Zomer, T; Neely, A and Parlikad, A (2020) Institutional pressures and decoupling in construction projects: An analysis of building information modelling implementation. In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 36th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-8 September 2020, Online Event, UK.
Abstract
Many countries are currently developing strategies and mandates in an attempt to integrate their industries with the use of building information modelling (BIM), which has been acknowledged as an enabler of the construction industry transformation agenda. However, evidence has shown that this transformation has been slower than expected. Moreover, although adoption of BIM in these countries has gradually increased, there have been claims that improved performance has not always been achieved. In this paper, we investigate BIM implementation and the transformation of the construction industry by drawing on an integration of institutional and practice theories. We theorise the change process and differences in responses to environmental pressures through the concept of decoupling. We rely on ethnographic methods to investigate BIM implementation in practice, integrating observations, interviews and document analyses of nine BIM projects. Through inductive analysis of the data, our findings uncover two varieties of decoupling phenomena occurring in construction projects—policy–practice and means–end decoupling—and a range of antecedents of those phenomena at both the organisational and industry levels. The results show that decoupling from policy or symbolic adoption of practices occurs for reasons that include lack of experience, resources and knowledge. Decoupling between means and ends (achievement of a policy’s envisaged goals) or symbolic implementation occurs mostly because of the influence of institutionalised structures, including sociohistorical rules, norms, workflows and division of work. Consistent with practice theory, our results reveal that the achievement of outcomes depends not only on the adoption of policies and their practices (the 'what'), but also 'how' those practices are actually enacted. Our findings contribute both to the construction management literature, by illuminating more realistic views of the conditions surrounding BIM and overall innovation implementations, and to the broader management literature, by revealing new facets of decoupling phenomena at an inter-organisational level.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling; institutional theory; policy implementation |
| Index terms: | practice theory, strategy, drawing, document analysis, transformation, decoupling, interview, mandate, building information modelling, institutional pressure, institutional theory, workflow, construction industry, implementation, norms, construction project, integration, policy implementation, evidence |
| Subjects: | production management, management, theoretical framing, industry analysis, information systems, political science, systems engineering, organizational analysis, sociology, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, policy studies, business, data science, contractual arrangements, technical documentation |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Governance, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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