Datta, A; Ninan, J and Sankaran, S (2020) 4D visualization to bridge the knowing-doing gap in megaprojects: An Australian case study. Construction Economics and Building, 20(4), pp. 25-41. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
The literature on megaprojects are oriented towards 'knowing' the problems and 'knowing' the solutions, and there is a dearth in literature aimed at explaining strategies adopted in 'doing' or implementing that knowledge. Particularly, the literature highlights communication as important as part of the 'knowing,' while there is a gap in 'doing,' as performance improvements are still not evident. This research aims to explore how this knowing-doing gap in the communication of risk information was addressed by using 4D visualization. This article discusses the vent facility of a megaproject in Australia as a case study to illustrate the innovation. The 4D model developed for the facility helped the project team to visualize the construction of a critical part of the project, discuss the construction methodology, identify the risks in the construction process and persuade the non-technical decision-makers of the project to take appropriate action. The risks identified through the visualization covered safety, program, and interface risks. This study offers insights into the role of visualization in bridging the knowing-doing gap in the construction industry in the context of a megaproject.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | 4D visualization; megaprojects; knowing-doing gap; risk management. |
| Index terms: | megaproject, project team, visualization, construction industry, risk management, program, construction process, performance improvement, methodology, Australia, strategy, 4D visualization, case study |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, risk assessment, project delivery, strategic project management, visualization, Geography, software systems, research methods, management, design practice, performance measurement, industry analysis, building construction |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Risk Management, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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