An ethnographically informed analysis of design intent communication in BIM-enabled architectural practice

The dissertation presents the findings of an ethnographic study that was conducted with the aim of developing a deep understanding of how design intent is communicated in building information model (BIM)-enabled practice in the context of an architectural project. The dissertation study was based on the broad question: what are the affordances and limitations that exist in BIM-enabled architectural practice in terms of communicating design intent among teams of designers working in interdisciplinary collaborative environments? The study also addressed related issues such as: do the current exchange mechanisms in BIM convey what design teams really intended? Is there critical design knowledge resulting from the argumentative process that is not conveyed using BIM data exchange capabilities and authoring tools? How is the knowledge that is produced in internal design thinking sessions, meetings or informal communication transferred to other participants? To what extent should that information be embedded in the shared building model? How effective is a shared building model in practice in terms of communicating product data, design decisions, tacit knowledge and expertise? To what extent is it hindered by tool complexity, learning challenges, the need to express some forms of communication informally, and the urge to address flexibility in design? The major conclusions of the dissertation include the following: (1) affordances and limitations of BIM differ according to individuals, disciplines and communities. Affordances included affordances with respect to the tool such as visualization capacity and parametric flexibility, and affordances with respect to collaboration such as coordination of information and conflict resolution. Limitations included incompatibility among tools, the cost of 3D modeling for participants and teams, the need for supplementary representations and communication channels, and conceptualization limitations; (2) the communication of design intent involves not only interdisciplinary interaction between architects and consultants, but multiple and overlapping communities of practice that embrace interdisciplinary, intradisciplinary and non-disciplinary interaction, in addition to emergent communities that develop along the course of a project, focus on specific issues and involve members of different communities, (3) the BIM model can be described in terms of states that denote the level of its completeness and correctness and that describe how effective it is in conveying and capturing the intent of participants in the context of their practices and interactions. These states underscore issues such as the potentially unconscious design decisions imposed by the rigid structure of BIM tools, the incorrect modeling of building elements due to inexperience with tools, the loss or misrepresentation of information among participants due to incompatibilities between tools and interoperability problems, the lack of standard conventions for building elements that facilitate understanding the information needs of other participants, the partial representation of building model elements for the purpose of efficiency and reduction of modeling load, the ruling out of some of the underlying assumptions embedded within modeling or analysis tools, the required channels of communication external to the process of model exchange, and the need for forms of representation to supplement the BIM model for better conceptualization; (4) the shared BIM model can be represented partially as a boundary object with different relative weights and meanings in each design stage and for each community of practice. It represented a different value for members of different communities; (5) the BIM model presented an amplification of the participation and reification processes in the workplace; multi-membership and mutual recognition among participants belonging to different and overlapping communities of practice augmented the sense of participation, while the model provided different values and levels of interpretation fo members of different primary and secondary communities of practice through reification; (6) in principle, the BIM model as a shared repository of information and a boundary object is assumed to take into account all participation and reification activities. However, the convoluted meaning making processes, and the goals, needs and intentions of multi-member communities entail much more interaction patterns that are not necessarily captured in current BIM systems; and (7) the differences in multi-memberships, values of BIM for different members, participation and reification activities, and the structure of primary and secondary communities of practice, should all be accounted for in technology development efforts in the larger population of AEC firms and practices. (Abstract shortened by UMI. )