Towards 3D-enabled urban land administration: strategic lessons from the BIM initiative in Singapore

Abstract Over the last 15 years, there has been great interest and commensurate momentum in the land administration industry on realising the notion of ‘3D cadastres’. This leverages 3D digital technologies for producing, managing, registering and communicating information about complex, volumetrically defined land and property rights, restrictions and responsibilities (RRRs) that are commonly found in cities and urban areas around the world. There has been significant technical progress but implementation remains uncertain. This paper draws on research conducted on the implementation of 3D Building Information Models (BIM) for regulatory processes in the land development industry in Singapore to illustrate the range of strategies used to induce change in an instance of 3D digital innovation. The adoption of institutional theory as an analytical framework provides insight into the cultural and behavioural underpinnings of these strategies and what makes them particularly effective in producing a positive response to change. Given the similarity in the institutional characteristics of the land development and land administration industries, the case study findings are used to develop a framework of strategic principles that could conceivably be used to support ongoing international efforts to realise 3D cadastres.

[1]  R. Burgess In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research , 1984 .

[2]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Institutional Factors in Information Technology Innovation , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[3]  F. Bjorck,et al.  Institutional theory: a new perspective for research into IS/IT security in organisations , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[4]  D. Silverman Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction , 1994 .

[5]  Eric K. Clemons,et al.  What Every Business Student Needs to Know About Information Systems , 2002, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[6]  G. Dosi Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation , 1988 .

[7]  Jens Beckert Agency, Entrepreneurs, and Institutional Change. The Role of Strategic Choice and Institutionalized Practices in Organizations , 1999 .

[8]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  The Theory of Economic Development , 2017 .

[9]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Review: Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value , 2004, MIS Q..

[10]  Wendy L. Currie,et al.  Contextualising the IT artefact: towards a wider research agenda for IS using institutional theory , 2009, Inf. Technol. People.

[11]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations , 2011 .

[12]  K. Nelson,et al.  Technology, institutions, and innovation systems , 2002 .

[13]  J. Hollingsworth,et al.  Doing institutional analysis: implications for the study of innovations , 2000 .

[14]  Robert G. Fichman,et al.  Going Beyond the Dominant Paradigm for Information Technology Innovation Research: Emerging Concepts and Methods , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[15]  C. Oliver STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES , 1991 .

[16]  W. Scott Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests , 2007 .

[17]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[18]  Andrew J. Hoffman,et al.  INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION AND CHANGE: ENVIRONMENTALISM AND THE US CHEMICAL INDUSTRY , 1999 .

[19]  W. Scott,et al.  Institutions and Organizations. , 1995 .

[20]  Andrew D. Brown Narrative, Politics and Legitimacy in an IT Implimentation , 1998 .

[21]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[22]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  The Role of Intermediating Institutions in the Diffusion of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): How Industry Associations Intervened in Denmark, Finland, and Hong Kong , 2001, Inf. Soc..

[23]  R. Solow TECHNICAL CHANGE AND THE AGGREGATE PRODUCTION FUNCTION , 1957 .

[24]  Sten Jönsson Institutions and Organizations , 1997 .

[25]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality , 1984 .

[26]  Raymond Williams Culture and materialism : selected essays , 2005 .

[27]  David A. Nadler,et al.  The organization of the future: Strategic imperatives and core competencies for the 21st century , 1999 .

[28]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[29]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  Path Creation in Digital Innovation: A Multi-Layered Dialectics Perspective , 2009 .

[30]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Institutions supporting technical change in the United States , 1988 .

[31]  G. Dosi Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .

[32]  W. Richard Scott Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems , 1981 .

[33]  Andrew Hargadon,et al.  When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light , 2001 .

[34]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  K. Guy,et al.  Innovation and competitiveness: a review , 1998 .

[36]  Pamela S. Tolbert,et al.  Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution , 1997 .

[37]  G. Dosi Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories , 1993 .

[38]  John L. Dettbarn,et al.  Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. , 2004 .