Beemsterboer, S and Koch, C (2016) Building information standards: Big data technologies prevented from becoming big in building. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
The increased use of BIM in the building sector have led certain actors to commence riding on the Big Data hype. Big Data techniques allow the use of unstructured data alongside structured data to an extent that was previously impossible. We use STS approaches to conceptualise and criticise the potential of Big Data applications in building. Crucially, opportunities are strongly guided by the data that is collected about buildings, and thus by the understanding of what a building is. Building information standards are viewed as performative, as sociomaterial and its becoming as a process of power, politics and emerging interests. The empirical material stems from a study of hospital projects in Denmark, Sweden and Norway.Concentrating on a Danish classification standard, our analysis shows several performative aspects. The empirical material reflects three particular ways in which a building can be understood: First, there is a focus on the internal structure of a building as a product and less on the process that leads to making a product. This can be interpreted as a reconstitution of the architect and engineering firm regime in the Danish building industry at the expense of contractors' interests among others. Second, a systems theory approach to building structure understands building components as having “functions”. This approach aligns well with the installation part of the building, but does not always apply easily to other building components. Third, delimitations within which information standards propose to collect data implies a focus on building component as material over components being economical entities. Furthermore, it disregards understandings of a building at a more aggregate level as part an agglomeration of buildings.On this background we discuss whether the building information standard, meant to be a Big Data technology enabler, might become a barrier for Big Data.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | big data; classification; performativity; standardisation; sts. |
| Index terms: | architect, standardization, building industry, building component, Denmark, systems theory, becoming, performativity, Norway, Sweden, politics, unstructured data, aggregate, big data, engineering firm |
| Subjects: | materials science, profession, data science, social theory and frameworks, firms, Geography, theoretical framing, architectural elements, performance measurement, philosophical process, industry analysis, information systems, political science |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Governance, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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