Aksenova, G; Kiviniemi, A; Kocaturk, T and Lejeune, A (2019) From Finnish AEC knowledge ecosystem to business ecosystem: Lessons learned from the national deployment of BIM. Construction Management and Economics, 37(6), pp. 317-335. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Government actors, public agencies, industry and academics have struggled to change the rules of the existing business ecosystem to support the networked practices that were envisioned back in the 1980s with the introduction of building information modelling (BIM). Despite the industry’s far-reaching technological capabilities, BIM has primarily assumed productivity improvement by individual firms, which has not lead to a systemic change in the Finnish architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) business ecosystem. A field study of the Finnish AEC industry has resulted in a critical understanding of why successful and intensive R&D at a national level and wide adoption of BIM technology in Finland has not led to the expected systemic evolution of its AEC business ecosystem. Additionally, a methodology based on inductive grounded theory and historical analysis has been used to capture and identify the evolving and dynamic relationships between various events and actors between 1965 and 2015, which, in turn, has aided in the identification and characterisation of the knowledge and innovation ecosystems. The research findings provide insights for BIM researchers and governments in terms of establishing new policies that will better align BIM adoption with the systemic evolution of business practices in the AEC business ecosystem.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; building information modelling; building information modelling adoption; business ecosystem; engineering and construction industry; grounded theory; policy development |
| Index terms: | field study, agency, lessons learned, technological capability, methodology, evolution, Finland, grounded theory, productivity, building information modelling, construction industry |
| Subjects: | Geography, professional development, theoretical framing, management, research methods, industry analysis, information systems, sociology, innovation and technology management, environmental science |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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