Dainty, A; Leiringer, R; Fernie, S and Harty, C (2017) BIM and the small construction firm: A critical perspective. Building Research & Information, 45(6), pp. 696-709. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The need for technological and administrative innovation is a recurrent theme in the UK construction-reform agenda, but generic improvement recipes are beginning to give way to a more focused prescription: building information modelling (BIM). The current strategy is to mandate the use of BIM for government projects as a way of integrating the design, construction and operation of publicly procured buildings. This aspiration represents a partial turn away from a focus on managerialist agendas towards a belief in the power of digital practices to achieve the aspiration of integrated working, collaboration and innovation, a trend that is being reflected globally in relation to both national and firm-level policy interventions. This paper subjects this so-called 'BIM revolution' to critical scrutiny. By drawing on theories of the digital divide, a critical discourse is developed around the ways in which political reform agendas centred on BIM might not stimulate innovation on a wider scale, but could act to disenfranchise small firms that are unable (or unwilling) to engage with them. This critical analysis presents important new research questions around the technocratic optimism that pervades the current reform discourse, the trajectory of industry development that it creates and the policy process itself.;The need for technological and administrative innovation is a recurrent theme in the UK construction-reform agenda, but generic improvement recipes are beginning to give way to a more focused prescription: building information modelling (BIM). The current strategy is to mandate the use of BIM for government projects as a way of integrating the design, construction and operation of publicly procured buildings. This aspiration represents a partial turn away from a focus on managerialist agendas towards a belief in the power of digital practices to achieve the aspiration of integrated working, collaboration and innovation, a trend that is being reflected globally in relation to both national and firm-level policy interventions. This paper subjects this so-called BIM revolution' to critical scrutiny. By drawing on theories of the digital divide, a critical discourse is developed around the ways in which political reform agendas centred on BIM might not stimulate innovation on a wider scale, but could act to disenfranchise small firms that are unable (or unwilling) to engage with them. This critical analysis presents important new research questions around the technocratic optimism that pervades the current reform discourse, the trajectory of industry development that it creates and the policy process itself.;The need for technological and administrative innovation is a recurrent theme in the UK construction-reform agenda, but generic improvement recipes are beginning to give way to a more focused prescription: building information modelling (BIM). The current strategy is to mandate the use of BIM for government projects as a way of integrating the design, construction and operation of publicly procured buildings. This aspiration represents a partial turn away from a focus on managerialist agendas towards a belief in the power of digital practices to achieve the aspiration of integrated working, collaboration and innovation, a trend that is being reflected globally in relation to both national and firm-level policy interventions. This paper subjects this so-called 'BIM revolution' to critical scrutiny. By drawing on theories of the digital divide, a critical discourse is developed around the ways in which political reform agendas centred on BIM might not stimulate innovation on a wider scale, but could act to disenfranchise small firms that are unable (or unwilling) to engage with them. This critical analysis presents important new research questions around the technocratic optimism that pervades the current reform discourse, the trajectory of industry development that it creates and the policy process itself.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling; policy implementation; small and medium-sized enterprises; policy formation; critical discourse; self-employment; innovation; industrial development; building components |
| Index terms: | policy process, building component, industry development, policy implementation, prescription, collaboration, policy formation, self-employment, digital divide, drawing, industrial development, small construction firm, strategy, government project, mandate, building information modelling |
| Subjects: | policy studies, organization, construction type, technical documentation, digital technology, management, medical science and clinical practice, architectural elements, business economics, information systems, political science, administrative law |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Governance, Construction Technology, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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