when the client

collects rent or sales revenue from the completed facility. The client is, therefore, a key influencer of BIM

adoption, depending on their willingness to absorb the risks associated with it. Where clients are interested in

cost-cutting by all means, this leaves less room for supporting BIM implementation efforts, as costs are

incurred first before the benefits can be reaped. The client role was best explained by an interviewee as

follows:

“…the clients they are the best stakeholders to make this work. As a client, …if you can procure a common

data environment, … and you make sure like the all the stakeholders are able to use these items which enable

the usage of the IFCs and all those models…, then in that case it is affordable… to have BIM as a whole, it

should come with that perspective, you know, from the client’s part. That’s what I can say.”

The BIM maturity levels at which the organizations and individuals operated received 92 responses, spread as

follows:

70.0 %

64.1 %

60.0 %

50.0 %

40.0 %

Per

30.0 %

cen

tag

es

20.0 %

10.0 %

0.0 %

16.3 %

14.1 %

5.5 %

Level 0: CAD (Low Collaboration)

Level 1: 2D/3D (Partial Collaboration)

BIM Maturity Levels

Level 2: 4D/5D (Full Collaboration)

Level 3: 6D, nD (Full Integration)

Figure 6: Percentage Distribution of BIM Maturity Levels

Source: Authors, 2025.

The majority (64.1%) of the respondents are at Level 1, characterized by a mix of 2D and 3D-based work and

partial collaboration, with very few indicating that they have achieved full integration (Level 3). This makes

“Level 1: 2D/3D (Partial Collaboration)” the most popular BIM level amongst quantity surveyors in Kenya.

However, model-based cost estimating is well supported in levels 2 and 3, where full collaboration and

integration are reached. So far, there has been limited integration, with construction team members embracing

collaboration, albeit sparingly.

Additionally, respondents using BIM in their work reported various benefits. These benefits were ranked in the

order of their popularity amongst the respondents as follows:

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3268

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

Table 2: Ranking of Advantages of Using BIM by Popularity

S/No.

Benefit

Frequency (N) Percentage (%) Ranking by

*

Popularity

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Better cost estimates and cost control

Improved project visualization

70

56

67

69

40

15.5

1

12.4

14.8

15.3

8.8

4

3

2

7

Faster quantity take-off

Improved accuracy of quantity take-offs

Better construction planning and monitoring

6.

7.

8.

Improved overall value of the project

Improved communication

34

46

7.5

8

6

5

10.2

10.6

Easier and unlimited access to project 48

information

9.

Enhanced organizational image of the firm

Total

22

4.9

9

452

100.0

*The percentage is obtained by dividing the frequency of each benefit identified by the total number of choices

made by the respondents. The total for the frequencies is 452, which represents the total number of choices

made by all respondents, as this was a multiple-choice question.

Source: Authors, 2025.

“Better cost estimates and cost control” ranked as the most important benefit of using BIM by the respondents.

This was followed by “improved accuracy of quantity take-offs”, “faster quantity take-off”, “improved project

visualization”, and “easier and unlimited access to project information”, in that order. These benefits are

desirable for the project, and are the drivers of BIM adoption by the quantity surveyors. Quality and speed of

producing the cost estimates improves the perceived value of the QS services to the client. Accuracy is

fundamental as the quantities and costs arrived at the pre-contract stage forms the basis for cost management

work across all other stages of the project by the QS (forecasting, appraisals, valuations, and final accounting).

The perceived usefulness of the tools in achieving this helps drive its adoption amongst quantity surveyors.

Although an enhanced organizational image and the overall value of the project are desirable benefits, the

findings suggest that the most important concerns of the quantity surveyors are the quality of the cost estimates

they produced and their subsequent value in the cost control process at all stages of the project. Also, faster and

accurate quantity take-offs, the ability to visualize a project, and easier and unlimited access to construction

project information are essential to the quantity surveyors as they perform cost management roles on the

project.

As BIM implementation follows a structured process, it was imperative to investigate the practices adopted by

the respondents in their work, and by the other construction project participants they worked with. This

examined the production of non-graphical information and documents useful in supporting the transition to

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3269

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

model-based cost estimating, common work tasks, and how quantity surveyors communicate their needs.

Although most respondents (58.1%) indicated that the quantity surveyors communicate to the model authors

their information needs (things like specifying what file formats they work best in, data formats, level of

design detail, and development they require so they can perform model-based cost estimating), those that do

not adopt this practice are also a significant number (41.9%), as shown in Figure 7:

Do QS communicate their needs to model authors?

No

41.9%

Yes

58.1%

Figure 7: Distribution of Responses on Whether the QS Communicates Their Information Needs to

Model Authors

Source: Authors, 2025.

This bunch approaches BIM without planning and without setting the expectations at the start of the project.

This practice is disadvantageous as it means the model authors create the BIM models without knowing what

the QS expects to find in the model to support their cost estimation and management work. If these

expectations are not known, they cannot be fully met, even when the model authors make reasonable

assumptions in their work. Consequently, the quantity surveyors miss out on the opportunity to have these

models rich in data that support their work, and don’t fully benefit from the automation capabilities of BIM

even when it is implemented in their projects.

Further, the distribution of responses on whether they produce the indicated non-graphical information and

documents was as follows:

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3270

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

Figure 8: Status of Production of Non-graphical Information and Documents

Source: Authors, 2025.

The common practices present in the projects the respondents worked on are tabulated as follows (Table 3),

with ranking in the order of their popularity:

Table 3: Ranking on the Order of Popularity of Common Practices

S/No.

Practice

Frequency

(N)*

Percentage (%) Ranking by

Popularity

1.

2.

Production of hand drawings

55

9.6

6

2

2D digital drawings that are not generated from 94

3D models

16.5

3.

Use of structured information linked to 3D 60

digital models

10.5

4

4.

5.

Quantity take-off from physical blueprints

89

15.6

19.0

3

1

2D onscreen quantity take-off from PDF 108

drawings

6.

7.

8.

Extracting building quantities from 3D digital 58

models

10.2

9.1

5

7

Sharing digital models with team members in 52

other disciplines

Collaborating with project teams through a 52

central repository for project information

9.1

9.

Other

Total

2

0.4

8

570

100.0

*The frequency is the number of choices made per item, with the total indicating all choices made by the

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3271

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

respondents in this multiple-choice question. Percentages are obtained by dividing the individual frequency by

the total number of choices made.

Source: Authors, 2025.

“2D onscreen quantity take-off from PDF drawings” is the most popular practice, followed by “2D digital

drawings that are not generated from 3D models”, “quantity take-off from physical blueprints”, “use of

structured information linked to 3D digital models”, and “extraction of building quantities from 3D digital

models” in that order. Collaboration and sharing of construction project information through a central digital

repository (technically known as Common Data Environment - CDE) are among the least popular practices

amongst the surveyed respondents.

It suffices to say that a mix of Computed Aided Estimating (CAE) and traditional paper-based practices is the

dominant practice in the Kenyan quantity surveying practice. This is characterized by 2D onscreen quantity

takeoffs and manual take-offs from printed hardcopy drawings. However, the industry is realizing the potential

of model-based cost estimating, and we are seeing the use of structured information in the form of building

information model data (such as building specification data) and the extraction of building quantities from the

3D digital models present in the industry.

Nevertheless, the findings suggest that BIM use in the projects is less planned and more of a by-chance

implementation. Although information sharing standards, methods, and procedures, and responsibility matrices

are produced as the most popular non-graphical information with the respondents (as shown in Figure 8), they

are not exclusive to BIM projects. They can also be found in projects implemented through the traditional

procurement routes. The BIM Execution Plan (BEP) and the Model Content Plan (MCP), which are less

popular, are a set of non-graphical documents that suggest a structured and well-thought-out introduction of

BIM into a construction project. The lower production of these documents suggests that the cases of BIM use

identified are mainly by chance, where project participants only use the aspects of BIM that are available,

without mandating that BIM has to be used in the project.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The research highlighted that BIM adoption amongst quantity surveyors in Kenya is below average and at the

level of partial collaboration using a mix of 2D and 3D documents. However, there is optimism that the

adoption rate will increase in the future, with more people indicating that they are planning to adopt BIM. The

main limiting factors identified are “a lack of experience”, “clients not requiring BIM to be used in their

projects”, “a lack of training”, “project stakeholders being satisfied with the existing systems and workflows”,

and “other consultants not using BIM”. Further, the findings suggest that BIM implementation is unstructured

and unplanned. However, users report benefits such as “an improvement in the quality of their cost estimates

and cost control work”, “better and faster quantity take-off”, “improved project visualizations”, and “access to

project information anytime, anywhere, when needed”.

Additionally, the findings suggest that spreadsheet-based cost estimating and bill preparation workflow is

popular, together with 2D on-screen quantity take-off from PDF drawings. Quantity surveyors are starting to

embrace model-based quantity extraction, although the incompatibilities brought about by foreign work item

descriptions need to be resolved to support automatic quantity extraction from the models.

From the results obtained, it was recommended that Universities, Colleges, Technical and Vocational

Education and Training (TVET) centres should incorporate in their curricula general aspects of digital

transformation tools, especially BIM, to train and equip the next generation of quantity surveying graduates

with the technical and soft skills they need to work in BIM projects and extract value from the capabilities of

the 5D BIM tools. Also, professional bodies, through their continuous professional development seminars,

should consider incorporating practical BIM in their discussions to help upskill the professionals already in the

industry, and contribute towards the improvement of its uptake.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3272

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

The results of this study have been instrumental in establishing the current status of BIM adoption in quantity

surveying practice. Nevertheless, the researcher recommends a case study of a BIM project in Kenya to

quantify the benefits of BIM implementation in a local project environment and the challenges from a quantity

surveying perspective. This will serve as a real-life test of BIM implementation in a live project to strengthen

the local perspectives on 5D BIM.

REFERENCES

1. Asenahabi, R.M. and Ikoha, P.A. (2023). Scientific Research Sample Size Determination. The

International Journal of Science & Technoledge,11(7).

https://doi.org/10.24940/theijst/2023/v11/i7/ST230 7-008

2. Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (AIQS) and New Zealand Institute of Quantity Surveyors

(NZIQS). (2018). Australian and New Zealand BIM Best Practices. Available at https:// www.aiqs .com

.au/product/australia-and-new-zealand-bim-best-practice-guidelines-digital

3. Autodesk University, & Allen, B. [Autodesk University]. (2016, November 23). The Future of BIM

Will Not Be BIM—and It’s Coming Faster than You Think [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved August 21,

2024, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq6yKyauu-o

4. Azhar, S. (2011). Building Information Modelling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the

5. AEC industry. Leadership and

Management in Engineering, 11(3), 241–252.

https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)lm.1943-5630.00001 27

6. Babatunde, S.O., Perera, S., Ekundayo, D. and Adeleye, T.E. (2019). "An investigation into BIM-based

detailed cost estimating and drivers to the adoption of BIM in quantity surveying practices", Journal of

7. Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 25 No. 1,pp.61-81.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMPC-05 -2019-0042

8. Chan, D. W., Olawumi, T. O., & Ho, A. M. (2019). Perceived Benefits of and Barriers to Building

Information Modelling (BIM) Implementation in Construction: The Case of Hong Kong. Journal of

Building Engineering, 25, Article 100764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100764

9. Davis, F.D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information

systems: theory and results. Doctoral dissertation. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.

10. Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task–

technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-

7206(98)00101-3

11. Egunjobi, J. P. (2024). Guidelines to Thesis and Dissertation Writing. Lulu Press Inc.

12. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. MIS

Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.

13. Karasu, T., Aaltonen, K., & Haapasalo, H. (2022). The interplay of IPD and BIM: a systematic

literature review. Construction Innovation, 23(3), 640–664. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-07-2021-0134

14. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics [KNBS]. (2024). 2024 Economic Survey - Kenya National Bureau

of Statistics. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved August 19, 2024, from

https://www.knbs.or.ke/reports/2024-economic-survey/

15. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics [KNBS]. (2025). 2025 Economic Survey - Kenya National Bureau

of Statistics. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved October 27, 2025, from https:// www.

knbs.or.ke/reports/2025-economic-survey/

16. Kontothanasis, P., Krommyda, V., & Roussos, N. (2019). BIM and Advanced Computer-Based Tools

for the Design and Construction of Underground Structures and Tunnels. In Intech Open eBooks.

https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88315

17. Marikyan, D.& Papagiannidis, S. (2023) Task-Technology Fit: A review. In S. Papagiannidis (Ed),

TheoryHub Book. Available at https://open.ncl.ac.uk / ISBN: 9781739604400

18. Mosse, H. N., Njuguna, M., & Kabubo, C. (2020). Influence of Building Information Modelling (BIM)

on engineering contract management in Nairobi, Kenya. World Journal of Engineering and Technology,

08(03), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.4236/wjet.2020.83026

19. Mugenda, O.M. and Mugenda, A.G. (2019). Research Methods: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed

Methods Approaches. Centre for Innovative Leadership and Governance (CLIG), Nairobi, Kenya.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3273

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue X October 2025

20. Musabyimana, E. (2021, June 9). Adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in construction

projects delivery in Rwanda. http://ir.jkuat.ac.ke/handle/123456789/5567

21. Musyimi, M.M. (2016). Building Information Modelling Adoption in Construction Project

Management in Kenya: A Case Study of Nairobi County. Master’s Thesis, University of Nairobi.

22. Mwero, J. N. and Bukachi, P. R. A. (2019). Building Information Modelling Adoption in Structural

Design in Kenya - A Case Study of Nairobi.; International Journal of Scientific and Research

Publications (IJSRP) 9(6) (ISSN: 2250-3153), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSR P .9.06.2019.p9046

23. Nasila, M., & Cloete, C. (2018). Adoption of Building Information Modelling in the construction

industry in Kenya. Acta Structilia, 25(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.18820/24150487/as25i2.1

24. Nyabioge, B. M., Wachira-Towey, I. N., & Ralwala, A. O. (2023). A Review of the Application of

Building .

25. Information Modelling (BIM) in Mitigating Building Construction Accidents in Kenya. Journal of the

Kenya National Commission for UNESCO, 2(1).Retrieved from https://journals.unesco.go

ke/index.php/jknatcom/article/view/21

26. Oyuga, J.O., Gwaya, A. and Njuguna, M.B. (2023). "Investigation of the current usage of BIM

capabilities by large-sized building contractors in Kenya based on theory of innovation diffusion",

Construction Innovation, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 155-177. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-11-2020-0179

27. Shayan, S., Kim, K. P., Ma, T., Freda, R., & Liu, Z. (2019). Emerging challenges and roles for quantity

surveyors in the construction industry. In Management Review: An International Journal, 14(1), pp. 82-

95 (June 30, 2019). https://doi.org/10.55819/mrij.2019.14.1.82

28. Ullah, K., Lill, I. and Witt, E. (2019), "An Overview of BIM Adoption in the Construction Industry:

Benefits and Barriers", Lill, I. and Witt, E. (Ed.) 10th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics

and Organization (Emerald Reach Proceedings Series, Vol. 2), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp.

297303. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2516-285320190000002052

29. Wambugu, L.N., Kyalo, N. D, Mbii, M., and Nyonje, R.O. (2015). Research Methods: Theory and

Practice, Aura Publishers, Nairobi, Kenya.

30. Wu, S., Wood, G., Ginige, K. and Jong, S. W. (2014). A technical review of BIM-based cost estimating

in UK quantity surveying practice, standards and tools. Journal of Information Technology in

Construction, 19. pp. 534-562. ISSN 1874 4753 http://www.itcon.org/2014/31

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 3274