Gerbov, A; Singh, V and Herva, M (2018) Challenges in applying design research studies to assess benefits of BIM in infrastructure projects: Reflections from Finnish case studies. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(1), pp. 2-20. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a reflective assessment on a research project aimed at applying design research methodologies to understand the benefits of building information modelling (BIM) in infrastructure design projects, a context where design research has not been applied adequately. Design/methodology/approach The findings reported in this paper are based on a reflective diary and reporting by the researchers on the challenges and barriers they faced in a research project that involved four case studies. The data in the case studies were collected from project documentation, questionnaire surveys, interviews and workshops. Sentiment analysis was conducted to assess the research participants' perceptions. Findings Several challenges faced during the research study forced changes to the research process as well as adjustments to the research objectives. From the original objective of quantitatively measuring the benefits of BIM in the design process, the objective was shifted to measuring qualitatively how the designers' perceived the benefits. There was evident lack of shared understanding between the researchers and industry partners about the scope of design research and design in infrastructure projects. Research limitations/implications The findings are based on the studies in one country, and the reflective assessment could have researchers' bias in terms of their interpretation and experience. Practical implications The presented findings and the lessons learnt from the research will be useful for others planning to conduct similar studies, because they are likely to encounter similar problems. The recommendations will benefit both the industry as well as the academia in bridging the gap between design theory and practice. Originality/value This paper primarily focusses on the challenges and barriers to conducting empirical research, especially from the viewpoints of a young researcher aiming to adopt design research methodology in infrastructure design projects. While the reported challenges may be widespread in similar research projects, they have not been the focus of research themselves, and are often sidelined. The primary contribution of this research is to identify and bring the key barriers and challenges to the forefront.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design management; methodology; case study; building information modelling |
| Index terms: | methodology, design management, bias, project documentation, questionnaire, interview, design process, survey, diary, reflection, academia, research methodology, infrastructure project, building information modelling, case study, workshop, designer |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, information systems, educational institutions, probability and distributions, professional development, design process, research methods, project planning, design methods, data collection methods, construction type, profession, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Education |
| 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