The Building Information Models (BIM) has been implemented in various projects during the past decades as BIM consistently advances around the world. A lot of discussion has centered around BIM potential on solving the common major construction problem which puts the owner in the position to benefit the most from the implementation. Aside from that, BIM allows each project owner to apply BIM uniquely to address the specific problems, tailor its processes and expectations to those goals. Consequently, owners are becoming focused on leveraging BIM to deliver their projects.
However, the owner may lack of BIM knowledge which then makes them unable to see beyond initial spending during the decision making. The poor decision during the selection of BIM Use during the BIM Implementation might result in the inability to exert the auxiliary benefits of BIM, which later could cause an additional loss and unnecessary risk instead. It consequently becomes important for owners to be prepared, so they can better leverage the expertise, and ensure the plan has been done accordingly in efficient way. For a successful BIM Execution Plan (BEP) owner has to understand their BIM goals, to not only focus on what BIM can do in general, but more on what value BIM can specifically provide to complying with the specific needs in the project. The focus has to shift from only requiring BIM into striving for BIM to be done right.
The previous research has focused on the benefit value of the BIM Work Items, and combined those with the concept of Means-End Chain (MEC) to construct a BIM Value Hierarchy Model. BIM Work Items are described as the task will be benefited from the adoption of BIM in the project. This model allows owners to evaluate the value proportion of various BIM Work Items before the purchase. However, as different project will have a different circumstance along with different BIM goals, the different approach is needed and the previous model has not particularly addressed this issue. Besides, the previous research mentioned the potential of the constructed model to assist the owner decides the suitable work item for investment during BEP process and yet the previous research has not come up with thorough application method to enable the potential.
Therefore, this research aims to compose a selection model to find the near optimum BIM work items combination that can attain owner BIM goals and achieve the maximum benefit. The model will attach the importance of the owner’ need and the owner's BIM goal by collecting the owner’ input regarding the goal as part of effort to require the owner's direct involvement during the model development process. Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) Algorithm is applied to simulate the selection of BIM work item, where the solution set would present the necessary BIM Work Items; refers to items that have a significant value in both attaining the owner goal and accommodating project needs. As the BIM Work Item within the solution set has been ensured to have a high compatibility value for the specific situation in terms of project budget and owner's goal for BIM Implementation, the result may provide a recommendation to the owner as a help during the decision making process later.

The Building Information Models (BIM) has been implemented in various projects during the past decades as BIM consistently advances around the world. A lot of discussion has centered around BIM potential on solving the common major construction problem which puts the owner in the position to benefit the most from the implementation. Aside from that, BIM allows each project owner to apply BIM uniquely to address the specific problems, tailor its processes and expectations to those goals. Consequently, owners are becoming focused on leveraging BIM to deliver their projects.
However, the owner may lack of BIM knowledge which then makes them unable to see beyond initial spending during the decision making. The poor decision during the selection of BIM Use during the BIM Implementation might result in the inability to exert the auxiliary benefits of BIM, which later could cause an additional loss and unnecessary risk instead. It consequently becomes important for owners to be prepared, so they can better leverage the expertise, and ensure the plan has been done accordingly in efficient way. For a successful BIM Execution Plan (BEP) owner has to understand their BIM goals, to not only focus on what BIM can do in general, but more on what value BIM can specifically provide to complying with the specific needs in the project. The focus has to shift from only requiring BIM into striving for BIM to be done right.
The previous research has focused on the benefit value of the BIM Work Items, and combined those with the concept of Means-End Chain (MEC) to construct a BIM Value Hierarchy Model. BIM Work Items are described as the task will be benefited from the adoption of BIM in the project. This model allows owners to evaluate the value proportion of various BIM Work Items before the purchase. However, as different project will have a different circumstance along with different BIM goals, the different approach is needed and the previous model has not particularly addressed this issue. Besides, the previous research mentioned the potential of the constructed model to assist the owner decides the suitable work item for investment during BEP process and yet the previous research has not come up with thorough application method to enable the potential.
Therefore, this research aims to compose a selection model to find the near optimum BIM work items combination that can attain owner BIM goals and achieve the maximum benefit. The model will attach the importance of the owner’ need and the owner's BIM goal by collecting the owner’ input regarding the goal as part of effort to require the owner's direct involvement during the model development process. Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) Algorithm is applied to simulate the selection of BIM work item, where the solution set would present the necessary BIM Work Items; refers to items that have a significant value in both attaining the owner goal and accommodating project needs. As the BIM Work Item within the solution set has been ensured to have a high compatibility value for the specific situation in terms of project budget and owner's goal for BIM Implementation, the result may provide a recommendation to the owner as a help during the decision making process later.

1. Aibinu, A. a. (2014). Status of BIM adoption and the BIM experience of cost consultants in Australia. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

2. Azhar, S. (2011). Building Information Modeling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks, and Challenges for the AEC Industry. ASCE: Leadership and Management in Engineering, 241-252.

3. Barlish, K. a. (2012). How to measure the benefits of BIM—A case study approach. Automation in construction, 24 , 149-159.

4. Barry, G. D. (2012). Does size matter? Experiences and perspectives of BIM implementation from large and SME construction contractors. 1st UK Academic Conference on Building Information Management (BIM). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.: Northumbria University.

5. Borgardt, E. (2018). Conventional and extended versions of Means-End Chain theory. Zeszyty Na-ukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie, 3 (975), 191-204.

6. Borgardt, E. (2020). Means-End Chain theory: a critical review of literature. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 141-160.

7. Breakwell, G. M. (2008). The Characteristics, Roles and Selection of Vice-Chancellors. Leadership Foundation in Higher Education Research and Development.

8. Bullnheimer, B. &. (1999). A New Rank Based Version of the Ant System - A Computational Study. Central European Journal of Operations Research. 7, 25-38.

9. Chen, K. (2015). A Strategic Decision Making framework for Organisational BIM implementation. PhD Thesis. Cardiff, Wales, UK: Cardiff School of Engineering.

10. Cheng, M. J. (2020). The Study of Value Evaluation of Work Items in Building Information Modeling.

11. Chien, K. W. (2014). Use of standards for CAD layers in building. Automation in Construction (45), 1–15.

12. Chuck, E. P. (2011). BIM Handbook A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. John Wiley & Son.

13. Costa, A. D. (2004). An overview of means-end theory: potential application in consumer-oriented food product design. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15(7-8), 403-415.

14. Denebourg JL, G. S. (1989). Collective patterns and decision-making. Ethol Ecol Evol 1(4), 295–311.

15. Deneubourg J-L, P. J. (1983). Probabilistic behaviour in ants: a strategy of errors. J Theoret Biol 105(2), 259–271.

16. Dorigo M, D. C. (1999). Ant algorithms for discrete optimization. Artificial Life 5(2), 137–72.
17. Dorigo M, G. L. (1997a). Ant colony system: a cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1), 53–66.

18. Dorigo M, G. L. (1997b). Ant colonies for the traveling salesman problem. BioSystems 43(2), 73– 81.

19. Dorigo M, M. V. (1991). The ant system: an autocatalytic optimizing process. In:Technical report, 91-106.

20. Dorigo, M. (1992). Optimization, Learning and Natural Algorithms. Italia: Ph.D. Thesis, Politecnico di Milano.

21. Dorigo, M. D. (1999). Ant colony optimization: a new meta-heuristic. Proceedings of the 1999: Conference on Evolutionary Computation, 2, (pp. 1470–1477).

22. Dorigo, M. S. (2004). Ant Colony Optimization. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

23. Eadie, R. B. (2013). BIM implementation through the UK construction project lifecycle: An analysis. Autom. Constr., 36, 145–151.

24. Essner, J. A. (2019). BIM Project Execution Planning Guide, Version 2.2. In C. I. Program. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.

25. Feixas, G. &. (2002). Content Analysis of Personal Constructs. Journal of Constructivist Psychology. 15, 1-19.

26. Gambardella L, T. E. (1999). Ant colonies for the quadratic assignment problem. Journal of Operations Research Society, 50(2); 167–76.

27. Gambardella LM, T. E. (1999.). MACS-VRPTW: a multiple ant colony system for vehicle routing problems with time windows. New ideas in optimization (pp. 63–76). London, UK: McGraw-Hill: In:Corne D, Dorigo M, Glover F, editors.

28. Getuli, V. &. (2018). A Workflow to Integrate Workspaces Dynamic Planning with 4D BIM. Computational Workspaces Management.

29. Grunert KG, G. S. (1995). Measuring subjective meaning structures by the laddering method: Theoretical considerations and methodological problems. Int. J. Res. Mark., 12(3), 209–225.

30. Gu, N. a. (2010). Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Automation in Construction 19(8), 988–999.

31. Gutman, J. (1982). A means–end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2) , 60–72.

32. H.M Weingartner, D. N. (1967). Method for the solution for the multidimensional 0–1 knapsack problem. Operations Research, 15, 83-103 .
33. Hanxiao, S. (2006). Solutionto 0/1 Knapsack Problem Based on Improved Ant Colony Algorithm. The 2006 IEEE International Conference on Information Acquisition. Hangzhou, China.

34. Hu, Y., Castro-Lacouture, D., & Eastman, C. (2019). Holistic clash detection improvement using a componentdependent network in BIM projects. Automation in Construction.

35. Idris Othman, Y. Y.-A.-B. (2021). The level of Building Information Modelling (BIM) Implementation in Malaysia. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 455-463.

36. J. Paul Peter, J. C. (1987). Consumer behavior : marketing strategy perspectives. Homewood III: Irwin.

37. Jakob Puchinger, G. R. (2006). The Core Concept for the Multidimensional Knapsack Problem. European Conference on Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization, 195-208.

38. Jung, Y. (2014). What a smartphone is to me: understanding user values in using smartphones. Information Systems Journal, 24(4), 299-321.

39. Jung, Y. a. (2011). Building Information Modeling (BIM) a Framework for Practical Implementation. Automation in Construction, 20 , 126-133.

40. Jung, Y. a. (2014). Virtual goods, real goals: exploring Means-End goal structures of consumers in social virtual worlds. Information & Management, 51(5), 520-531.

41. Kim, B. K. (2016). The sacred and the profane: Identifying Pilgrim Traveler Value Orientations Using Means-End Theory. Tourism Management, (56), 142-155.

42. Kittelson & Associates, I. (1999). Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual.

43. Kosasi, S. (2002). Sistem Penunjang Keputusan . Proyek Peningkatan Penelitian Pendidikan Pemanfaatan Metode AHP, 89.

44. Kreider, R. G. (2013). The Uses of BIM: Classifying and Selecting BIM Uses Version 0.9. University Park, PA, USA.: The Pennsylvania State University. http://bim.psu.edu.

45. Laabadi, S. N. (2018). The 0/1 Multidimensional Knapsack Problem and Its Variants: A Survey of Practical Models and Heuristic Approaches. American Journal of Operations Research, 8, 395-439.

46. Lam, S. W. (2014). The Singapore BIM roadmap. Retrieved from http://bimsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/BIM-SYM- POSIUM_MR-LAM-SIEW-WAH_Oct-13-v6.pdf

47. Lee, S. Y. (2013). BIM acceptance model in construction organizations. ASCE: Manage. Eng.

48. Liangjun Ke, Z. F. (2010). An ant colony optimization approach for the multidimensional knapsack problem. J Heuristics(16), 65–83.

49. Liao, L. &. (2017). Critical Success Factors for enhancing the Building Information Modelling Implementation in Building Projects in Singapore. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management (23), 1029-1044.

50. Lin, C.-F. (2002). Attribute-consequence-value Linkages: A New Technique for Understanding Customers' Product Knowledge. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing. 10.

51. Lin, W.-I. L.-H. (2011). Consumer hierarchical value map modeling in the healthcare service industry. African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5(3), 722-736.

52. Lozinski, I. (2020, April). Creating successful BIM Execution Plan. Part 2: BIM Uses. Retrieved from https://bimcorner.com/creating-successful-bep-part-2-bim-uses/

53. Lu, W. F. (2014). Cost-benefit Analysis of Building Information Modeling Implementation in Building Projects through Dmystification of Time-effort Distribution Curves. Building and environment, 82., 317-327.

54. Maniezzo V, C. A. (1999). The ant system applied to the quadratic assignment problem. IEEE Transations on Data Knowledge and Engineering, 11: 769–78.

55. Manish Mandloi, V. B. (2017). Chapter 12 - Symbol Detection in Multiple Antenna Wireless Systems via Ant Colony Optimization. In Handbook of Neural Computation (pp. 225-237 ). Academic Press.

56. Manish Mandloi, V. B. (2017). Symbol Detection in Multiple Antenna Wireless Systems via Ant Colony Optimization. In Handbook of Neural Computation (pp. 225-237). Academic Press .

57. McGraw-Hill. (2014). Smart Market Report the Business Value of BIM for Construction in Major Global Markets. New York: McGraw Hill Construction.

58. Messner, J. A. (2019). BIM Project Execution Planning Guide, Version 2.2. . University Park, PA, USA: Computer Integrated Construction Research Program, The Pennsylvania State University.

59. Messner, J. A. (2021). BIM Project Execution Planning Guide, Version 3.0. University Park, PA, USA: Computer Integrated Construction Research Program, The Pennsylvania State University.

60. Min Kong, P. T. (2008). A new ant colony optimization algorithm for the multidimensional Knapsack problem. Computers & Operations Research, 2672-2683.

61. Negulescu, S. &. (2008). Ant Colony Solving Multiple Constraints Problem: Vehicle Route Allocation. . Int. J. of Computers. III, 366-373.

62. Oates, B. J. (2006). Researching Information Systems and Computing. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

63. Olson, J. C. (1989). Theoretical Foundations of Means-End Chains. Werbeforschung and Praxis Folge, 174-178.

64. Olson, J. C. (2001). Understanding consumer decision making: the Means- End approach to marketing and advertising strategy. New Jersey: Routledge.

65. Orsingher, C. M. (2011). Consumer (goal) satisfaction: a Means-Ends Chain approach. Psychology and Marketing, 28(7), 730-748.

66. Peter E.D.Love, J. L.-P. (2015). Future Proofing PPPs: Life-Cycle Performance Measurement and Building Information Modeling. Automation in Construction, Vol. 56, 26-35.

67. Pisinger., D. (1997). A minimal algorithm for the 0–1 knapsack problem. Operations Research, 45, 758–767.

68. Prakasam, A. (2016). Metaheuristic algorithms and probabilistic behaviour: a comprehensive analysis of Ant Colony Optimization and its variants. Artificial Intelligence Review .

69. Program, C. I. (2013). BIM planning guide for facility owners V2.0. University Park, PA, USA: The Pennsylvania State University.

70. Puchinger, J. &. (2006). The Core Concept for the Multidimensional Knapsack Problem. 195-208.

71. R.C., T. Z. (2001). Customer Satisfaction in Home Building. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 82-86.
72. Reynolds, T. J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1), 11-31.
73. Robert J. Kaden, G. L. (2011). Leading Edge Marketing Research: 21st-Century Tools and Practices. Sage Publications, Inc.

74. S.Martello, P. T. (1990). Knapsack problems: algorithms and computer implementations . Wiley, New York.

75. Saaty, T. (2008). Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Service Sciences, 86.

76. Schiff, K. (2013). Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm for the 0-1 Problem.

77. Siamak Talatahari, V. P. (2013). Ant Colony Optimization for Estimating Parameters of Flood Frequency Distributions . Metaheuristics in Water, Geotechnical and Transport Engineering, Elsevier, 121-146.

78. Sorin CN, O. C. (2008). Elitist ant system for route allocation problem. . Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA: Worldscientific and engineering academy and society (WSEAS) .

79. Soukaina Laabadi, M. N. (2018). The 0/1 Multidimensional Knapsack Problem and Its Variants: A Survey of Practical Models and Heuristic Approaches. American Journal of Operations Research(8), 395-439.

80. Stuzle, T. &. (2001). MAX-MIN Ant System. Future Generation Computer Systems. 16, 889-914.

81. Succar, B. (May 2010). The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement. W096 — Special Track 18th CIB World Building Congress (combined with W104). Salford, UK, University of Newcastle, NSW Australia.

82. Wilhelms, M.-P. H. (2017). To earn is not enough: a Means-End analysis to uncover peer-providers’ participation motives in peer-to-peer carsharing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, (125), 38-47.

83. Wittmer, A. a. (2014). Purchasing a General Ticket for Public Transport–A Means-end Approach. Travel Behaviour and Society, 1(3), 106-112.

84. Zemel., E. B. (1980). An algorithm for large zero-one knapsack problems. Operations Research, 28, 1130–1154.