Jowett, B; Edwards, D J and Kassem, M (2024) Field BIM and mobile BIM technologies: A requirements taxonomy and its interactions with construction management functions. Construction Innovation, 24(1), pp. 134-163. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to develop a taxonomy of requirements for mobile BIM technologies (MBT), clarify the relating terms and concepts, and identify the interactions between MBT features and the construction management functions on sites. Design/methodology/approach: A positivist approach with elements of interpretivism is adopted to allow to capture what is perceived as “reality” in relation to individuals’ interpretation and experience in the use and implementation of MBT. This is achieved by using a mixed qualitative-quantitative approach that can capture the various understandings of MBT. The research methods included a longitudinal case study over 12 months, two project workshops, expert interviews and an industry survey that together helped to investigate MBT at project, enterprise and industry levels. Findings: The MBT requirements taxonomy included requirements relating to both project and organisation. Project requirements addressed MBT functionalities for sites and information management, while organisation requirements focused on the integration of MBT solutions with the enterprise from information technology, legal and security perspectives. A detailed matrix showing the interactions between five key MBT features and seven construction management functions was also developed. Research limitations/implications: The two constructs developed by this study can help researchers to structure their investigation of key uses of MBT applications and their benefits. It can be used by researchers aiming to investigate integrated approaches to the digitalisation of construction sites, such as those enabled by Digital Twins. The interaction matrix can aid researchers in evaluating the intersections between the MBT functionalities and the site construction management functions (e.g. theoretical analysis of interactions from Lean Construction, benefit evaluation perspective). More broadly, the two constructs can support research and practice investigating the development of data-driven approaches on construction sites. Practical implications: The developed MBT taxonomy can guide construction organisations in selecting suitable MBT for Field BIM for their projects. It can also act as a baseline against which varying MBT solutions can be compared. Originality/value: Constructs such as taxonomies for MBTs; an understanding of MBT capabilities and use within the industry; and a lack of delineation between related terms, such as Mobile BIM, Field BIM, Site BIM, Cloud BIM and Mobile Apps, were lacking in the literature. This study contributed to addressing this gap.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling; field building information modelling; mobile building information modelling technology |
| Index terms: | interview, taxonomy, information technology, functionality, interpretivism, building information modelling, survey, investigation, construction organization, taxonomies, lean construction, methodology, integration, interaction, workshop, digital twin, digitalization, implementation, integrated approach, construction site, case study |
| Subjects: | information systems, organization, digital technology, data collection methods, design features, data analysis and analytics, theoretical framing, work location, research methods, digital engineering, building construction, behavioral psychology, contractual arrangements, computing systems, knowledge organization and systems, construction type, organizational analysis |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Site Management, Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Information Management, Procurement, Design Practice |
| 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