Dossick, C S and Neff, G (2010) Organizational divisions in BIM-enabled commercial construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(4), pp. 459-467. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Proponents claim that the adoption of building information modeling (BIM) will lead to greater efficiencies through increased collaboration. In this paper, we present research that examines the use of BIM technologies for mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire life safety systems (often referred to as MEP) coordination and how the introduction of BIM influences collaboration and communication. Using data from over 12 months of ethnographic observations of the MEP coordination process for two commercial construction projects and interviews with 65 industry leaders across the United States, we find that BIM-enabled projects are often tightly coupled technologically, but divided organizationally. This means that while BIM makes visible the connections among project members, it is not fostering closer collaboration across different companies. We outline the competing obligations to scope, project, and company as one cause for this division. Obligations to an individual scope of work or to a particular company can conflict with project goals. Individual leadership, especially that of the MEP coordinator in the teams we studied, often substitutes for stronger project cohesion and organization. Organizational forces and structures must be accounted for in order for BIM to be implemented successfully.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communication; constructability; electrical systems; information systems; information technology; integrated systems; leadership; mechanical systems |
| Index terms: | mechanical system, coordination, plumbing, constructability, integrated system, commercial construction, efficiency, building information modelling, information technology, information system, collaboration, cohesion, United States, interview |
| Subjects: | Geography, construction integration, performance management, management, structural engineering, information systems, computing systems, design methods, mechanical systems, data collection methods, construction type |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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