Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 5 KEY SUCCESS FACTORS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING IN SLOVENIAN ORGANIZATIONS Bojan Gorenc Faculty of Organiza ti on Studies in Novo mesto Slovenia Andrej Dobrovoljc Faculty of Organiza ti on Studies in Novo mesto, Slovenia andrej.dobrovoljc@fos ‐unm.si Abstract The purpose of this research is to iden ti fy the main enablers and barriers to Building Informa ti on Modeling (BIM) im ‐ plementa ti on in Slovenia. The study involved a quan ti ta ti ve survey with an online ques ti onnaire, covering a broad sample of Slovenian construc ti on companies. The research revealed that the most significant enabler of BIM imple ‐ menta ti on in Slovenia is the awareness that BIM improves project documenta ti on coordina ti on and construc ti on pro ‐ cesses. It was also found that legisla ti ve support for BIM adop ti on in Slovenia is not crucial. Earlier adop ti on of relevant legisla ti on would be helpful but is not essen ti al for the BIM adop ti on. The most important factors for BIM adop ti on in Slovenia are those that address the improvement of produc ti vity and e fficiency. The study also confirmed that the high cost of BIM implementa ti on is not an important barrier to BIM adop ti on in Slovenia. By using the exploratory analysis, we uncovered that the two most important enablers of BIM adop ti on in Slovenia are the awareness that BIM increases e fficiency and that this can be achieved by empowering people to work in a BIM environment. At the same ti me, we must overcome the biggest obstacle, which is the misunderstanding of the BIM concept. Keywords: building informa ti on modelling, cri ti cal success factors, BIM enablers, BIM barriers, BIM implementa ti on 1 INTRODUCTION In the age of widespread digi ti za ti on and the evolu ti on of Industry 4.0, the integra ti on of infor ‐ ma ti on modeling into the construc ti on sector is be ‐ coming increasingly important. It is known under the acronym BIM (Building Informa ti on Modelling). BIM is not only informa ti on technology but also a work process that requires significant changes in the way of work (Abbasnejad et al., 2020). Despite the many advantages o ffered by BIM, its poten ti al is s ti ll far from being exploited. Construc ti on is a strategically important area of the economy. The European construc ti on sector represents 9% of GDP (gross social product) and employs more than 18 million people. 95% of these people are employed in small and medium ‐sized enterprises. Compared to other sectors, it is the least digi ti zed. Industry reports consistently highlight issues within the construc ti on sector, including challenges in fostering collabora ti on and insu fficient invest ‐ ments in technology, research, and development. The consequences are manifested in the ine fficient use of public money and greater financial risks. A 10% improvement in produc ti vity would generate 130 billion € in savings (EUBIM Taskgroup, 2016). Governments and public sector organizations are taking proactive measures to achieve better re ‐ Vol. 13, No. 1, 5 ‐18 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2024.v13n01a01 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 6 Bojan Gorenc, Andrej Dobrovoljc: Key Success Factors of Implementa ti on of Building Informa ti on Modeling in Slovenian Organiza ti ons sults for all stakeholders (clients, contractors, users). Working groups are being created within countries as well as at the European Union (EU) level. They promote the use of BIM by preparing strategic documents, legislation, manuals, active programs, and recommendations. The key goal is to create a uniform framework for BIM adoption in the construction sector, fostering the use of technology to unlock benefits across the supply chain (EUBIM Taskgroup, 2016). Due to the differ ‐ ent levels of BIM implementation, cross ‐border project cooperation between countries is difficult. Latecomers face greater challenges in implement ‐ ing BIM and adhering to the same standards than early adopters (Bakogiannis et al., 2020; Charef et al., 2019). According to the existing literature, it is not entirely clear what state the Slovenian construc ‐ tion industry is in regarding the introduction of BIM. In research conducted by Charef et al., Slove ‐ nia is classified in a group of very late adopters in the EU, with the conclusion that it does not even have a plan for the introduction of BIM at the na ‐ tional level, according to which the use of BIM would be mandatory (Charef et al., 2019). Mean ‐ while, another survey finds that the level of aware ‐ ness of the importance of BIM in Slovenia is at a high level and compares it with the United King ‐ dom, which is a leader in the field of BIM imple ‐ mentation. Among the respondents, 75% were already BIM users, but they pointed out the need for a more active role of the government (Kiraly & Stare, 2019). The present research aims to explore the sta ‐ tus of BIM implementation in Slovenia with a focus on identifying the primary enablers and barriers encountered by organizations in the country. Professional and scientific literature ex ‐ tensively discusses the issue of BIM implementa ‐ tion and identifies some common factors and best practices. However, there are no uniform an ‐ swers as to which factors have a decisive influ ‐ ence on the adoption of BIM in a specific country since there are differences in market size and ma ‐ turity, regulations, technological development of the field, cultures, the number of construction companies, etc. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Building Informa ti on Modelling Construc ti on projects encompass a wide vari ‐ ety of contractors, professions, skills, and processes, which can result in substan ti al informa ti on fragmen ‐ ta ti on. Many of these challenges can be mi ti gated through e ffec ti ve digi ti za ti on. In the construc ti on sector, this kind of digital transforma ti on can be achieved through BIM implementa ti on, since infor ‐ ma ti on technology is one of the key building blocks of BIM. BIM connects several work areas and pro ‐ cesses. It is used in the development, modeling, construc ti on, maintenance, learning, and use of buildings. BIM can also be described as a process of crea ti ng and managing informa ti on about the object throughout its en ti re life cycle (Kiraly & Stare, 2019; Turk & Isteni č Star či č, 2020; Wang et al., 2022). Con ‐ sequently, it is a comprehensive database of the building (Hamil, 2022; Turk, 2016). BIM became a major industry trend around 2007. It introduced new approaches to the design and construc ti on process, thereby enabling the cre ‐ a ti on of higher added value than tradi ti onal Com ‐ puter Aided Design (CAD) (Kiraly & Stare, 2019; Koutamanis, 2020; Zomer et al., 2020). BIM can be implemented in any construc ti on company regard ‐ less of its size. Companies primarily adopt BIM to stay compe titi ve in the face of rising building com ‐ plexity, ti ghter construc ti on schedules, and cost con ‐ straints. BIM also improves communica ti on between project par ti cipants, which contributes to easier and higher quality decisions and fewer design errors. With an accurate model of the object, we can enable be tt er process planning and reduce the causes of conflicts (Muñoz ‐La Rivera et al., 2019; Sacks et al., 2018). 2.2 Enablers and barriers of BIM implementa ti on The implementa ti on of BIM represents a major challenge for the en ti re organiza ti on. Individual and team learning is required. It is necessary to change the way of work, which may face resistance from employees and can influence the coopera ti on with other stakeholders on projects (Hardin & McCool, 2015). This challenge is even greater if stakeholders use di fferent tools and data formats (Ahmed, 2018; Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 7 Ariyachandra et al., 2022; Chan et al., 2018) or come from di fferent professional fields (Oraee et al., 2019). Even clients are not always in favor of changes, which represents an addi ti onal obstacle in BIM implemen ‐ ta ti on (Lindblad & Karrbom Gustavsson, 2021). In projects conducted through partnership co ‐ opera ti on, legal concerns may arise regarding data ownership within the model, licensing rights to in ‐ forma ti on, and the assignment of responsibility for errors throughout the project (Gha ffarianhoseini et al., 2017; Liao & Ai Lin Teo, 2018; Ma et al., 2018). Besides, due to the high level of technological un ‐ certainty and demanding communica ti on, the par ‐ ti cipa ti ng companies must adapt their approaches in a coordinated manner (Mirhosseini et al., 2020). Therefore, it is of utmost importance to select the companies that will be included in the BIM imple ‐ menta ti on project group (Mahamadu et al., 2020). To summarize, the success of BIM implementa ‐ ti on depends on numerous and various factors. They are categorized into enablers and barriers (Abbasne ‐ jad et al., 2020; Amuda ‐Yusuf, 2018; Macloughlin & Hayes, 2019). By studying these factors, we can an ‐ ti cipate and mi ti gate risks as well as iden ti fy oppor ‐ tuni ti es arising from BIM implementa ti on (Liao & Ai Lin Teo, 2018). The primary focus of our research is on factors that consistently appear in various re ‐ search studies or are recognized as cri ti cal through mul ti ple research methods. To date, the literature has described and studied over 40 such factors (Ab ‐ basnejad et al., 2020; Antwi ‐Afari et al., 2018; Ozorhon & Karahan, 2017; Sinoh et al., 2020; Ugwu & Kumaraswamy, 2007). Based on a systema ti c review of scien ti fic litera ‐ ture, Abbasnejad et al. created a framework to help determine the role and importance of posi ti ve key success factors in BIM implementa ti on. It is a com ‐ prehensive overview of the key enablers, which are divided into seven groups: strategic ini ti a ti ves, learn ‐ ing capacity, cultural readiness, knowledge sharing, mutual rela ti ons, change management, process, and performance management (Abbasnejad et al., 2020). A similar framework, which systema ti cally shows the key barriers to BIM implementa ti on, separates the following five categories of factors: process barriers, contextual barriers, actor obstacles, team barriers, and obstacles arising from tasks (Oraee et al., 2019). 2.3 Research ques ti ons There are significant di fferences between coun ‐ tries that adopt BIM as well as di fferent circum ‐ stances at the ti me of BIM adop ti on. Consequently, the importance of some factors can vary between countries (Hochscheid & Halin, 2019). Our goal is to study what the main influencing factors on BIM adop ti on in Slovenia are. Slovenia is ranked among the late adopters of BIM, mainly because the use of BIM is not yet legally mandatory for public projects (Charef et al., 2019). Besides, in the survey by Kiraly et al., as many as 59% of respondents highlighted the lack of na ti onal guidelines in Slovenia (Kiraly & Stare, 2019). The ques ti on is therefore whether Slovenian legisla ti on and guidelines provide adequate support for the in ‐ troduc ti on of BIM. The adoption of BIM is associated with high costs (costs refer to both infrastructure and ser ‐ vices), which are often cited as an important factor in the literature. We are interested in how big this influence is in the case of Slovenia. In Slovenia, there are mostly small and medium ‐sized construc ‐ tion companies (MGRT, 2019). Research shows that this factor is more important in smaller com ‐ panies (Amuda ‐Yusuf, 2018). In our study, we will check if high costs are a barrier to BIM adoption in Slovenia. Slovenia is indeed late with legisla ti on regard ‐ ing the mandatory usage of BIM. However, it en ‐ courages the use of BIM in other ways. In its guidelines and ac ti on plan for the introduc ti on of BIM, it mainly highlights the increase in produc ti vity and e fficiency. The ques ti on is how this a ffects the adop ti on of BIM (MGRT, 2019). Therefore, we set the following research ques ‐ ti ons: RQ1: Does the lack of legisla ti on in Slovenia repre ‐ sent the barrier for BIM adop ti on? RQ2: Is the high cost of BIM implementa ti on a bar ‐ rier in Slovenia? RQ3: Which are the most important factors for BIM adop ti on in Slovenia? Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 8 • Pn ‐ sequen ti al designa ti on of the CSFs of the re ‐ spec ti ve group – P: Process barriers, K: Contextual barriers, T: Team barriers, S: Enablers of BIM im ‐ plementa ti on, Z: Claims related to BIM ‐legisla ti on. A higher mean value of a factor means that this factor has a greater influence on the adop ti on of BIM. Besides, we defined the rule that the group of most important factors consists of factors that are rated with the value 3 or more by the majority of respondents. For a factor to be among the most im ‐ portant, its mean value minus standard devia ti on must be greater than 3. To iden ti fy key groups of factors and rela ti on ‐ ships between the observed 32 variables, we also performed an exploratory factor analysis (Varimax rota ti on with Kaiser normaliza ti on, 7 factors, 50 it ‐ era ti ons). With this analysis, we get addi ti onal in ‐ sight into what the key factors influencing the introduc ti on of BIM in Slovenia are. We gathered data through the online survey tool 1KA and analyzed it using the Microso ft Excel spreadsheet program. We first performed some basic sta ti s ti cal calcula ti ons on the collected data (average, standard devia ti on). For later comparison with other studies, we also calculated the BIM com ‐ para ti ve index and ranked these values from the largest to the smallest. According to the defini ti on, the BIM Compara ti ve Index BIM pi is calculated using the equa ti on (1) (Amuda ‐Yusuf, 2018): (1) In the equa ti on (1): W – represents the weight assigned to each variable by the individual respondent, with values ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). A – The highest possible score, which is 5 in our case. N – Total number of respondents. The internal consistency of the ques ti onnaire was assessed using the Cronbach alpha coe fficient, resul ti ng in a value of 0.69. This value indicates the acceptable ques ti onnaire reliability. The coe fficient calcula ti on covered all sets of ques ti ons evaluated on a five ‐point Likert scale, with only socio ‐demo ‐ graphic ques ti ons excluded. 3 METHODS In the first step of the study, we sought a rele ‐ vant collec ti on of studied enablers and barriers of BIM implementa ti on and reviewed the findings from these studies. Subsequently, we made an online ques ti onnaire, which was divided into two sec ti ons: a professional sec ti on and a general sec ti on. The pro ‐ fessional segment of the ques ti onnaire was built upon the framework of barriers men ti oned earlier, which categorizes risk factors into five groups (Oraee et al., 2019). We incorporated three of these cate ‐ gories (procedural, contextual, and team barriers) into the ques ti onnaire, focusing on the ones most frequently discussed in exis ti ng literature. Following our research objec ti ves, we supple ‐ mented the three described categories of BIM bar ‐ riers with two extra sets of ques ti ons that addressed enablers of BIM implementa ti on and legisla ti on regarding BIM. We formulated the ques ‐ ti ons using the research ar ti cles, the ac ti on plan (MGRT , 2019), and the BIM implementa ti on manual (EUBIM Taskgroup, 2016). For professional ques ti ons, we used a five ‐point Likert scale to assess respondents’ a tti tudes, with the following values: 1 – Strongly disagree, 2 – Dis ‐ agree, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Agree, and 5 ‐ Strongly agree. If the factor is rated with a value greater than 3, it has an impact on BIM adop ti on. We also included a general sec ti on with socio ‐demographic ques ti ons to gain deeper insights. The data were collected from a sample of professionals in the architectural and engineering profession. To ensure a represen ‐ ta ti ve sample, we gathered data from publicly avail ‐ able sources, such as directories of architectural and engineering firms in Slovenia. Before launching the survey, we conducted a pilot study to improve ques ‐ ti on clarity. We also made some general ques ti ons mul ti ple ‐choice. Table 1 provides an overview of all the cri ti cal success factors for BIM implementa ti on used in our survey, totaling 32 factors. They follow a naming pa tt ern: CSF ‐Pn The meaning of the pa tt ern is as follows: • CSF ‐ abbrevia ti on for cri ti cal success factor (CSF ‐ cri ti cal success factor) Bojan Gorenc, Andrej Dobrovoljc: Key Success Factors of Implementa ti on of Building Informa ti on Modeling in Slovenian Organiza ti ons Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 9 Table 1: Overview of cri ti cal success factors analyzed in our study Label CSF ‐related statements from the ques ti onnaire CSF ‐P1 BIM tools do not work as adver ti sed by manufacturers. CSF ‐P2 There are too few guidelines and standards that explain the processes in BIM. CSF ‐P3 Privacy and security concerns of BIM models shared in the cloud. CSF ‐P4 There is not enough a tt en ti on from management for BIM training of employees. CSF ‐P5 Upon first employment, graduates are not su fficiently qualified to work on BIM projects. CSF ‐P6 The cost of implemen ti ng BIM is very high and therefore only available to the largest organiza ti ons. CSF ‐K1 The dynamics of BIM and the fragmenta ti on of the construc ti on industry hinder the coopera ti on of BIM teams. CSF ‐K2 Members of BIM teams come from di fferent organiza ti ons, with di fferent organiza ti onal structures and hierarchies. CSF ‐K3 The varying level of understanding of BIM within the team hinders collabora ti on. CSF ‐K4 The di fferent level of understanding of BIM between individual project teams hinders collabora ti on. CSF ‐K5 If project team members are of di fferent na ti onali ti es and cultures, this hinders coopera ti on. CSF ‐K6 The dispersion of BIM team members across di fferent o ffices and loca ti ons hinders collabora ti on. CSF ‐K7 Individual team members in BIM projects do not share informa ti on. CSF ‐K8 Communica ti on s ti ll takes place outside the BIM environment (telephone conversa ti ons, e‐mails...). CSF ‐T1 The composi ti on of BIM teams is mostly structured in unsuitable tradi ti onal form. CSF ‐T2 Teams par ti cipa ti ng in BIM projects operate in a closed manner and only care about their interests. CSF ‐T3 BIM project teams are reluctant to share their models with others due to restric ti ons related to intellectual property and ownership of the model. CSF ‐T4 BIM designers are reluctant to share models in the early design phase or before the final approval of models. CSF ‐T5 In many BIM projects, the en ti re BIM process is s ti ll managed by tradi ti onal project managers instead of dedicated managers/coordinators. CSF ‐T6 Due to the nature of a BIM project, which relies heavily on so ft ware tools and equipment, there are conflicts between project managers, IT managers, and BIM managers. CSF ‐S1 Requests for the introduc ti on of BIM come from project clients. CSF ‐S2 The use of BIM on public projects creates a greater demand for these services in the market and thus encourages the adop ti on of BIM. CSF ‐S3 The implementa ti on of BIM provides a compe titi ve advantage and enables development. CSF ‐S4 The implementa ti on of BIM increases the cost e fficiency of design and implementa ti on. CSF ‐S5 The implementa ti on of BIM improves the coordina ti on of project documenta ti on and implementa ti on. CSF ‐S6 The implementa ti on of BIM reduces project errors and construc ti on costs. CSF ‐S7 The implementa ti on of BIM improves predictability and traceability in planning. CSF ‐Z1 I know the BIM legisla ti on in Slovenia well. CSF ‐Z2 The ac ti on plan for the introduc ti on of digi ti za ti on in the field of the built environment in the Republic of Slovenia is coordinated and considers all the key objec ti ves of BIM introduc ti on. CSF ‐Z3 The newly adopted BIM legisla ti on is excessive and di fficult to implement in prac ti ce. CSF ‐Z4 BIM laws and guidelines are inadequate or not adopted. CSF ‐Z5 Ownership of the BIM model and copyright are legally and materially properly regulated. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 10 Bojan Gorenc, Andrej Dobrovoljc: Key Success Factors of Implementa ti on of Building Informa ti on Modeling in Slovenian Organiza ti ons The majority (56%) of survey par ti cipants had a 2nd Bologna level or SOK8 educa ti on, followed by a 1st Bologna level (26%) or SOK7 educa ti on (Figure 2). Almost 70% of respondents had at least 2 years of experience with BIM (Figure 3). The most respon ‐ dents (56%) came from design companies (Figure 4). Regarding their professions, 31% of respondents worked in the field of construc ti on, while 22% were in electrical installa ti ons, 21% in architecture, 15% in mechanical installa ti ons, and 10% in other pro ‐ fessions (Figure 5). Notably, none of the respon ‐ dents indicated a profession related to geodesy. 4 RESULTS The results were obtained through voluntary parti cipa ti on in the survey, sta ti ng that the survey was anonymous and that the collected data would be treated confiden ti ally and analyzed in general rather than the natural responses of the individual. A total of 108 respondents completed the sur ‐ vey, with 82.4% being male and 17.6% female par ti c ‐ ipants. The largest age group consisted of individuals aged 40 to 49 (42%), followed by the 30 to 39 age group at 24%. Other groups are smaller (Figure 1). Figure 1: The share of respondents by age group Figure 2: The share of respondents by level of educa ti on Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 11 Figure 3: The share of respondents by dura ti on of BIM usage Figure 4: The share of respondents by type of company Figure 5: The share of respondents by profession Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 12 Bojan Gorenc, Andrej Dobrovoljc: Key Success Factors of Implementa ti on of Building Informa ti on Modeling in Slovenian Organiza ti ons Table 2: Results and basic sta ti s ti cs of all observed factors show that among the 32 measured factors, 7 factors are classified as important factors by our defini ti on (ranks 1 to 7 where Mean – StdDev > 3). For easier comparison of results, in Figure 6, we depicted the measured BIM indexes of all factors. Table 2 presents the results of all 32 measured factors. In addi ti on to the label and descrip ti on of the factor, data on the average value, standard de ‐ via ti on, average value – standard devia ti on, BIM index, and rank of the factor are given. The la tt er is determined according to the BIM index. The results ID CS F Description M ean StdDev Me a n - StdDev BIMpiR a n k CSF-S5 The implementation of BIM improves the coordination of project documentation and implementation. 4.06 0.70 3.36 0.81 1 CSF-S7 The implementation of BIM improves pre dic ta bility and traceability in planning.4 . 0 2 0.67 3.35 0.80 2 CSF-S3 The implementation of BIM provides a competitive advantage and development. 3.94 0.82 3.12 0.79 3 CSF-S6 The implementation of BIM reduces project errors and construction costs. 3.94 0.88 3.06 0.79 3 CSF-K2 Members of BIM teams come from different organizations, with different organizational structures and hierarchies. 3.86 0.77 3.09 0.77 5 CSF-S2 The use of BIM on public projects creates a greater demand for these services in the market and thus encourages the adoption of BIM. 3.84 0.81 3.03 0.77 6 CSF-K8 Communication still takes place outside the BIM environment (telephone conversations, e-mails...). 3.82 0.76 3.06 0.76 7 CSF-P5 Upon first employment, graduates are not sufficiently qualified to work on BIM projects. 3.75 1.02 2.73 0.75 8 CSF-S4 The implementation of BIM increases the cost efficiency of design and implementation. 3.55 1.03 2.52 0.71 9 CSF-S1 Requests for the introduction of BIM come from project clients. 3.47 0.95 2.52 0.69 10 CSF-K4 The different level of understanding of BIM between individual project teams hinders collaboration. 3.46 0.93 2.53 0.69 11 CSF-P2 There are too few guidelines and standards that explain the processes in BIM. 3.45 0.94 2.51 0.69 12 CSF-Z4 BIM laws and guidelines are inadequate or not adopted. 3.44 0.70 2.74 0.69 13 CSF-K3 The varying level of understanding of BIM within the team hinders collaboration. 3.34 1.02 2.32 0.67 14 CSF-T4 BIM designers are reluctant to share models in the early design phase or before final approval of models. 3.31 1.01 2.30 0.66 15 CSF-T5 In many BIM projects, the entire BIM process is still managed by traditional project managers instead of dedicated managers/coordinators. 3.31 0.94 2.37 0.66 15 CSF-K1 The dynamics of BIM and the fragmentation of the construction industry hinder the cooperation of BIM teams. 3.22 0.98 2.24 0.64 17 CSF-P6 The cost of implementing BIM is very high and therefore only available to the largest organizations. 3.22 1.06 2.16 0.64 17 CSF-T3 BIM project teams are reluctant to share their models with others due to restrictions related to intellectual property and ownership of the model. 3.20 1.03 2.17 0.64 19 CSF-Z3 The newly adopted BIM legislation is excessive and difficult to implement in practice. 3.17 0.86 2.31 0.63 20 CSF-T1 The composition of BIM teams is mostly structured in unsuitable traditional form. 3.04 0.86 2.18 0.61 21 CSF-P1 BIM tools do not work as advertised by manufacturers. 2.94 0.97 1.97 0.59 22 CSF-T6 Due to the nature of a BIM project, which relies heavily on software tools and equipment, there are conflicts between project managers, IT managers and BIM managers. 2.94 0.93 2.01 0.59 22 CSF-Z1 I know the BIM legislation in Slovenia well. 2.94 0.95 1.99 0.59 24 CSF-P3 Privacy and security concerns of BIM models shared in the cloud. 2.84 1.02 1.82 0.57 25 CSF-P4 There is not enough attention from management for BIM training of employees. 2.81 1.19 1.62 0.56 26 CSF-K7 Individual team members in BIM projects do not share information. 2.80 0.90 1.90 0.56 27 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 13 Figure 6: Results of all cri ti cal success factors (BIM index) pj CSF-Z2 The action plan for the introduction of digitization in the field of the built environment in the Republic of Slovenia is coordinated and takes into account all the key objectives of the introduction of BIM. 2.80 0.67 2.13 0.56 27 CSF-Z5 Ownership of the BIM model and copyright are legally and materially properly regulated. 2.74 0.69 2.05 0.55 29 CSF-T2 Teams participating in BIM projects operate in a closed manner and only care about their own interests. 2.71 0.88 1.83 0.54 30 CSF-K6 The dispersion of BIM team members across different offices and locations hinders collaboration. 2.19 0.92 1.27 0.44 31 CSF-K5 If project team members are of different nationalities and cultures, this hinders cooperation. 2.16 0.94 1.22 0.43 32 Table 3 shows the results of the exploratory fac ‐ tor analysis. Seven groups of factors were iden ti fied. The names of the groups were determined accord ‐ ing to the content of the factors connected to the groups. They are ordered from the most to the least important. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 14 Bojan Gorenc, Andrej Dobrovoljc: Key Success Factors of Implementa ti on of Building Informa ti on Modeling in Slovenian Organiza ti ons Table 3: Results of an exploratory factor analysis ID D1 M IS UNDERS TANDING THE BIM CONCEPT CSF-K3 0.79 The varying level of understanding of BIM within the team hinders collaboration. CSF-K4 0.67 The different level of understanding of BIM between individual project teams hinders collaboration. CSF-T1 0.58 The composition of BIM teams is mostly structured in unsuitable traditional form. CSF-T5 0.51 In many BIM projects, the entire BIM process is still managed by traditional project managers instead of dedicated managers/coordinators. CSF-T6 0.51 Due to the nature of a BIM project, which relies heavily on software tools and equipment, there are conflicts between project managers, IT managers and BIM managers. CSF-P6 0.50 The cost of imple me nting BIM is very high and therefore only available to the largest organizations. CSF-K1 0.45 The dynamics of BIM and the fragmentation of the construction industry hinder the cooperation of BIM teams. CSF-K8 0.44 Communication still takes place outside the BIM environment (telephone conversations, e-mails...). CSF-Z3 0.39 The newly adopted BIM legislation is excessive and difficult to implement in practice. ID D2 EFFICIENCY CSF-S6 0.78 The implementation of BIM reduces project errors and construction costs. CSF-S5 0.76 The implementation of BIM improves the coordination of project documentation and implementation. CSF-S7 0.73 The implementation of BIM improves pre dic ta bility and traceability in planning. CSF-S3 0.66 The implementation of BIM provides a competitive advantage and development. CSF-S4 0.56 The implementation of BIM increases the cost efficiency of design and implementation. CSF-K6 -0.46 The dispersion of BIM team members across different offices and locations hinders collaboration. ID D3 TRUST CSF-Z1 0.68 I know the BIM legislation in Slovenia well. CSF-K5 -0.34 If project team members are of different nationalities and cultures, this hinders cooperation. CSF-Z5 -0.68 Ownership of the BIM model and copyright are legally and materially properly regulated. ID D4 EM POWERM ENT CSF-T3 0.82 BIM project teams are reluctant to share their models with others due to restrictions related to intellectual property and ownership of the model. CSF-T4 0.66 BIM designers are reluctant to share models in the early design phase or before final approval of models. CSF-T2 0.45 Teams participating in BIM projects operate in a closed manner and only care about their own interests. CSF-P4 0.34 There is not enough attention from management for BIM training of employees. CSF-K2 -0.33 Members of BIM teams come from different organizations, with different organizational structures and hierarchies. CSF-Z2 -0.39 The action plan for the introduction of digitization in the field of the built environment in the Republic of Slovenia is coordinated and takes into account all the key objectives of the introduction of BIM. ID D5 DEM AND CSF-S2 0.71 The use of BIM on public projects creates a greater demand for these services in the market and thus encourages the adoption of BIM. CSF-S1 0.49 Requests for the introduction of BIM come from project clients. ID D6 QUALIFICATION CSF-K7 0.79 Individual team members in BIM projects do not share information. CSF-P5 -0.44 Upon first employment, graduates are not sufficiently qualified to work on BIM projects. ID D7 TECHNOLOGY and S TANDARDS CSF-P2 0.39 There are too few guidelines and standards that explain the processes in BIM. CSF-P1 0.31 BIM tools do not work as advertised by manufacturers. CSF-P3 -0.50 Privacy and security concerns of BIM models shared in the cloud. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 15 5 DISCUSSION Our first research ques ti on was whether the lack of legisla ti on in Slovenia represents the barrier for BIM adop ti on or not. The ques ti on was based on the findings of research conducted by Charef et al., where Slovenia was recognized as a late BIM adopter, and the survey of Kiraly et al., which claims that 59% of users feel the lack of na ti onal guidelines in Slovenia (Charef et al., 2019; Kiraly & Stare, 2019). In our research, two factors are directly related to this ques ti on. The first one is “The newly adopted BIM legisla ti on is excessive and di fficult to imple ‐ ment in prac ti ce.” (CSF ‐Z3) is ranked 20th (BIM pi = 0.63) and the second one, “BIM laws and guidelines are inadequate or not adopted.” , is ranked 13th (CSF ‐ Z4, BIM pi = 0.69). None of these factors meet the cri ‐ teria to be classified as important factors. Therefore, we conclude that the lack of legisla ti on in Slovenia does not represent the barrier for BIM adop ti on. In Slovenia, the use of BIM will become manda ‐ tory from 2024. In the United Kingdom, which is an early BIM adopter, it became mandatory in 2016. However, back in 2012, more than 70% of respon ‐ dents believed that BIM would become mandatory and over 50% already used it in the UK. In 2018 in Slovenia, there were 45% of such respondents and more than 70% of BIM users (Kiraly & Stare, 2019). We cannot claim that the awareness of future mandatory usage of BIM will accelerate its adop ‐ ti on, but this is very likely the case. If the use of BIM is not yet mandatory, it does not mean that the country is a late adopter of BIM. In addi ti on, users apparently do not perceive the lack of legisla ti on as a key barrier, as many have successfully imple‐ mented BIM without the legisla ti on making it mandatory. Similarly, some studies conducted in de ‐ veloping countries prove that legisla ti on and gov ‐ ernment schemes are among the less important factors for BIM adop ti on. In Nigeria, a similar factor was ranked 16 th among 28 factors with a slightly higher index (BIM pi = 0.82) (Darwish et al., 2020; Ozorhon & Karahan, 2017). The second research ques ti on is about the costs of BIM implementa ti on. According to the conclu ‐ sions of other research, this can be a barrier for small and middle ‐sized companies (Amuda ‐Yusuf, 2018). The fact is that in Slovenia there are mainly smaller companies. The asser ti on in our ques ti on ‐ naire that measures the impact of high costs on BIM implementa ti on in Slovenia is CSF ‐P6: “The cost of implemen ti ng BIM is very high and therefore only available to the largest organiza ti ons.”. It is ranked 17th with the BIM pi value 0.64. According to our cri ‐ teria, it is also not classified among important fac ‐ tors. We conclude that the high cost of BIM implementa ti on is not an important factor (barrier) for BIM adop ti on in Slovenia. In a similar study in Nigeria, the factor with the same meaning was ranked 2nd with the BIM pi value 0.91. One of the reasons for the big di fference may be that Slovenia belongs to more developed countries and has greater purchasing power than Nigeria. With the third research ques ti on, we want to check which are the most important factors for BIM adop ti on in Slovenia. In its key documents, Slovenia highlights the advantages of the implementa ti on, namely e fficiency and produc ti vity (MGRT , 2019). In the survey ques ti onnaire, we had several items with which we checked factors related to produc ti vity and e fficiency (CSF ‐S3, CSF ‐S4, CSF ‐S5, CSF ‐S6, and CSF ‐S7). From the results in Table 2, we can con ‐ clude that as many as four out of five factors are at the top of the list, with ranks from 1 to 4. Only one is ranked lower, namely in 9th place. Factors with ranks from 1 to 4 meet the importance criterion and belong to the group of important factors. We con ‐ clude that the most important enablers for BIM adop ti on in Slovenia are those that address the im ‐ provement of produc ti vity and e fficiency. In its guidelines and ac ti on plan, Slovenia highlights the right things and thus influences the adop ti on of BIM in the right way. However, the situa ti on would be be tt er if Slovenia had been faster in adop ti ng legis ‐ la ti on and would not be exposed in the EU as a late adopter of BIM. According to the respondents, the most impor ‐ tant enabler for BIM adop ti on in Slovenia (rank 1) is the fact that the implementa ti on of BIM improves the coordina ti on of project documenta ti on and im ‐ plementa ti on (BIM pi = 0.81). In a 2018 survey in Slovenia, a significant 91% of respondents agreed with the statement that BIM enhances the coordi ‐ na ti on of project documenta ti on (Kiraly & Stare, 2019). A bit di fferent, in Nigeria, the most important factor was obtaining a standard pla tf orm for inte ‐ Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 Bojan Gorenc, Andrej Dobrovoljc: Key Success Factors of Implementa ti on of Building Informa ti on Modeling in Slovenian Organiza ti ons 16 gra ti on and communica ti on (BIM pi = 0.92). However, a similar factor, which addresses the coordina ti on of project documenta ti on and implementa ti on, is also ranked as high as 4th (BIM pi = 0.88). Let’s take a look at the remaining 3 factors from the group of important factors. “The use of BIM on public projects encourages the adop ti on of BIM” is ranked 6th. This is addi ti onal evidence that faster adop ti on of legis ‐ la ti on would be beneficial for Slovenia. The other two factors are barriers to BIM adop ti on. The asser ti on “members of BIM teams come from di fferent organiza ‐ ti ons, with di fferent organiza ti onal structures and hier ‐ archies” is ranked 5th, and “communica ti on s ti ll takes place outside the BIM environment (telephone conver ‐ sa ti ons, e‐mail ...)” is ranked 7th. It is also important to know the factors that do not have a par ti cular impact on the adop ti on of BIM. In the case of Slovenia, it does not represent a barrier to BIM adop ti on if team members are of dif ‐ ferent na ti onali ti es or cultures or if the team is dis ‐ persed across di fferent o ffices and loca ti ons. With the help of exploratory factor analysis, we also checked the connec ti ons or correla ti ons be ‐ tween the factors. Table 3 lists seven groups of factors ordered from more to less important. In the first group are all factors with a nega ti ve impact on BIM adop ti on (barriers). Based on the meaning and con ‐ tent of these factors, we named the group “Misun ‐ derstanding of the BIM concept”. The large di fferences in the percep ti on of the BIM concept have already been confirmed by research (Kiraly & Stare, 2019). Many people think that the essence of BIM is the so ft ware. In the second group are mainly posi ti ve factors (enablers). According to their mean ‐ ing, we named this factor group “E fficiency”. The analysis of individual factors has already shown how important e fficiency is as a factor. The next group is named “Trust” and consists of just a few factors con ‐ nected to legisla ti on and cultural di fferences. The last big factor group is named “Empowerment”. It com ‐ bines factors related to coopera ti on, management, knowledge, and communica ti on. The defined factors encompass all those concepts that are necessary for the BIM process to be properly established. The re ‐ maining less important factor groups that influence BIM adop ti on in Slovenia are “Demand”, “Qualifica ‐ ti ons”, and “Technology and Standards”. A frequency analysis of cri ti cal success factors in the literature spanning from 2005 to 2015 high ‐ lights the absence of a consistent set of cri ti cal suc ‐ cess factors that could serve as a comprehensive guide for scholars and professionals in BIM imple ‐ menta ti on (Antwi ‐Afari et al., 2018). In previous studies, the most frequently recognized cri ti cal suc ‐ cess factor for BIM adop ti on was the ac ti ve involve ‐ ment of stakeholders in design, construc ti on, engineering, and facility management. This was fol ‐ lowed by “Early and precise 3D planning visualiza ‐ ti on”. The third most common factor was “Improved informa ti on sharing and knowledge management”. Other most frequently exposed factors talk about the coordina ti on between all project par ti cipants, the training and development of sta ff, and the level of awareness of BIM importance (Darwish et al., 2020; Ozorhon & Karahan, 2017; Sinoh et al., 2020). These factors relate to our “Empowerment” factor group, which means that Slovenia is not di fferent in this regard. Based on this analysis, we conclude that the two most important enablers of BIM adop ti on in Slovenia are the awareness that BIM increases ef ‐ ficiency and that this can be achieved by empower ‐ ing people to work in a BIM environment. At the same ti me, we must overcome the biggest obstacle, which is the misunderstanding of the BIM concept. Earlier adop ti on of relevant legisla ti on would be helpful but is not essen ti al for BIM adop ti on. 6 CONCLUSION Slovenia is considered a late adopter in the im ‐ plementa ti on of BIM because BIM is s ti ll not mandatory for public projects. In any case, Slovenia carries out many ac ti vi ti es that accelerate BIM adop ti on. Past research also confirms that BIM is already being introduced in Slovenia. In the study, we asked ourselves what the current situa ti on is in this area and what the key success factors for BIM adop ti on are. We conclude that legisla ti ve support for BIM adop ti on in Slovenia is not crucial. If the use of BIM is not yet mandatory, it does not mean that the country is a late adopter of BIM. Earlier adop ti on of relevant legisla ti on would be helpful but is not es ‐ sen ti al for BIM adop ti on. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 17 The most important factors for BIM adop ti on in Slovenia are those that address the improvement of produc ti vity and e fficiency. Therefore, we can argue that Slovenia highlights the right things in its guidelines and ac ti on plan, and thus influences the adop ti on of BIM in the right way. The single most important factor for BIM adop ti on in Slovenia is the fact that the implementa ti on of BIM improves the coordina ti on of project documenta ti on and imple ‐ menta ti on. REFERENCES: Abbasnejad, B., Nepal, M. P ., Ahankoob, A., Nasirian, A., & Drogemuller, R. (2020). Building Informa ti on Mod ‐ elling (BIM) adop ti on and implementa ti on enablers in AEC firms: a systema ti c literature review. Architec ‐ tural Engineering and Design Management, 1–23. Ahmed, A. (2018). Evalua ti ng learning management mech ‐ anisms and requirements for achieving BIM competen ‐ cies: an in ‐depth study of ACE practiti oners. h tt ps://www.researchgate.net/publica ti on/324705747 Amuda ‐Yusuf, G. (2018). Cri ti cal Success Factors for Build ‐ ing Informa ti on Modelling Implementa ti on. Construc ‐ ti on Economics and Building, 18(3), 55–73. Antwi ‐Afari, M. F., Li, H., Pärn, E. A., & Edwards, D. J. (2018). Cri ti cal success factors for implemen ti ng building informa ti on modeling (BIM): A longitudinal review. Automa ti on in Construc ti on, 91, 100–110. Ariyachandra, M. R. M. F., Jayasena, H. S., & Perera, B. A. K. S. (2022). Competencies Expected from an Infor ‐ ma ti on Manager Working in BIM Based Projects. In ‐ terna ti onal Journal of Construc ti on Educa ti on and Research, 18(1), 49–66. Bakogiannis, E., Papadaki, K., Kyriakidis, C., & Potsiou, C. (2020). How to adopt BIM in the building construc ‐ ti on sector across greece? Applied Sciences (Switzer ‐ land), 10(4). Chan, A. P . C., Ma, X., Yi, W., Zhou, X., & Xiong, F. (2018). Cri ti cal review of studies on building informa ti on modeling (BIM) in project management. Fron ti ers of Engineering Management, 5(3), 394–406. Charef, R., Emmi tt , S., Alaka, H., & Fouchal, F. (2019). Building Informa ti on Modelling adop ti on in the Euro ‐ pean Union: An overview. Journal of Building Engi ‐ neering, 25. The study also confirmed that the high cost of BIM implementa ti on is not an important barrier to BIM adop ti on in Slovenia. By using the exploratory factor analysis, we uncovered that the two most im ‐ portant enablers of BIM adop ti on in Slovenia are the awareness that BIM increases e fficiency and that this can be achieved by empowering people to work in a BIM environment. At the same ti me, we must overcome the biggest obstacle, which is the misun ‐ derstanding of the BIM concept. EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLE ČEK Namen te raziskave je iden ti ficira ti glavne spodbujevalce in ovire za informacijsko modeliranje objektov (Building informa ti on modeling; BIM) v Sloveniji. Študija je vklju čevala kvan ti ta ti vno anketo s spletnim vprašalnikom, ki je zajemala širok vzorec slovenskih gradbenih podje ti j. Raziskava je razkrila, da je najpomembnejši spodbujevalec implementacije BIM v Sloveniji zavedanje, da BIM izboljšuje ko ‐ ordinacijo projektne dokumentacije in gradbene procese. Ugotovljeno je bilo tudi, da zakonodajna podpora za sprejetje BIM v Sloveniji ni klju čna. Zgodnje sprejetje ustrezne zakonodaje bi bilo koristno, vendar ni nujno za sprejetje BIM. Najpomembnejši dejavniki za sprejetje BIM v Sloveniji so ti s ti , ki naslavljajo izboljšanje produk ti vnos ti in u činkovitos ti . Študija je potrdila tudi, da visoki stroški imple ‐ mentacije BIM niso pomembna ovira za sprejetje BIM v Sloveniji. Z uporabo eksploratorne analize smo odkrili, da sta dva najpomembnejša spodbujevalca za sprejetje BIM v Sloveniji zavedanje, da BIM pove čuje u činkovitost, in to, da se to lahko doseže z opolnomo čenjem ljudi za delo v okolju BIM. Hkra ti moramo premaga ti največjo oviro, ki je nerazumevanje koncepta BIM. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 18 Bojan Gorenc, Andrej Dobrovoljc: Key Success Factors of Implementa ti on of Building Informa ti on Modeling in Slovenian Organiza ti ons Darwish, A. M., Tantawy, M. M., & Elbeltagi, E. (2020). Cri ti cal Success Factors for BIM Implementa ti on in Construc ti on Projects. Saudi Journal of Civil Engineer ‐ ing, 4(9), 180–191. EUBIM Taskgroup. (2016). Priro čnik za uvedbo informa ‐ cijskega modeliranja gradenj v evropskem javnem sektorju, Strateški ukrepi za u činkovitost gradbenega sektorja: spodbujanje vrednos ti , inovacij in ras ti . h tt p://www.eubim.eu/wp ‐content/uploads/ ‐ 2018/07/ GR O W ‐2017 ‐01356 ‐00 ‐00 ‐SL ‐TRA ‐00.pdf Gha ffarianhoseini, A., Tookey, J., Gha ffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Azhar, S., Efimova, O., & Raahemifar, K. (2017). Building Informa ti on Modelling (BIM) uptake: Clear benefits, understanding its implementa ti on, risks and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable En ‐ ergy Reviews, 75, 1046–1053. Hamil, S. (2022, October 25). BIM dimensions – 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D BIM explained. h tt ps://www.thenbs.com/knowl ‐ edge/bim ‐dimensions ‐3d ‐4d ‐5d ‐6d ‐bim ‐explained Hardin, B., & McCool, D. (2015). BIM and Construc ti on Management: Proven Tools, Methods, and Work ‐ flows, 2nd Edi ti on. Hochscheid, E., & Halin, G. (2019). Micro BIM Adop ti on in Design Firms: Guidelines for Doing a BIM Implementa ti on Plan. 864–871. h tt ps://doi.org/10.3311/ccc2019 ‐119 Kiraly, S., & Stare, A. (2019). Analysis of Applica ti on of Building Informa ti on Modeling (BIM) in Slovenia. Pro ‐ jektna Mreža Slovenije, V(1). Koutamanis, A. (2020). Dimensionality in BIM: Why BIM cannot have more than four dimensions? Automa ti on in Construc ti on, 114. Liao, L., & Ai Lin Teo, E. (2018). Organiza ti onal Change Perspec ti ve on People Management in BIM Imple ‐ menta ti on in Building Projects. Journal of Manage ‐ ment in Engineering, 34(3). Lindblad, H., & Karrbom Gustavsson, T. (2021). Public clients ability to drive industry change: the case of im ‐ plemen ti ng BIM. Construc ti on Management and Eco ‐ nomics, 39(1), 21–35. Ma, X., Xiong, F., Olawumi, T. O., Dong, N., & Chan, A. P . C. (2018). Conceptual Framework and Roadmap Approach for Integra ti ng BIM into Lifecycle Project Management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 34(6). Macloughlin, S., & Hayes, E. (2019). Overcoming Resistance T o BIM: Aligning A Change Management Method with A BIM Implementa ti on Strategy Method with A BIM Implemen ‐ ta ti on Strategy. h tt ps://arrow.tudublin.ie/schmuldistcap/4 Mahamadu, A. M., Manu, P ., Mahdjoubi, L., Booth, C., Aig ‐ bavboa, C., & Abanda, F. H. (2020). The importance of BIM capability assessment: An evalua ti on of post ‐se ‐ lec ti on performance of organisa ti ons on construc ti on projects. Engineering, Construc ti on and Architectural Management, 27(1), 24–48. MGRT. (2019). Akcijski na črt uvedbe digitalizacije na po ‐ dro čju grajenega okolja v Republiki Sloveniji, REPUB ‐ LIKA SLOVENIJA MINISTRSTVO ZA GOSPODARSKI RAZVOJ IN TEHNOLOGIJO. h tt p://arhiv.izs.si/filead ‐ min/dokumen ti /aktualno/aktualno ‐leto ‐2019/Akci ‐ jski_nacrt ‐MGRT ‐digitalizacija ‐22 ‐11 ‐19.pdf Mirhosseini, S. A., Mavi, R. K., Mavi, N. K., Abbasnejad, B., & Rayani, F. (2020). Interrela ti ons among leadership competencies of BIM leaders: A fuzzy DEMATEL ‐ANP approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(18), 1–30. Muñoz ‐La Rivera, F., Vielma, J. C., Herrera, R. F., & Car ‐ vallo, J. (2019). Methodology for Building Informa ti on Modeling (BIM) Implementa ti on in Structural Engi ‐ neering Companies (SECs). Advances in Civil Engineer ‐ ing, 2019, 1–15. Oraee, M., Hosseini, M. R., Edwards, D. J., Li, H., Pa ‐ padonikolaki, E., & Cao, D. (2019). Collabora ti on bar ‐ riers in BIM ‐based construc ti on networks: A conceptual model. Interna ti onal Journal of Project Management, 37(6), 839–854. Ozorhon, B., & Karahan, U. (2017). Cri ti cal Success Factors of Building Informa ti on Modeling Implementa ti on. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(3). Sacks, R., Eastman, C., Lee, G., & Teicholz, P . (2018). BIM Handbook. Wiley. Sinoh, S. S., Othman, F., & Ibrahim, Z. (2020). Cri ti cal suc ‐ cess factors for BIM implementa ti on: a Malaysian case study. Engineering, Construc ti on and Architec ‐ tural Management, 27(9), 2737–2765. Turk, Ž. (2016). Ten ques ti ons concerning building infor ‐ ma ti on modelling. Building and Environment, 107, 274–284. Turk, Ž., & Isteni č Star či č, A. (2020). Toward deep impacts of BIM on educa ti on. Fron ti ers of Engineering Man ‐ agement, 7(1), 81–88. Ugwu, O., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2007). Cri ti cal success factors for construc ti on ICT projects ‐ Some empirical evidence and lessons for emerging economies. Jour ‐ nal of Informa ti on Technology in Construc ti on, 12, 231–249. Wang, Y., Zhu, J., & Wei, B. (2022). Domes ti c and Inter ‐ na ti onal Mainstream BIM So ft ware Applica ti on and Comparison Study. Journal of Physics: Conference Se ‐ ries, 2185(1), 1–8. Zomer, T., Neely, A., Sacks, R., & Parlikad, A. (2020). Ex ‐ ploring the influence of socio ‐historical constructs on BIM implementa ti on: an ac ti vity theory perspec ti ve. Construc ti on Management and Economics, 1–20.