Cidik M S, B D T N (2013) Understanding the polarized perspectives in BIM enabled projects. In: Smith, S D and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (eds.) Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK.
Abstract
Successful implementation and use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) require consideration of people issues. Two polarised views of BIM are shown from the literature based on technology-centred or human-centred perspectives each of which acknowledges the other but subsumes this into their view. Indeed it is the way that each adopts the other that is problematic. This paper demonstrates that acknowledging these differences and working with them better addresses the management of the implementation of BIM. Empirical findings, from in-depth interviews in a multi-disciplinary engineering company, show that individuals use BIM but are confused by its role depending on their job and perspective. Given this, collaboration and development are held back by the un-expressed differences. It is argued that recognising these differences and using them in a balanced way is essential for the successful adoption of BIM.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | BIM; human-centred; technology-centred; implementation; development |
| Index terms: | building information modelling, interview, collaboration, implementation |
| Subjects: | management, information systems, data collection methods, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Digital Applications |
| 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