Framework for leveraging BIM to mitigate disputes in construction projects in Saudi Arabia

Muse, Abdirahman Bashir; Alsuhaibani, Abdullah; Hassanain, Mohammad A.; Alshibani, Adel; Muse, Abdirashid Mohamed

doi:10.3389/fbuil.2025.1719589

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Built Environ., 14 January 2026

Sec. Construction Management

Volume 11 - 2025 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2025.1719589

Framework for leveraging BIM to mitigate disputes in construction projects in Saudi Arabia

Abdirahman Bashir Muse¹

Abdullah Alsuhaibani¹*

Mohammad A. Hassanain^1,2*

Adel Alshibani^1,3

Abdirashid Mohamed Muse¹

¹Department of Architectural Engineering and Construction Management, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
²Interdisciplinary Research Center for Smart Mobility and Logistics, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
³Interdisciplinary Research Center for Construction and Building Materials, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Disputes significantly hinder construction projects by affecting timelines, budgets, and stakeholder relations. Building Information Modeling (BIM) offers potential to address these challenges, yet a structured framework linking BIM functionalities to common dispute causes across the project lifecycle remains lacking. This study develops and validates such a framework through engagement with industry practitioners within the Saudi Arabian construction context, where BIM adoption is now mandatory for public-sector projects. Ten leading dispute causes, and their corresponding BIM functionalities were first identified through an extensive literature review. A structured questionnaire was then distributed to practitioners, yielding 87 valid responses, comprising 42 from contractors and 45 from consultants. The Significance Index, descriptive statistics, and Mann–Whitney U test were employed to assess practitioners’ perceptions of BIM’s effectiveness in mitigating specific dispute causes. Results highlight that improved visualization, enhanced collaboration and communication, and improved data management were consistently valued as cross-cutting BIM functionalities across dispute types and project phases. Design coordination and clash detection consistently ranked highest, underscoring their critical role in addressing change orders and design errors. The resulting framework guides owners and practitioners on where to prioritize BIM effort across the project lifecycle to proactively reduce disputes and strengthen project delivery outcomes.

1 Introduction

Disputes are a persistent concern in construction, posing serious risks to project success. As construction projects grow in scale and complexity, the number and severity of disputes have intensified. Industry data show the average global dispute value was US$52.6 million in 2021 (highest single case: US$2 billion), while in the Middle East the average was US$90.4 million (Arcadis, 2022). These high stakes underscore the need for more proactive dispute prevention and management strategies.

Disputes often stem from the industry’s fragmented structure, with owners, contractors, consultants, subcontractors, and regulators operating under differing objectives. Projects demand highly specialized designs, strict specifications, high-risk construction techniques, and seamless coordination among parties. Even with prevention mechanisms, issues such as delays, cost overruns, and contract ambiguities often escalate into formal conflicts (El-Sayegh et al., 2020; Abdul-Malak and Senan, 2020).

BIM has emerged as a digital solution to reduce conflict sources by improving transparency, coordination, and accuracy. It enables multi-stakeholder modeling to support design review, visualization, and communication. Gharaibeh et al. (2024) showed that BIM adoption can be quantified to reflect its benefits in time, cost, and operational performance. Recognizing BIM’s potential, Saudi Arabia has mandated BIM adoption in public projects (Alshibani et al., 2024), aligning with its Vision 2030 agenda for digital transformation.

Prior studies highlight various BIM functionalities that contribute to dispute prevention and resolution. These include tools for delay claim analysis (Gibbs et al., 2012), change order impact assessment (Handayani et al., 2019), clash detection and cost estimation (Khawaja and Mustapha, 2021), and structured legal support (Muhammad and Nasir, 2022). However, existing studies often isolate individual use cases, such as addressing delays (Btoush and Harun, 2017; Honnappa and Padala, 2022) or managing change orders (Al-Btoush et al., 2024), rather than exploring BIM’s integrated role across the broader spectrum of dispute causes. Wang et al. (2023b) proposed a conceptual BIM–dispute framework based on a structured literature review. However, it relied solely on secondary sources and highlighted the need for regional comparative studies and empirical validation through triangulated methods such as surveys, case studies, and interviews. To address this gap, the present study empirically develops and validates a lifecycle-based BIM–dispute framework grounded in data from the Saudi Arabian construction industry. In contrast to prior conceptual, this research integrates literature synthesis, practitioner survey results, and expert review to provide an empirically supported, context-specific framework linking BIM functionalities to dispute causes across project phases. Adopting a multi-stakeholder perspective (involving both contractors and consultants), this paper aims (1) to examine BIM functionalities that address the most common causes of disputes, and (2) to propose a lifecycle-based BIM framework for dispute mitigation.

2 Literature review

2.1 Construction dispute prevention and management

Construction disputes are managed through proactive prevention and reactive resolution (Wang et al., 2023b). Proactive approaches aim to mitigate conflict before it arises, typically through early stakeholder involvement, clear contracts, and realistic scheduling (Acharya et al., 2006; Love et al., 2010). BIM supports these practices by improving design coordination and reducing errors (Assaf et al., 2019). Studies have used analytical methods to predict and prevent disputes, such as applying machine learning techniques to provide early-warning support for decision-makers (Ayhan et al., 2021). In contrast, reactive approaches address disputes after they emerge, emphasizing settlement and remediation through mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration. Effective dispute management integrates both approaches, balancing proactive measures that reduce the likelihood of conflict with reactive mechanisms that ensure fair and timely resolution (Fenn, 2012). This integrated approach fosters collaboration and supports successful project delivery.

This study is grounded in the Conflict Prevention and Management Theory (Fenn, 2012), which conceptualizes disputes as a continuum that can be mitigated through both proactive and reactive mechanisms. The proactive dimension emphasizes early identification and prevention of potential conflicts, whereas the reactive dimension focuses on the efficient and equitable resolution of disputes once they occur. Within this theoretical lens, BIM functions as a facilitative tool that enhances proactive prevention through design coordination, clash detection, 4D/5D simulations, and stakeholder collaboration, while supporting reactive dispute management through automated documentation, progress tracking, cost and schedule impact analysis, and centralized data management.

2.2 Common causes of construction disputes

Across regions, research identifies recurring dispute drivers: design errors, payment problems, change orders, delays, contractual ambiguities, site conditions, poor communication, bidding errors, opportunism, and quality concerns (Kumaraswamy, 1997; Assaf et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2023a; Silva et al., 2024). Design errors often stem from omissions, conflicting specifications, unclear drawings, or inadequate constructability reviews (Acharya et al., 2006; Cheung and Pang, 2013). Such inconsistencies frequently lead to coordination failures and claims (Assaf et al., 2019). Payment disputes typically arise from late client payments, disagreements over variation compensation, or dissatisfaction with deliverables. In Saudi Arabia, late payments were a recurring issue in residential projects (Mahamid, 2016), while other studies link them to contractor cash flow problems and project delays (El-Sayegh et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2023a). Change orders are often triggered by late client requests, quantity variations, or shifting costs and labor demands, and escalate when issued orally or poorly documented (Love et al., 2010).

Delays remain the most persistent dispute source, caused by slow mobilization, late approvals, owner indecision, and procurement bottlenecks (Love et al., 2010; Alghamdi et al., 2024). In Saudi Arabia, over 70% of projects experienced delays, many escalating into disputes (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006). Contractual issues, such as ambiguous contracts, undefined scopes, and misinterpretations, Failure to adhere to contract terms and conditions (Acharya et al., 2006; Assaf et al., 2019). Site-related disputes often arise from unforeseen conditions, inadequate geotechnical studies, or safety incidents (El-Sayegh et al., 2020). Poor logistics and safety violations can further result in legal liabilities and eroded trust (Love et al., 2010). Other contributing factors include poor communication, unrealistic bidding, opportunism, and substandard quality. Miscommunication frequently escalates conflicts (Mahamid, 2016). Bid disputes often stem from unrealistic pricing, timeframes, or unbalanced proposals (Wang et al., 2023a). Opportunism, such as post-award exploitation or client underfunding, weakens contractual relationships (Cheung and Pang, 2013). Finally, poor workmanship and weak oversight compromise construction quality, leading to costly rework and claims (Iyer et al., 2008).

Overall, these dispute causes are highly interlinked, often reinforcing one another. For instance, design errors can trigger change orders and delays, which in turn lead to payment disputes and strained stakeholder relationships. Communication breakdowns and contractual ambiguities frequently exacerbate these cascading effects. BIM functionalities, such as integrated design coordination, real-time information sharing, clash detection, and progress visualization, can simultaneously address multiple root causes.

2.3 BIM’s role in dispute management

To address the persistent problem of construction disputes, researchers have increasingly explored the use of BIM as a modern technological solution. Early applications demonstrated BIM’s value in claim evaluation and delay visualization (Gibbs et al., 2012; Askari et al., 2013), while studies, such as Marzouk et al. (2018), extended BIM’s application to include cost and schedule integration (5D BIM) and structured responsibility tracking through claims responsibility matrices. More recently, Tantawy et al. (2025) proposed a proactive framework that integrates BIM within ISO 19650 standards to enhance communication, stakeholder engagement, and conflict avoidance. Using a causal loop diagram (CLD), their study demonstrated how BIM improves collaboration, transparency, and early issue detection. However, the majority of prior research has adopted a relatively narrow focus, focusing on individual BIM functionalities and specific dispute types, such as delays or change orders, rather than examining BIM’s broader potential to address the full spectrum of dispute causes across the project lifecycle.

Recent reviews, notably Wang et al. (2023b), mapped common dispute drivers to BIM benefits but emphasized the need for regional comparative studies and empirical validation through triangulated approaches. Subsequent studies reinforced BIM’s strengths in enhancing transparency, coordination, and traceability through tools such as automated quantity takeoff, clash detection, and 5D cost integration (Khawaja and Mustapha, 2021; Handayani et al., 2019). Legal and contractual challenges, including data ownership and model liability, remain ongoing concerns, prompting initiatives like BIM-DRes to embed dispute resolution and intellectual property provisions within BIM-enabled workflows (Muhammad and Nasir, 2022). Emerging technologies such as blockchain and laser scanning are further expanding BIM’s dispute mitigation capacity by improving data accuracy, progress validation, and auditability (Hamledari and Fischer, 2021; Kamel et al., 2023). Together, these advances position BIM not merely as a visualization or coordination tool, but as an integrated dispute management platform that enhances accountability and early conflict detection across project phases.

From a stakeholder perspective, BIM is perceived and utilized differently by project stakeholders, reflecting their unique roles, risk exposures, and informational priorities. According to Sacks et al. (2018), owners typically view BIM as a strategic tool for improving decision-making, lifecycle asset management, and transparency, thereby reducing ambiguities that often lead to disputes. Contractors, in contrast, tend to focus on BIM’s operational and coordination benefits, such as clash detection, constructability analysis, and schedule optimization, that minimize rework and claims during construction. Consultants and designers emphasize BIM’s capability to enhance information integration and design quality, yet they may express concern about shifting responsibilities and potential liabilities in model ownership and coordination. These differing perspectives underscore that while BIM provides a shared digital environment, effective dispute prevention depends on aligning stakeholder expectations, responsibilities, and collaboration protocols throughout the project lifecycle.

Addressing the previously noted limitations of a narrow focus on specific BIM applications for dispute causes and limited regional validation, this study adopts a broader, lifecycle-based perspective supported by empirical evidence from the Saudi Arabian construction industry. It examines how BIM functionalities collectively mitigate diverse dispute causes within a context of high dispute frequency and expanding BIM mandates. Following a comprehensive literature review, Table 1 summarizes the key BIM functionalities linked to the dispute categories each functionality addresses, along with the study region or context of each reference.

Table 1

Table 1. Key BIM functionalities mapped to common dispute causes.

3 Methodology

To achieve the research objectives, a questionnaire survey was conducted, Significance Index (SI) computation, mean analysis, and Mann–Whitney U testing. The results were then used to develop a conceptual framework, which was subsequently validated by expert review (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Flowchart detailing a process in six stages: Stage 1 is Literature Review, identifying construction dispute causes and BIM functionalities. Stage 2 is Pilot Study, testing questionnaires. Stage 3 is Data Collection from Saudi construction professionals. Stage 4 is Data Analysis, including significance index, mean analysis, and Mann-Whitney U test. Stage 5 is Framework Development for BIM-based dispute mitigation. Stage 6 is Expert Assessment to refine the framework.

Figure 1. Flow chart of the research process.

3.1 Survey design and pilot study

The questionnaire was developed based on a comprehensive review of the literature that identified the major causes of construction disputes and the BIM functionalities relevant to their mitigation, as summarized in Table 1. The survey consisted of two main sections: (1) demographic and professional background of respondents, and (2) a 7-point Likert scale assessing the perceived effectiveness of each BIM functionality in mitigating specific dispute causes. To ensure the clarity and validity of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted prior to large-scale distribution. Three domain experts, a senior BIM consultant with over 15 years of experience, an academic specializing in construction dispute management, and a project manager from a contracting firm, reviewed the questionnaire for relevance, completeness, and consistency. Based on their feedback, terminology was refined, redundant items were removed, and the overall structure was adjusted for clarity and flow. Feedback from the experts was discussed collectively to ensure consistency, and any differing opinions on item clarity or relevance were resolved through consensus before finalizing the questionnaire. The finalized questionnaire was then distributed to professionals involved in construction project management across Saudi Arabia.

3.2 Data collection and sampling

Purposive sampling was used, guided by prior studies (Wang et al., 2023a; Liang et al., 2021; Osei-Kyei et al., 2019). Inclusion criteria required: (1) at least 1 year of construction experience, and (2) employment in firms actively using BIM. The survey was distributed via LinkedIn, a common platform in construction management research (Wang et al., 2022), through direct invitations to practitioners actively engaged in BIM-enabled construction projects across Saudi Arabia. Of 350 questionnaires, 87 valid responses were received (45 consultants, 42 contractors). The response rate was deemed satisfactory and adequate for further analysis, aligning with benchmarks established in previous studies within the construction management domain (Assaf et al., 2019; Alshibani et al., 2024; El-Sayegh et al., 2020). The study ensured ethical standards were upheld. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, participation was voluntary, and responses were anonymized. As shown in Table 2, 68% had over 5 years’ experience, and 61% had encountered more than three dispute cases, reflecting a qualified respondent pool.

Table 2

Table 2. Demographics of survey respondents.

3.3 Data analysis techniques

Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics v22 through five methods. First, Cronbach’s alpha assessed internal consistency, with α ≥ 0.70 deemed reliable (Osei-Kyei et al., 2019). Kendall’s concordance analysis was also performed to assess the agreement in respondents’ rankings within each group. A statistically significant Kendall’s (W) (p < 0.05) indicates consensus among respondents (Chan et al., 2012). For more than seven ranked items, the chi-square approximation is applied, and agreement is considered significant when the computed chi-square exceeds the critical value (Chan et al., 2012).

The Significance Index (SI) ranked BIM functionalities by perceived effectiveness in mitigating disputes. In addition, descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation) summarize central tendency and response consistency. Finally, the Mann–Whitney U test, a non-parametric method for comparing two independent groups, was used to assess differences between consultant and contractor responses. A p-value below 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference, leading to rejection of the null hypothesis of no difference (Chan et al., 2012).

3.4 Framework development and expert assessment

Based on survey results, a framework was developed, adapted from Wang et al. (2023b), linking frequent dispute causes with the most effective BIM functionalities. Three domain experts assessed the framework and judged it practically relevant. Their feedback emphasized lifecycle segmentation and precise functionalities labeling, and these refinements were incorporated into the framework.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Instrument reliability and consistency

To ensure the reliability of the survey instrument, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each dispute category, with values ranging from 0.863 to 0.942, indicating good to excellent internal consistency across all categories, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha values for BIM functionalities across dispute categories.

Table 4 presents Kendall’s coefficient of concordance results. The chi-square values for both contractors and consultants exceed the critical threshold of 66.339, with significance levels below 0.05, indicating a significant agreement on the importance of BIM functionalities in mitigating dispute causes. This consensus provides a robust foundation for subsequent analyses.

Table 4

Table 4. Results of Kendall’s concordance analysis.

4.2 BIM’s perceived role in reducing dispute causes

Participants evaluated BIM’s impact on ten common dispute causes using a scale ranging from Very Negative to Very Positive (Figure 2). Results indicated broadly positive perceptions. For quality management, 88.5% reported a Positive or Very Positive impact (46% and 42.5%, respectively). Design errors received the highest Very Positive rating (56.3%), followed by site-related issues (43.7%) and change orders (40.2%). In contrast, payment issues and opportunistic behavior received more Neutral/Negative responses (38.8% and 36.7%, respectively), indicating weaker perceived impact in these areas. Table 5 presents respondents’ experiences after BIM adoption in construction projects. The majority (70.1%) reported a reduction in disputes, while 14.9% reported no reduction and 14.9% were unsure. These results highlight a generally positive perception of BIM’s role in mitigating disputes and improving project outcomes.

Figure 2

Bar chart showing respondents’ perceptions of BIM’s effectiveness in mitigating different construction dispute categories, including design errors, quality issues, site problems, change orders, poor communication, delays, bidding errors, payment problems, contractual problems, opportunistic behavior, and overall impact. Bars represent ratings from very positive to very negative. Positive and very positive responses dominate across all categories, particularly for design errors, change orders, and quality issues, while negative and very negative responses remain low overall.

Figure 2. Surveyed perceptions of BIM’s role in mitigating different construction dispute causes.

Table 5

Table 5. Respondents’ feedback on dispute reduction following BIM adoption.

4.3 Ranking results

The Significance Index (SI) method was employed to rank BIM functionalities within each dispute category in descending order of importance, as presented in Table 6. SI values were subsequently classified into five significance levels, ranging from ‘not significant’ to ‘very highly significant,’ facilitating a comparative analysis between contractor and consultant perspectives. The SI was calculated as SI = ( $\frac{Σ w_{i} n_{i}}{A x N})$ × 100

Table 6

Table 6. Significance Index, statistical analysis, and Mann–Whitney U test results for BIM functionalities across dispute types.

Where: $w_{i}$ = weight assigned to Likert scale category i; $n_{i}$ = number of responses in category i; A = maximum possible weight on the scale (7 in this study); N = total number of respondents. Following prior work (Assaf et al., 2019), interpretation bands were: Not significant (≤12.5%), Low significance (12.5%–37.5%), Significant (37.5%–62.5%), High Significance (62.5%–87.5%), and Very High Significance (>87.5%). To provide a visual overview of these results, Figure 3 presents the average Significance Index (SI) values of BIM functionalities across the ten dispute categories. The chart highlights general trends, indicating that BIM was perceived as most effective in mitigating design-related disputes and least effective in addressing contractual-related issues.

Figure 3

Bar chart showing the average Significance Index (SI%) of BIM functionalities across construction dispute categories. Categories include change orders, design errors, payment problems, site problems, and more. Design errors show the highest average SI, followed by poor communication and opportunistic behavior, while contractual problems have the lowest SI.

Figure 3. Average Significance Index (SI) of BIM functionalities across dispute categories.

4.3.1 Change orders

Based on Significance Index (SI) results, respondents ranked design coordination (SI = 90.0%), clash detection (SI = 88.2%), and stakeholder collaboration (SI = 85.9%) highest among the BIM functionalities perceived to be most effective in mitigating change order disputes, followed by 3D visualization, cost and schedule impact analysis, and automated documentation. The top-ranked functionality was design coordination, supported by Bruhn (2014), who found an 80% reduction in design-related change orders when BIM coordination was adopted. Clash detection also scored highly, echoing Al-Btoush et al. (2024), who showed that early clash identification reduced costly rework. Stakeholder collaboration aligns with Aziz et al. (2024), who reported that shared BIM models enabled earlier decision-making and fewer variation orders. 3D visualization reflects Alkarawi and Jaber’s (2024) finding that BIM visualization prevented 85 of 125 potential change orders, lowering costs by 15.5% and delays by 16%. Cost and schedule impact analysis confirms Handayani et al. (2019), who demonstrated that BIM-supported integration of changes improved financial and scheduling assessments, while automated documentation, though valuable in claims preparation (Likhitruangsilp et al., 2018), ranked lowest, suggesting Saudi projects emphasize proactive prevention over reactive record-keeping.

4.3.2 Design errors

Respondents identified design coordination, clash detection, visualization and validation, stakeholder collaboration, design information management, and prefabrication production as the functionalities most effective in reducing design errors. The highest-ranked functionality was design coordination, consistent with Park and Lee (2017), who found that BIM-based coordination process accelerated reviews by 228% and reduced design changes to 0.42 times per drawing, compared to 2.13 in BIM-assisted coordination. Clash detection echoes Chahrour et al. (2021), who showed systematic clash detection eliminated most design conflicts. Visualization and validation also proved critical, with Ham et al. (2018) reporting cost reductions from 0.736% to 0.454% of total budgets through BIM validation. Stakeholder collaboration supports Al-Btoush et al. (2024), who showed that shared BIM platforms fostered interdisciplinary coordination, while design information management reflects Disney et al. (2024), who noted cloud-based “single sources of truth” prevented duplication and miscommunication. Finally, prefabrication, though less emphasized, aligns with Mostafa et al. (2020), who demonstrated BIM-driven prefabrication enhanced alignment and reduced production errors.

4.3.3 Payment problems

The BIM tools ranked as most impactful in minimizing payment disputes are progress tracking and validation, 5D cost integration and visualization, centralized data management, and BoQ–payment alignment. The leading functionality was progress tracking and validation, aligning with Hamledari and Fischer (2021), who showed that Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)-based BIM progress updates enabled automatic smart contract payments, reducing disputes. 5D cost integration and visualization confirms Kamel et al. (2023), who found real-time alignment between progress and costs improved cash flow reliability. Centralized data management mirrors Khalid et al. (2024), who integrated BIM with blockchain to enhance traceability. Likewise, Sonmez et al. (2022) combined centralized BIM servers with decentralized blockchain records to provide secure verification of submitted models and payment approvals. BoQ-payment alignment resonates with Nguyen et al. (2021), who showed that linking QTO data to payment schedules ensured timely disbursements. Respondents perceived payment disputes as best mitigated when progress verification and 5D cost integration are used together to ensure transparent and auditable financial flows.

4.3.4 Site problems

Site-related disputes were perceived to be most effectively addressed through real-time monitoring, 3D visualization, 4D simulations, workspace management, and information repository systems. Real-time monitoring ranked highest, in line with Akram et al. (2022), who demonstrated that BIM-linked sensor tracking improved hazard detection and responsiveness. 3D visualization and 4D simulations jointly highlight the importance of foresight, supporting Sulankivi et al. (2009), who used 3D/4D BIM to improve safety communication and site logistics planning. Workspace management aligns with Chavada et al. (2012), who showed BIM-based workspace allocation reduced congestion and improved productivity, while information repositories, though useful for knowledge integration (Kim et al., 2015), ranked lower.

4.3.5 Delays

Respondents perceived delay-related disputes as being most addressable through centralized data management, 4D planning and simulation, stakeholder collaboration, visualization for delay analysis, prefabrication, supply chain optimization, and integrated project delivery (IPD). Sami Ur Rehman et al. (2022) observed that BIM reduced project completion time by 16.88%. Centralized data management ranked highest, aligning with Ali et al. (2021), who demonstrated that the BIM-based Construction Delays Recorder (BIM-CDR) enhanced delay categorization and facilitated claims resolution. 4D planning/simulation supports Yalcinkaya and Arditi (2013), who highlighted its effectiveness in sequencing and resource conflict resolution. Visualization for delay analysis supports Chou and Yang (2017), who emphasized that integrating delay analysis methods with BIM improves information availability, enhances analysis accuracy, and facilitates fair responsibility attribution and dispute resolution. Prefabrication supports Mostafa et al. (2020), who showed BIM-driven off-site fabrication shortened lead times. By using BIM and prefabricating materials, Crate and Barrel’s project team was able to complete rough-in work in just two and a half weeks, nearly half the usual time (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2008). Supply chain optimization reflects Bortolini et al. (2019), who achieved 60% storage and 38% labor savings. Integrated project delivery (IPD), though lowest, supports concurrent execution, early decision-making, and improved coordination (Wang et al., 2023b; Tran et al., 2024).

4.3.6 Contractual problems

Respondents perceived centralized information management, efficient record-keeping and retrieval, and 3D modeling/visualization as the most effective BIM functionalities for mitigating contractual disputes. The top-ranked functionality was centralized information management, echoing Shahhosseini and Hajarolasvadi (2021), who proposed BIM-based compliance frameworks to detect non-conformance early. Common Data Environments (CDEs) also enhance real-time transparency and traceability (Muhammad and Nasir, 2022). Efficient record-keeping supports Gibbs et al. (2012), who emphasized the legal robustness of structured BIM records, while 3D modeling/visualization, though useful for clarifying claims (Muhammad and Nasir, 2022), ranked lower.

4.3.7 Poor communication

Communication-related disputes were perceived to be best mitigated by stakeholder collaboration, information repositories, 4D visualization, and 3D visualization. Stakeholder collaboration ranked highest, supporting Du et al. (2020), who found BIM-enabled projects had denser, more direct communication paths. Information repositories confirm Miao et al. (2024), who described BIM as a shared knowledge base reducing silos. 4D visualization aligns with Kang et al. (2007), who found 4D BIM streamlined coordination, while Bortolini et al. (2019) observed that 4D models facilitated logistic visualization, option evaluation, and shared understanding among project participants. 3D visualization fosters trust and reduces misunderstandings (Wang et al., 2023a).

4.3.8 Bidding errors

Respondents identified automated quantity take-off and cost estimation, 5D cost integration, improved communication, 4D planning and scheduling, 3D visualization, and clash detection as the functionalities most effective in reducing bidding errors. Bidding issues were most mitigated by automated QTO and cost estimation, which Correa and Santos (2021) showed reduces subjectivity and pricing errors. 5D cost visualization confirms Safaa Eldin et al. (2024), who found BIM-supported forecasting improved decision-making. 4D scheduling echoes Mozardo (2021), who found it improved early schedule estimation. 3D visualization supports Aslesen et al. (2018), who emphasized its role in minimizing uncertainty, while clash detection ensures design conflicts are addressed before finalizing quantities and schedules (Correa and Santos, 2021).

4.3.9 Opportunistic behavior

Respondents perceived transparent information sharing, enhanced monitoring and supervision, and stakeholder collaboration as the most effective functionalities for addressing opportunistic behavior. Transparent information sharing ranked highest, aligning with Yan et al. (2024), who highlight that BIM mitigates “information fog” by granting owners direct access to contractor data, thereby reducing opportunities for information manipulation and concealment of project inefficiencies. Enhanced monitoring similarly reflects Yan et al.’s (2024) emphasis on real-time supervision as an effective deterrent to opportunistic behavior. Stakeholder collaboration helps align interests and mitigate self-serving actions through mechanisms such as shared model reviews and integrated project delivery (IPD) contracts (Yi and Nie, 2024). While collaboration supports behavioral alignment, opportunistic behavior is most effectively constrained through transparency and monitoring. Nonetheless, successful deterrence relies on standardized BIM practices and adequate user capability; poor implementation may undermine trust and limit these benefits (Yan et al., 2024).

4.3.10 Quality issues

The functionalities perceived to enhance quality performance and mitigate related disputes included clash detection and system coordination, enhanced collaboration and communication, centralized data management, visualization for quality enhancement, and automated progress monitoring and reporting. Clash detection and coordination ranked highest, aligning with Rokooei (2015) stating that clash detection acts as a quality control process by visually detecting, modifying, and analyzing both soft and hard clashes. Additionally, Rajendran et al. (2014) reported an 80% reduction in site issues through proactive detection. Collaboration confirms Ma et al. (2018), who showed BIM streamlined inspection communication. Centralized data management aligns with Choi et al. (2020), who reported that standardized quality criteria in BIM enable automated compliance checking and accurate documentation of inspection outcomes. Visualization supports Chen and Luo (2014), who showed 4D BIM improved inspection sequencing, while automated reporting through BIM supports automated compliance checking, with quality records stored in a centralized database (Lin et al., 2016).

Overall, design coordination and clash detection consistently ranked highest, underscoring their critical role in mitigating change orders and design errors, and highlighting the importance of early-phase interventions in dispute prevention. In contrast, financial and contractual disputes were perceived as effectively addressed through progress validation, cost integration, and centralized data management, which enhance transparency and accountability. Site- and delay-related disputes highlighted the growing value of real-time monitoring, 4D/5D simulations, and logistics optimization. Across categories, recurring high-SI functionalities, improved visualization, enhanced collaboration and communication, and data management, emerged as cross-cutting enablers of dispute reduction. Overall, the results indicate practitioners’ perception BIM’s potential as a systemic dispute-mitigation tool that strengthens project delivery outcomes. However, as these findings are based on practitioners’ perceptions, the actual impact of BIM functionalities in real project settings may vary depending on implementation quality, stakeholder collaboration, and organizational maturity, suggesting a need for complementary validation through empirical project-based evidence.

Despite its potential, BIM adoption in Saudi Arabia faces challenges such as a shortage of skilled personnel, limited awareness, communication issues, and longer setup times (Alshibani et al., 2024). Addressing these challenges is crucial for the continued growth of BIM in Saudi Arabia to support Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 objectives by facilitating a more collaborative, efficient, and legally robust approach to construction project delivery. Key factors for successful adaptation include standard contracts on data security and confidentiality, clear BIM procedures and guidelines, targeted training, incentives for public projects, and involvement of international BIM service providers (Al-Mohammad et al., 2023; Alshibani et al., 2024).

4.4 Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics, mean, SD, and CV were calculated to assess response variability (Table 6). Mean scores ranged from 5.45 to 6.43, indicating generally high perceived importance. SD values ranged from 1.03 to 1.72, and CVs from 16.03% to 31.51%, reflecting varying consensus levels. Design Coordination under Design Errors had the lowest CV (16.03%), indicating strong agreement. Clash Detection under Bidding Errors had the highest (31.51%), suggesting greater divergence. Figures 4, 5 visually indicate an inverse pattern between mean scores and variability (SD and CV) respectively. Figure 4 shows that functionalities with higher mean ratings tend to have lower SDs, suggesting greater consensus among respondents. Figure 5 reinforces this trend with a stronger inverse correlation between mean scores and CV values, indicating that highly rated BIM functionalities are also evaluated more consistently. This pattern highlights a convergence in expert judgment on the most impactful dispute-mitigating tools.

Figure 4

Scatter plot showing the relationship between the mean (x-axis) and standard deviation (y-axis) with data points generally decreasing in standard deviation as the mean increases.

Figure 4. Inverse pattern between mean scores and standard deviation.

Figure 5

Scatter plot showing a negative correlation between mean values on the x-axis (ranging from 5.2 to 6.6) and CV values on the y-axis (ranging from 0 to 35). Data points are scattered, indicating variability.

Figure 5. Inverse pattern between mean scores and coefficient of variation (CV).

4.5 Mann-whitney U test results

To verify the appropriateness of inferential tests, data normality was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests in SPSS 22. As all variables violated the assumption of normality (p < 0.05), non-parametric methods, specifically the Mann–Whitney U test, were employed. The Mann–Whitney U test was employed to detect significant differences in perception between consultants and contractors. Results indicated that only one functionality, stakeholder collaboration under delays, differed significantly between groups (U = 698.5, Z = −2.20, p = 0.028), with consultants rating it higher than contractors as shown in Table 6. The corresponding effect size was small to approaching medium (r = 0.236). This difference likely arises because consultants engage earlier in BIM-enabled coordination and design integration, experiencing its stronger impact on reducing coordination errors and shortening project cycles, whereas contractors focus on downstream execution where such collaborative benefits are less direct (Sacks et al., 2018). All other comparisons were non-significant, suggesting broad alignment between consultants and contractors.

4.6 Framework development and expert assessment

Building on these findings, a lifecycle-oriented BIM framework, adapted from Wang et al. (2023b), was developed to guide dispute mitigation across project phases (Figure 6). The framework was constructed by consolidating overlapping BIM functionalities identified into 17 core categories, such as design coordination, clash detection, 4D/5D BIM, progress monitoring, quantity take-off, and stakeholder collaboration and communication. For instance, related items such as 3D visualization and visualization and modeling were merged under the broader category of improved visualization, while stakeholder collaboration and communication and improved communication were combined as Enhanced Collaboration and Communication. Similarly, automated documentation and reporting and efficient record-keeping and retrieval were grouped under Documentation and Record-Keeping, whereas distinct functionalities that did not overlap conceptually, such as Cost and Schedule Impact Analysis, were retained as separate categories. This process ensured that the final framework captured distinct, nonredundant BIM functionalities while maintaining their linkage to the corresponding dispute causes it most effectively addresses (e.g., design errors, delays, poor communication). The allocation of each functionality to specific project lifecycle phases was guided by prior studies identifying when particular dispute causes most commonly arise (Zou et al., 2007; Sibanyama et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2023b). The resulting framework serves as a structured decision-support tool that enables practitioners and policymakers to identify where specific BIM applications provide the greatest preventive impact throughout the project lifecycle.

Figure 6

Circular diagram illustrating a lifecycle-based BIM framework across five project phases: feasibility, design, pre-construction, construction, and closing. Within each phase, commonly occurring dispute causes (e.g., insufficient site investigation and design errors) are identified, and corresponding BIM functionalities, such as enhanced collaboration and communication, improved data management, and visualization, are mapped based on their effectiveness in dispute mitigation. The figure illustrates how BIM functionalities address dispute risks across lifecycle phases.

Figure 6. Lifecycle-based BIM framework for dispute mitigation.

The framework maps dispute causes to the corresponding stages of the project lifecycle and identifies the BIM functionalities most suited to mitigating each one. In the Feasibility Phase, insufficient site investigation often leads to design errors, change orders, and delays. These risks can be reduced through improved visualization and 4D planning and simulations, which support early conceptual modelling, enable the assessment of site access and logistics, and allow project teams to document and communicate key site assumptions. In the Design Phase, common disputes arise from design errors and poor communication between designers and contractors. BIM functionalities such as design coordination and validation, clash detection, enhanced visualization, improved data management, enhanced collaboration and communication, and prefabrication-related modelling help address these issues by facilitating interdisciplinary coordination, real-time updates, and clearer representation of design intent. In more complex projects, Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) may also begin in this phase, enabling early contractor involvement and shared decision-making, which can enhance coordination and help mitigate project delays.

During the Pre-Construction Phase, bidding errors, contractual ambiguities, and communication problems between contractual parties become prominent dispute drivers. BIM functionalities, such as automated quantity take-off, 5D cost integration, 4D simulation, improved visualization, enhanced collaboration, data management, and robust documentation, help ensure that tender documents are based on accurate quantities, coordinated information, and transparent workflows. These tools enable more reliable bid pricing, clearer scope interpretation, model-based reviews of the tender package, and time-stamped approval processes, which collectively reduce ambiguities and misalignment among stakeholders.

In the Construction Phase, disputes commonly arise from change orders, site problems, delays, poor communication with the client, opportunistic behaviors, and quality issues. BIM functionalities, including design coordination, clash detection, 4D planning, cost and schedule impact analysis, visualization, collaboration platforms, data management, enhanced monitoring and supervision, prefabrication modelling, supply-chain and logistics optimization, progress tracking, and workspace management, support proactive issue identification and coordinated project delivery. These tools enable teams to plan and update work sequences, evaluate change implications, monitor site conditions, manage spatial logistics, detect quality problems early, and maintain transparent communication and record-keeping through the CDE. This integrated approach helps limit delays, reduce rework, strengthen accountability, and deter opportunistic actions.

Finally, in the Closing Phase, payment problems frequently become sources of dispute. BIM functionalities such as progress tracking and validation, 5D cost integration, improved data management, and BoQ–payment alignment help ensure that payments are based on verified work quantities and transparent financial records. These tools support accurate final account assessment, structured documentation of decisions and variations, and the delivery of a complete as-built and O&M model for the client, thereby promoting a more transparent and dispute-free close-out process.

The framework underwent expert validation by three senior professionals with extensive BIM experience in the Saudi Arabian construction sector: a BIM manager, a project management consultant, and a design coordination specialist. The experts evaluated the framework based on four criteria: clarity of functionality definitions, appropriateness of dispute–phase mapping, practical applicability to typical project workflows, and overall completeness. Feedback was collected through semi-structured discussions and document annotations, allowing for both guided dialogue and detailed written comments on the framework draft. Differences in interpretation were discussed and resolved through consensus. The experts confirmed that the finalized framework aligns well with typical project workflows and has strong potential as both a planning and diagnostic tool for mitigating and managing dispute risks throughout the construction project lifecycle.

5 Conclusion and recommendations

This study advances understanding of how BIM is perceived to contribute to the mitigation of construction disputes, with emphasis on the Saudi Arabian context. By integrating literature review and practitioner survey data, ten primary dispute causes, and relevant BIM functionalities were identified and consolidated into a lifecycle-based framework. The analysis highlights improved visualization, enhanced collaboration and communication, and improved data management as the most versatile and widely applicable BIM functionalities. Additionally, design coordination and clash detection consistently ranked highest, confirming their decisive role in mitigating change orders and design errors. BIM functionalities were perceived by practitioners as addressing a broad range of dispute causes, particularly during the preconstruction and construction phases, where disputes most commonly arise. The emphasis on proactive, rather than reactive, dispute management aligns with global trends advocating for digital transformation in the construction industry. The study offers two key contributions. Theoretically, the study extends BIM’s application beyond design and execution tools to structured mechanisms for dispute mitigation. Methodologically, it integrates literature synthesis, empirical data, and expert assessment, thereby ensuring both rigor and industry relevance. For policy and practice, the findings emphasize the importance of aligning BIM mandates with risk-prone phases of the project lifecycle.

To promote greater BIM adoption for dispute management and accelerate BIM maturity, and to support Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 objectives, several measures are recommended. First, enhance awareness and professional training programs to build BIM competencies among all project stakeholders and establish standardized procedures and Common Data Environments (CDEs) to facilitate consistent data exchange. Second, prioritize the deployment of high-impact BIM functionalities, such as design coordination, clash detection, 4D/5D simulations, and centralized data management, that have demonstrated strong potential to reduce disputes and improve efficiency. Third, integrate BIM practices into contractual frameworks and promote collaboration between government agencies, academic institutions, and industry leaders to ensure regulatory alignment and knowledge transfer. Finally, encourage the use of emerging technologies, including blockchain and automated compliance systems, to strengthen transparency, accountability, and legal robustness in project delivery. Collectively, these measures advance Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 goals of digital transformation, efficiency, and dispute reduction while establishing a clear path toward higher BIM maturity across the construction industry.

6 Limitations and future research directions

This study has several limitations that suggest directions for future research. First, the findings are based on a quantitative survey of contractors and consultants, which may limit the diversity of perspectives. Including additional stakeholders such as project owners, legal experts, and dispute resolution specialists would broaden the scope and enrich the analysis. Also, the limited number of responses may restrict the generalizability of the findings to the entire Saudi construction industry. Mixed-method approaches, incorporating case studies, and interviews, are recommended for future studies to extend and enrich survey-based insights. Second, the research is context-specific to the Saudi Arabian construction sector. Future studies should test the framework in other regions with varying BIM maturity and regulatory environments. Additionally, this study did not differentiate by project type (e.g., residential, commercial, infrastructure). Tailoring dispute mitigation strategies to specific sectors may yield more targeted insights. Furthermore, some dispute categories, such as opportunistic behavior, appeared less impacted by BIM functionalities, suggesting that digital tools alone may be insufficient. Future research could address these gaps through longitudinal or mixed-method studies to better understand the underlying organizational and behavioral factors. Finally, future research should explore how integrating BIM with advanced technologies such as GIS, AI, blockchain, and digital twins can further enhance dispute prevention and project outcomes.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Professor Badr Abdulrahman Aljandan at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

ABM: Investigation, Data curation, Writing – review and editing, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft. AbA: Writing – original draft, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – review and editing, Methodology, Project administration, Conceptualization. MH: Formal Analysis, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Methodology, Supervision, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization. AdA: Formal Analysis, Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Investigation. AMM: Formal Analysis, Resources, Writing – original draft.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) in facilitating this research.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT to improve language clarity and readability of the manuscript. AI tools were also used to assist in exploring and drawing insights from the study’s results. The authors reviewed and edited all content and take full responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the work.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

^{Abbreviations:}BoQ, Bill of Quantities; IPD, Integrated Project Delivery; CDE, Common Data Environments; QTO, Quantity Take-Off; SI, Significance Index; SD, Standard Deviation; CV, Coefficient of Variation; IR, Interpretation Range, R, Rank; HS, High Significance; VHS, Very High Significance.

References

Abd Jamil, A. H., and Fathi, M. S. (2018). Contractual challenges for BIM-based construction projects: a systematic review. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 8 (4), 372–385. doi:10.1108/BEPAM-12-2017-0131