Formal and informal inter-

organisational relations7

Chapter summary

Having performed the empirical (Chapter 3) and conceptual (Chapter 4) underpinning of the relevance for the combination of SCM and BIM concepts, a simplified version of the developed analytical model from Chapter 4, was applied to two cases, for deeper case analysis. Because of the observed derived ‘decentralised’ coordination mechanisms in the BIM-enabled SC partnerships, the exploration of the various relevant formal, e.g. contractual, informal, and emerging relations was necessary. The previously devised model for the analysis of BIM-based SC partnerships was applied to a set of polar (extreme) cases, recruited by the cases that participated in the empirical exploration study, and namely Cases A and B, which were the cases that displayed the most sophisticated BIM collaboration pattern, i.e. the ‘distributed’ pattern. The two cases are selected for their advanced BIM-based collaboration, as well as their antithetical SC composition and strategies – one being supply-led and the other demand-led. Although the model was developed with an equal focus on organisations, products, and processes (P/P/A), this deeper case analysis study focused more on the organisational and less on the processual, and product-related aspects.

This chapter focuses on the contractual and digital interdependences between BIM technology and SCM practices in real-world settings (RQ#2). Following a mixed methods approach, the modelling method of Chapter 4 is complemented with case research for the analysis of the contractual (formal), digital (BIM-based), and informal relations, caused by the combination of BIM and SCM concepts. The two methods were combined to increase the research validity by confronting the results derived from quantitative data and findings derived from qualitative data and vice versa. The goal was to discuss the effects of BIM and SCM from multiple actors’ perspectives and various data sources. Finally, the modelling decisions that underlined the previously developed analysis tool from Chapter 4 are used to rationalise the complexity and the potential influence of these formal, and informal BIM-enabled SC relations about the performance of the SC partnership. From the analysis, it was deduced that the two construction networks were asymmetric and appropriate strategies were suggested to bridge this gap.

§ 5.1

Introduction

The construction industry has employed integrated practices and technologies as a means to control its various intrinsic complexities. Integration is considered as an innovation per se and as a means to stimulate other innovations (Wamelink & Heintz, 2015). Integration pertains to either management approaches or technological means. For example, SC partnerships imply strategic, long-term contractual relations and deploy a SCM philosophy to integrate the flows of material and subsequently information across various firms (Gosling et al., 2015). Likewise, innovative technologies, such as BIM could foster integration of information flows among the multi-disciplinary teams, by improving their collaboration (Eastman et al., 2008) and enhancing project control (Bryde et al., 2013). These two innovations and particularly the involvement of the suppliers in design have been conceptually linked (Nederveen et al., 2010; Nummelin et al., 2011). However, there exists little evidence of their real-world combination, as well as understanding of the inter-organisational impact of BIM-enabled SC partnering.

The representation of organisations as Social Networks (SN) has become increasingly popular in construction research, following on applications in other fields, such as social sciences and economics. The construction industry has been previously considered a system or network of firms by numerous researchers (Dubois & Gadde, 2002a; Bygballe & Jahre, 2009; Larsen, 2011). Pryke (2004, 2005, 2009, 2012)

analysed SC partnerships in a quantitative manner using Social Network Analysis (SNA). However, the impact of BIM on such inter-firm relations remains unknown. In this study, SNA is used as an ‘analytical language’ (Pryke, 2012, p. 13) to explore the inter-organisational impact of combining integrated practices and technologies, i.e. SCM and BIM, considering the various firms within the SC partnership as units of analysis. The term ‘SC partnership’ instead of ‘partnership’ is used to describe a set of dyadic partnerships extended across multiple tiers.

Two projects in The Netherlands were used as in-depth cross-sectional studies of the BIM-enabled SC partnerships. The study compared the formal and informal relations among the SC actors. The formal aspects relate to contracts, hierarchies or agreements for online collaboration, whereas the informal aspects relate to the actors’ interactions that often circumvent these formal procedures (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008, p. 9; Klijn, 2008). According to Egan’s Report (1998), day-to-day communication and information exchange, and knowledge sharing are informal relations. The study in this chapter aimed at exploring, analysing, and understanding the formal and informal relations among the actors that engage in BIM-enabled SC partnerships and the potential influence of the choice for more formal or informal relations on the performance of the SC partnership.

The chapter is structured as follows. The ensuing research background section highlights the research gap, presents the conceptual model, and introduces the research questions (section § 5.2). Next, the methodological justification and the underlying philosophical paradigm to answer these questions follow (section § 5.3). Subsequently, the research results are presented that underline the various formal and informal relations in integrated BIM-enabled SC partnerships (section § 5.4). The results are discussed by confrontation to the relevant literature (section § 5.5). The study concludes with suggestions for bridging the gap between asymmetrical and formal relations versus asymmetrical and informal relations, and recommendations for achieving integration (section § 5.6).

§ 5.2

Background, related research, and research gap

§ 5.2.1

Innovations aiming at integration in construction

Integration has been considered an antidote to the fragmentation of construction projects. Integration refers to the integration of the actors or the integration across project phases (Howard et al., 1989). Regarding actors, integration refers to a project-based team (Baiden, Price, & Dainty, 2006) or inter-organisational teams, beyond organisational boundaries. The latter relates to partnering as an approach to integrating project partners at the supply-side, e.g., contractor and suppliers, or demand-side, e.g., contractor and client, of the chain. Integration has been seen as the higher goal of SCM (Vrijhoef, 2011). SCM is a philosophy that aims amongst others at minimising the interfaces between the various partners, and their operations (Vrijhoef & Koskela, 2000). In the literature from the United Kingdom (UK), SCM has been mainly viewed as a hindrance to competitiveness and free market (Fernie & Tennant, 2013). Pryke (2012) considered SCM, partnering and work clusters as ‘governance modifiers’ attached to traditional contracts, following on Egan’s Report (1998) who envisaged a less contractually formal and more collaborative industry. Whereas SCM has been traditionally linked to performance tracking and an input-output methodology, i.e. a transactional view, informal inter-organisational relations among the project partners are also present in SCM (London & Kenley, 2001), i.e. a relational view. For Leuschner et al. (2013) SC integration related to either an ‘operational’ or a ‘relational’ integration among various actors. Apart from focusing on inter- organisational relationships, integration has also been linked to the information flows of design and construction.

Alternatively, integration refers to the various phases of construction. Dulaimi et al.

(2002) recognised the integration in the procurement processes, e.g., Design-Build (DB) delivery, and the integration between design and production as equally important to advancing the industry. Apart from merely contractual means to integration, Howard et al. (1989) have proposed computer-aided means to instigate integration across phases, by integrating the information flows among the various disciplines. Dulaimi et al. (2002) emphasised the need that the various actors – from designers to suppliers – adopt compatible Information Systems (IS) to exchange information, and integrate the design and construction processes. BIM can be seen as such a potential solution, given that it allows for the various actors to work on their systems of preference, and simultaneously exchange compatible information, via the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), currently the main open data standard (Amor, 2015). In this study, BIM could be defined as a set of technologies for generating, sharing, and managing consistent information among the actors, based on the principles of Information Systems’ interoperability.

The diffusion of BIM has not been widely considered from an inter-organisational or SC perspective, but rather from the perspective of isolated actors. Table 16 presents scientific literature on BIM adoption and implementation from various actors. Most BIM-related studies have been focusing exclusively and separately on designers, owners or contractors, neglecting the perspectives of sub-contractors and suppliers. Surprisingly, there is a lot of emphasis on the benefits of BIM for Facility Management (FM), despite the paradox that there are significant technical challenges for BIM/FM application (Korpela, Miettinen, Salmikivi, & Ihalainen, 2015). Most of the research on BIM adoption neglects the impact that one party’s decision to adopt technology (BIM) has on the remaining actors (Higgin & Jessop, 1965), and subsequently on the formation of a BIM implementation process.

TABLE 16 Scientific literature on BIM adoption and implementation across various project actors.

FOCUS GOAL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE RESEARCH METHOD

Architect BIM adoption drivers (Son, Lee, & Kim, 2015b) Survey using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Factors affecting BIM adoption (Ding, Zuo, Wu, & Wang, 2015) Survey using structural equation

model

Facility owner Framework to realise benefits from BIM investment

(Love et al., 2014) Conceptual model based on

resource-based view

Assessment of BIM competency (Giel & Issa, 2016) Delphi method from various matu-

rity matrices

BIM benefits and challenges (Korpela et al., 2015) Survey using cultural historical

activity theory

Contractor Transformation strategies for BIM adoption

(Ahn, Kwak, & Suk, 2015) Literature review and interviews

TABLE 16 Scientific literature on BIM adoption and implementation across various project actors.

FOCUS GOAL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE RESEARCH METHOD

Supplier BIM acceptance model (Mahamadu et al., 2014) Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and Technology-Organisational-Envi- ronmental (TOE)

Installations Engineers

Collaboration with BIM (Dossick & Neff, 2010) Ethnographic observations and

interviews

Designers & Engineers

Governance of BIM implemen- tation

(Rezgui, Beach, & Rana, 2013) Interviews with industry partici-

pants and focus group meetings Responsibility for adopting BIM

innovation

(Elmualim & Gilder, 2014) Literature review and question-

naire survey

Engineers & Contractors

BIM adoption decisions (Gu & London, 2010) Interviews with focus groups

Multi-actors (including suppliers)

Adoption and benefits from BIM (Eadie et al., 2013) Online questionnaire

As a supply-demand network, the construction industry has a ’cause-effect’ relation among the actors. The above in-depth studies have explored BIM technology by isolating actors but ignored their relations to their complementary disciplines across all ties, such as the suppliers. These single-actor studies usually neglect the BIM implementation within inter-organisational environments, and particularly contractually defined SC partnerships. From a multi-actor network perspective, Klijn (2008) suggested that an analysis of the actors’ network is crucial to assess the influence of institutional structures further, in this case of BIM adoption, upon the inter-organisational network. Thus, analysing the network of BIM-using actors could offer fresh insights into the emerging relations during BIM implementation.

§ 5.2.2

Social Network Analysis in construction

Following the example of Pryke (2012), this study deploys SNA to represent and understand the relations emerging from SCM and SC partnerships that deploy BIM to integrate their information flows. The roots of SNA are found in sociometry, according to Granovetter (1973, p. 1360). Sociometry was a quantitative method to analyse the social interactions of a set of people via sociograms, i.e. graphs visualising their social interactions and inter-relationships, created by social psychologist Moreno

(1960). Wasserman and Faust (1994) defined Social Network as “social structure” of actors (nodes) connected by one or more relations (ties), such as friendship or alliance. The ties are either non-directional, and thus symmetric, or directional, and thus non-symmetric; symmetry reveals whether a relation is mutual from both nodes

(Wasserman & Faust, 1994, pp. 149-150). Apart from structural metrics to describe networks, there are also mathematically founded metrics for SNA, e.g. the concept of centrality for understanding the communication patterns in small groups by Bavelas

(1950, p. 727). Graph Theory has provided SNA first with a vocabulary to “label and denote many social structure properties”, and second with the mathematical operations to prove theorems about the social structures (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 93). For Scott (2012, p. 63) Graph Theory is a mathematical language for SNA. Among the key concepts of Graph Theory adopted for SNA are the network density and degree centrality. Freeman (1978) identified the relation of the SN centralities to their social implications. The betweenness, degree, and closeness centrality of the nodes represent control, activity, and independence respectively (Freeman, 1978). These metrics have been prevalent among construction management researchers that deploy SNA.

SNA is a popular approach in construction management research. It has often been applied with a project-based focus, as the construction projects consist of essentially “unstable networks that get re-initiated for each project” (Chinowsky, Diekmann, & Galotti, 2008, p. 806; 2010, p. 453). The unit of analysis could be either isolated social actors, i.e. a social network, or firms, i.e. an organisational network. SNA was used by Thorpe and Mead (2001) to analyse the communication among project teams from different firms and compare it to their use of Project-Specific Web- Sites (PSWS). Among their most interesting findings, was that the project teams circumvented the traditional communication channels and hierarchy to speed up the communication (Thorpe & Mead, 2001). Chinowsky et al. (2010) used SNA to study the information exchange in construction firms and reveal the relation between actors’ and firm’s performance. Other SNA studies focused on the informal aspects, such as knowledge, trust, and awareness (Morton, Dainty, Burns, Brookes, & Backhouse, 2006, respectively; P. Chinowsky et al., 2008; Larsen, 2011). Pryke (2002, 2004, 2005, 2012) applied SNA to analyse the inter-organisational transactions as to information exchange, performance incentives, and contractual relationships and revealed the relationship between innovative procurement, new roles, and communication patterns. These last studies have demonstrated the applicability of SNA in inter-organisational settings to analyse formal and informal relations simultaneously. Table 17 summarises and categorises some influential studies in SNA in construction, from well-established journals on construction and project management, as to their focus, nodes, and ties analysed, to show the variety of research goals and methods for SNA in construction.

TABLE 17 Taxonomy of studies applying SNA regarding the focus and the modelled entity.

FOCUS NODE TIE (LINK) SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE SNA METRIC USED