van Manen, M; olde Scholtenhuis, L and Voordijk, H (2022) Empirically validating five propositions regarding 3D visualizations for subsurface utility projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(6), pp. 2535-2553. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to empirically validate five propositions about the benefits of three-dimensional (3D) visualizations for the management of subsurface utility projects. Specifically, the authors validate whether benefits from 3D in the literature of building construction project management also apply to subsurface utility projects and map them using a taxonomy of project complexity levels. Design/methodology/approach: A multiple case study of three utility construction projects was carried out during which the first author was involved in the daily work practices at a utility contractor. 3D visualizations of existing project models were developed, and design and construction meetings were conducted. Practitioners' interactions with and reflections on these 3D visualizations were noted. Observational data from the three project types were matched with the five propositions to determine where benefits of 3D visualizations manifested themselves. Findings: Practitioners found that 3D visualizations had most merit in crowded urban environments when constructing rigid pipelines. All propositions were validated and evaluated as beneficial in subsurface utility projects of complexity level C3. It is shown that in urban projects with rigid pipelines (project with the highest complexity level), 3D visualization prevents misunderstanding or misinterpretations and increases efficiency of coordination. It is recommended to implement 3D visualization approaches in such complex projects Originality/value: There is only limited evidence on the value 3D visualizations in managing utility projects. This study contributes rich empirical evidence on this value based on a six-month observation period at a subsurface contractor. Their merit was assessed by associating 3D approaches with project complexity levels, which may help utility contractors in strategically implementing 3D applications.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | computer-aided design; subsurface utilities; three-dimensional visualization; underground construction |
| Index terms: | building construction, complexity, urban environment, project complexity, visualization, 3D visualization, practitioner, evidence, computer aided design, methodology, construction project, work practice, utilities, case study, pipeline, efficiency, project management, coordination, interaction, underground construction, taxonomy, complex project, design and construction, reflection |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, strategic project management, visualization, urban sustainability, practitioner, construction type, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, computational design, infrastructure and transport systems, systems engineering, behavioral psychology, geotechnical engineering, building construction, organizational theory, production management, project management theory and practice, professional development, management, design practice, performance management, research methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Quality Management, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Procurement, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here