COLLABORATION IN BIM ENABLED DESIGN PROJECTS: EFFECTS OF

There is a growing awareness that the problematic nature of collaboration in construction design projects is further complicated by the use of interoperable information technologies (IT) in Building Information Modelling (BIM) enabled projects. Consequently, there is a need to better understand the ways interoperable IT get involved in inter-disciplinary relations and affect mutual engagement of different design members. Findings from the study of a BIM enabled design project are analysed using the concept of interdependencies in the interactions between practitioners and their organisations. The paper draws a distinction between “model interdependencies” and “design interdependencies” concerned with the IT and the design task respectively. This distinction helps to deal with the complex nature of practice by expressing the different needs people have in their task interactions using technology in organisations. It is concluded that the conflicts between model and design interdependencies cause segregation into separate model development and design development at the organisational level. Project organisations should be aware of this and take necessary social and technological precautions to achieve better design collaboration.

[1]  Jennifer Whyte,et al.  Coordination and control in project‐based work: digital objects and infrastructures for delivery , 2010 .

[2]  N. Luhmann.  Risk: A Sociological Theory , 1993 .

[3]  S. Brusoni,et al.  Unpacking the Black Box of Modularity: Technologies, Products and Organizations , 2001 .

[4]  Joan C. Woodward.  Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice , 1966 .

[5]  Carrie Sturts Dossick,et al.  A CASE STUDY OF THE FAILURE OF DIGITAL COMMUNICATION TO CROSS KNOWLEDGE BOUNDARIES IN VIRTUAL CONSTRUCTION , 2010 .

[6]  Vegard Knotten,et al.  Design Management in the Building Process - A Review of Current Literature , 2015 .

[7]  Carrie Sturts Dossick,et al.  Organizational Divisions in BIM-Enabled Commercial Construction , 2010 .

[8]  Alan MacCormack,et al.  Exploring the Duality between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the Mirroring Hypothesis , 2011 .

[9]  Niraj Thurairajah,et al.  Leveraging collaboration through the use of building information models , 2014 .

[10]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions , 2006 .

[11]  C. Perrow.  A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[12]  Vincent Frigant,et al.  Technological Determinism and Modularity: Lessons from a Comparison between Aircraft and Auto Industries in Europe , 2005 .

[13]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter , 2010, First Monday.

[14]  Jennifer Whyte,et al.  Professionalism in digitally mediated project work , 2013 .

[15]  Jennifer Whyte,et al.  Managing change in the delivery of complex projects: Configuration management, asset information and 'big data' , 2016 .

[16]  Kristina Höök,et al.  Appropriation and creative use: linking user studies and design , 2011, CHI EA '11.

[17]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Reflecting on the Strategy Process , 1999 .

[18]  J. Whyte,et al.  Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as `Epistemic Objects' , 2009 .

[19]  Christoph Merschbrock,et al.  Actors' Freedom Of Enactment In A Loosely Coupled System: The Use Of Building Information Modelling In Construction Projects , 2013, ECIS.

[20]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[21]  Trond Bolviken,et al.  Collaborative Design Management , 2010 .

[22]  Jannis Kallinikos,et al.  The Consequences of Information: Institutional Implications of Technological Change , 2007 .

[23]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Identifying Modular and Integrative Systems and Their Impact on Design Team Interactions , 2003 .

[24]  Jennifer Whyte,et al.  Managing digital coordination of design: emerging hybrid practices in an institutionalized project setting , 2011 .

[25]  Hugh Durrant-Whyte,et al.  Coordination and Control , 2020, Organizational Design.

[26]  Jennifer Whyte,et al.  Beyond the computer: Changing medium from digital to physical , 2013, Inf. Organ..

[27]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  Minding the Gaps: Understanding Technology Interdependence and Coordination in Knowledge Work , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[28]  Silvia Gherardi,et al.  How to Conduct a Practice-based Study: Problems and Methods , 2013 .

[29]  K. Weick.  Technology as equivoque: sensemaking in new technologies , 1990 .

[30]  Bernard Burnes,et al.  Managing Change , 2004 .

[31]  J. Whyte,et al.  Managing change in complex projects : configuration management , asset information and big data , 2017 .

[32]  Nancy Ide,et al.  What Does Interoperability Mean , Anyway ? Toward an Operational Definition of Interoperability for Language Technology , 2010 .

[33]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[34]  Carrie Sturts Dossick,et al.  Messy talk and clean technology: communication, problem-solving and collaboration using Building Information Modelling , 2011 .

[35]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .