Comparison of STS Analytical Frameworks and Influence on BIM Implementation

The various STS theoretical frameworks can guide in understanding the sociotechnical requirements for innovation activities in organisational contexts. These approaches tend to look at innovation activities from different levels (i.e., level of abstraction), examine it from different empirical cases and apply different conceptual tools and so may get very different pictures of it. Table 3.2 summarises the differences amongst these STS analytical frameworks. In many cases they complement each other and enrich the understanding of innovation development, adaptation, and utilisation

The key findings from the STS reviews show that the different theoretical approaches to STS analysis are not alternative approaches. Rather they suit different analytical purposes. For example, the ANT approach is particularly suited to networks which are looser in the sense of being less directed towards a designated outcome, whereas, the STC approach is more suitable to analysing the processes of innovation where a particular outcome is privileged (example being, STC alignment where effective utilisation of BIM is the ultimate goal). While they are conceptualised to serve different analytical purposes, the STS analytical frameworks complement each other in many ways. While SCOT, ANT, LSM and STC focus on the dynamics of social change, SSM and ATF focus on how the individual is shaped by (and shapes) the nonhuman actors that are available in the work system.

Some are particularly conceptualised at multiple dimension, traversing multiple layers of social and technical constituents, particularly ANT and STC, where they are often utilised for multilevel analysis e.g., individual, intra- and inter-organisational network/constituents. Some are also often, utilised at a single level for analysis e.g., WSM and SSM. And yet, others can equally be used for single or inter-level sociotechnical analysis, e.g., LSM.

Some of the STS conceptual frameworks are biased either towards social construction or technological determinism. SSM and SCOT for example, lean towards social constructivism. SSM in a way was developed to contest the hard system mindset. Some however advocate for mutual adaptation for both the socio and the technical. STCs position on mutual shaping is similar to that of ANT, LSM, DCF and ATF: ANT allows one to introduce shades in the character of agency in human and the artefacts while maintaining their equal status and mutual constitution. ANT argues that artefacts are the glue that holds the social together (Latour 1991). The interaction between humans and artefacts is not neutral, both are

99

transformed by it. In this mutual interaction artefacts become part of the network identity. Likewise, LSM points to mutual constitution or co-development of work system’s sociotechnical component in order to maintain equilibrium. STC also talks about sociotechnical alignment, whilst LSM talks about sociotechnical equilibrium, balance and deep structure. Both DCF and ATF emphasise the importance of mutual shaping at the mental or cognitive level. They argue that artefacts do not simply facilitate certain activities or mental/cognitive functions, they shape and transform them, and they transform the ways in which one interacts with, and think about, the world.

STC holds that artefacts are socially constituted; that is, their patterns or governance is not uniform across different constituencies. This means, when a new artefact is introduced, there is a potential of misalignment which calls for appropriation or realignment. LSM holds similar view to that of STC, however, with LSM, there is constant interaction and each of the contextual elements (actors, structure, task and technology) can cause disequilibrium of the system’s deep structure at any given time. SCOT also calls for interpretive flexibility of artefacts by relevant social groups until closure and stabilisation is achieved. While SSM advocates the need for relevant social groups to engage in a structured debate to develop purposeful activity system about desirable and feasible change to accommodate perceived real-world problems.

The various frameworks indicate that the development, adaptation and appropriation of innovation products and processes occur in a sociotechnical context. The context or constituency in which the technology is introduced will readapt itself in order to remain in equilibrium, or fall apart, but it will not remain unchanged (Latour, 1991; Winner, 1993; Suchman, 2000; Callon, 1986). Thus, being seamlessly located in a sociotechnical context, the use of BIM in the workplace will affect the practices and the routines of users; it may also increase the inter-organisational communication and relationships with other BIM users, vendors, and policy makers. The implementing organisation, the products developers and the construction organisations are connected in different ways and each one of these constituents has to adapt to the others and the distinction between them are reconstituted.

As shown in Table 3.2, some of the STS analytical frameworks have been applied within the AEC contexts. For instance, to provide theoretical understanding of the implementation and use of innovations within construction contexts, Harty (2008) mobilises the ANT approach to emphasise the roles that both human actors and non‐human agents play in the performance and outcomes of interactions. Drawing on empirical material from the implementation of new

100

design and coordination technologies on a large construction project he further argued that both the rhetoric of the ‘improvement agenda’ within construction and theories of innovation fail to account for the complex contexts and disparate perspectives which characterize construction work. The ANT-informed approach treats both the innovation and the appropriation as processes of translation within networks through the manoeuvres of various actors for increased influence on technological artefacts (Harty, 2010; Sage et al., 2011). Schweber & Harty (2010) delineated the types of insights which the SCOT approach offers for research into the built environment. This approach is distinctive for its analysis of the technical and social as mutually constituted within sociotechnical network. From the SCOT perspective, Schweber & Harty (2010) draw out the ways in which the content, meaning and use of technology is negotiated in practice, how particular technical configurations are elaborated in response to specific problems and why certain paths or solutions are adopted rather than others. Linderoth & Pellegrino (2005) also use the concept of SCOT to create a framework for describing the technology and its role in the process of IT-dependent change project, thereby developing a deeper knowledge about the implications for management of IT-dependent change projects. The SCOT approach is thus offered to be particularly relevant for research into the development and use of construction technologies.

Perry (1997) also draws from the theoretical underpinning of cognitive science within the analytic framework of distributed cognition in an interdisciplinary study of design performance in the construction industry. Perry’s (1997) findings demonstrated how design processes operate simultaneously at personal, organisational and inter-organisational levels. The study demonstrates that the DCF can be used in the analysis of cognition within a setting involving multiple individuals in concert with technological artefacts.

101

Table 3.2 Summary of STS analytical frameworks

No STS analytical frameworks

Framework Units of analysis Sociotechnical

constituents

Reference Application in the

AEC sector

1 ANT Centering on network of

human actors and non-human actants

Connections and reconfiguration of social

(actors) and technical (actants) as agencies to shape networks

Social artefacts and technical artefacts in a network

Callon, 1986; Callon & Law, 1982; Law and Hassard, 1999

Harty 2008; Harty 2010; Sage et al., 2011

2 SCOT Centering on the ‘seamless web’ of the social, technical, economic, and political aspects of innovation development, adaptation and use

Groups and social interaction to the understanding of social shaping of technology

Interpretive flexibility, relevant social group,

closure and stabilisation, and wider social context

Bijker, et al., 2012; Pinch & Bijker, 1987

Linderoth & Pellegrino, 2005; Schweber & Harty, 2010

3 DCF Centering on integrating

cognitive acts in the context of attaining a common goal

Cognitive system composed of internal /actors cognition and cognitive artefacts

Human actors, cognitive artefacts, mediating structures Hutchins, 1995; Hollan et al., 2000; Perry, 1997

4 ATF Centering on purposeful

direction of the subject-object domain mediated by tools and community through rules and division of labour

The whole of the work activity broken into analytical components of subject (person), object (intended activity) and tool (mediating device by which the action is executed)

Subjects, objects, mediating artefacts, rules, community and division of labour

Vygotsky, 1978; Kuutti, 1996

Martin & Hartmann, 2010

5 LSM Centering on the alignment of the four aspects (actor, structure, task and technology)

Alignment and mutual dependence of component in work system’s context

Actors, structure, task and technology Leavitt, 1964; Lyytinen & Newman, 2008; Lyytinen & Sackey et al., in press

102

Damsgaard, 2001 6 WSM Centering on describing work

activities and prescribing time dependent work design

IT-reliant work activities work practices, participants,

information and technologies

Alter, 2006, 2010; 2013

7 SSM Centering on solutions to real world problem situations which conflicting interest can find to be both desirable and feasible

Finding common grounds

between people’s conflicting goals and real

world problem situation

Problem situation, purposeful activities, desirable and feasible action Checkland, 1984; Checkland & Scholes, 1990 Maqsood et al., 2001; Finegan, 2010

8 STC Centering on interrelation and adaptation of social and technical factors in a constituency building process

Sociotechnical

constituencies of technical, socioeconomic, political and cultural influences in a diamond of alignment

Constituents’

perceptions, goals and resources, and nature and maturity of technologies

Molina (1990; 1998; 1997); Molina & Kinder (1999)

103

The appropriateness of the activity theory as yet another STS analytical approach to technology uptake in the AEC context is highlighted by (Martin & Hartmann, 2010). They highlighted that the ATF appears to better encapsulate the underlying dynamics by linking individuals to the tools they use, the values and belief systems they adhere to, and the community (organisational) patterns they are part of. In particular, this proves to be of use for an analysis of micro-level processes, linking back to macro level circumstances within the multilevel nature of the construction organisation setting.

Sackey et al. (in press) adopted LSM to understand and analyse BIM implementation in a multidisciplinary construction context. The LSM helps to depict the mutual dependency in the STS frames of actors, structure, technology and tasks-in particular, pinpointing significant issues requiring management attention during BIM uptake. Their study reveals that the interrelations among the STS elements are the main drivers that depict work systems’ disruption, maintenance and stability in attempting to engender BIM work practice (Sackey et al., in press).

Maqsood et al. (2001) also illustrated the approach of applying SSM to problems of knowledge management in construction project management, especially those confusing situation associated with the human, organisational and technical aspect of the work system. They concluded that the SSM approach is ideal as a group decision-making approach and is ideal for analysing the construction setting by the active participation of different participants and stakeholders and encourages joint ownership of the problem solving process. Thus, it is more appropriate for organisations seeking to achieve changes in workplace culture and transformation into a learning organisation as it encourages joint ownership of the problem solving process (Finegan, 2010). This research study aims to draw freely from the sociotechnical systems frameworks as deemed fit to inform the analysis of the findings. Thereby help to build on the existing conceptual tools to develop a new framework for analysing sociotechnical alignment for BIM uptake in construction organisations. Miles & Huberman (1994) distinguish between two types of theoretical frameworks. One is classified as tight and prestructured — the other as loose and emergent. Bryman & Burgess (1994) state that analytical framework provides the researcher with a set of general guidelines. In aiming at theory development, the researcher needs to be open to the multitude of meanings that a certain concept can give rise to. Thus, the study adopts a “tight and emergent” STS theoretical framework (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). The tightness reflects the preconception of, and the degree to which the STS theoretical frameworks have been articulated, whilst the emergent indicates that the theoretical framework would evolve simultaneously and successively with empirical observations. The successive refinement of

104

concepts implies that they constitute input, as well as output of an abductive study, where empirical information inspires changes of the theoretical viewpoint and vice versa.

Focussing on the various conceptual platforms of the STS analytical frameworks provide an ideal focus point to determine the influence of BIM, as a socially constructed and socially shaping cognitive technology and how it impacts the changing construction context. Studying BIM uptake in construction context via the lenses of STS makes possible the different assumptions that are negotiated by the different actors and how they are inscribed into the innovation process and product to influence the appropriation and stabilisation of the technologies. Drawing on the current STS analytical frameworks will guide in understanding the requirements for innovation assemblage and the consequence of mutual adaptation that might occur during BIM uptake in construction contexts.

Although these STS analytical frameworks as discussed above, such as LSM (Leavitt, 1964) and STC (Molina, 1998) are important in explaining the complex STS requirement for innovation activities in organisations, they are not particularly developed to suit the construction context. These approaches tend to examine innovation activities from different empirical cases and organisational contexts and so may get very different pictures of it in enriching the understanding of innovation development, adaptation, and utilisation. It seems Molina’s STC framework is reasonably well defined and sufficiently broad for analysing STS implications in the construction context. Also, it provides a structured and systematic ways of analysing multiple constituents with localised visions and ambitions in a ‘diamond of alignment’ by establishing a consensus on holistic ambitions situated on feasible and purposeful activities. Although Molina’s STC is comparatively suitable to the construction context due to its multilevel considerations (e.g., causal linkage of constituency at organisational projects, BIM vendor levels etc.) nonetheless, Molina’s diamond of alignment is not particularly structured according to the configuration or the arrangement of construction organisations. As such, there is a need to further extend the STC theory in this study to provide a potential framework for analysing BIM- enabled work practices in the construction environment. Chapter five therefore synthesises the STC with the exploratory findings and other STS analytic concepts to help establish an optimal fit between the STC’s concept of ‘diamond of alignment’ and multi-functional settings such as found in BIM-enabled construction environments. This provides the basis for building on the existing STS conceptual tools to help develop a new framework for analysing sociotechnical alignment for BIM uptake in construction organisation context.

105 3.3 Summary

This chapter has argued that, a useful conceptual framework for studying the process of BIM implementation can be derived from STS approaches (e.g., Molina & Kinder, 1999; Checkland, 1984; Leavitt, 1964; Alters, 2006; Hutchins, 1995). The importance of STS application in relation to ICT uptake in construction has rarely been discussed in the AEC literature.

The strength of the STS is not only in its usefulness in identifying the technical constituents (e.g. technology, process and system) and social constituents (e.g. people and institutions, their goals and perceptions) which interact in a specific circumstance to shape the work system. It is also in its ability to offer a holistic theoretical framework for analysing the process of alignment between these technical and social elements involved in the implementation process. The STS approach also conceptualises both the inter-organisational and intra-organisational networks to form a multilevel sociotechnical constituency, and is therefore particularly suitable for analysing complex multi-level interacting activities in the AEC environment such as BIM project delivery. Overall, the STS theoretical frameworks represent an important progression towards bridging the knowledge gaps relating to BIM uptake and other concomitant technological solutions in construction organisations. In order to develop empirical understanding of BIM implementation, and also apply the STS for analysing BIM-enabled construction organisations, there is a need for a robust research design which stipulates how data will be collected and analysed, the strategy of enquiry, and their underpinning philosophical position. This is addressed by the next chapter.

106

CHAPTER FOUR