§ 2.7.1
Lack of analytic standpoints for Construction Research
The afore-mentioned mismatches as to the bottom-up and top-down approaches to BIM’s diffusion also reveal an inter-organisational deficiency, i.e. complexity and fragmentation, of the AEC industry. Previously, the AEC has being characterised by a mix of loose and tight couplings between projects and firms from Dubois and Gadde (2002a). They further suggested that inter-firm cooperation and reciprocal adjustments of the involved firms would eventually foster learning and holistic improvement to both the construction product and the chains (Dubois & Gadde, 2002a). Mentzer et al. (2001) claimed that “SCM philosophy drives supply chain members to have a customer orientation.” Whereas the benefits of the holistically managed collaborative supply chains to the clients are quite clear, i.e. improved construction product, the added value of collaborating cultures in construction is not self-evident (Fernie & Tennant, 2013). Moreover, the existing literature on SCM has repeatedly associated SCM with a lack of consideration for human agency and intra- organisational aspects (Green et al., 2005; Fernie & Thorpe, 2007). The multitude of participating organisations in a Supply Chain system suggests myriad relations that are difficult to trace and manage. The interweaving relationships of construction projects and firms cannot be analysed on a bilateral basis (Kornelius & Wamelink, 1998). Thus, there exists a lack of systematic analysis as regards SC thinking in AEC. O’Brien et al. (2002) have already proposed the combination of elements from operations management, analytic modelling, and industrial organisation theory to understand and interpret the ramifications of the construction SC.
Heretofore, research on the potential of SCM towards achieving integration has been studied by analysing various parts of the SC. For example, Vrijhoef (2011) analysed in detail the goals and the activities of distinct fragments of the SC in isolation, i.e. client, developer, designer, builder, and supplier, and later combined these findings and projected them to a comprehensive concept for SC integration. At a project level, Pryke (2009) has been analysing the various clients, consultants, contractors, and suppliers and their inter-relations for either knowledge transfer, information exchange or financial and contractual government, but without focusing on the process of their interactions respectively. Farshchi and Brown (2011) have used similar approaches to analyse the interactions and knowledge transfer among team members of construction projects. However, in the previous efforts, the involved actors and their collaboration (relations) have not been examined simultaneously.
Likewise, the research on BIM implementation lacks analytic approaches, and most research is one-sided from the perspective of individual actors. Winch (1998) claimed
that for diffusing innovations – in this case, BIM – in the construction industry, the transition from the firm-oriented thinking to a network of firms thinking needs to be addressed. Few studies have analysed the interactions and the processes among the multi-disciplinary actors about BIM and particularly IPD (Hickethier, Tommelein, & Lostuvali, 2013). Also, most BIM-related studies have been focusing exclusively and separately on only the design team, client or the contractor, neglecting the subcontractors and the suppliers. Dubois and Gadde (2000) have highlighted that focusing also on the subcontractors, and the suppliers and including the supplier network could provide opportunities for ‘joint learning’ in construction projects. Thus, there is a lack of inclusive analyses of the inter-organisational relations and collaboration process of participants in BIM-based projects.
The two domains of SCM and BIM have been reviewed as opportunities for the AEC, in this thesis, and previously deemed compatible in section § 2.5.2, but both still lack in holistic approaches to dealing with the organisational complexities and fragmentation of AEC. Namely, the inter-organisational deficiencies of SCM and BIM have been explained in section § 2.3 and sub-section § 2.6.3. Thus, the gaps concerning SCM and BIM are found mostly in the capacity of their current practical and research directions to cope with and become relevant to all the multi-disciplinary participants of the AEC SC and particularly, to those with whom they are bound contractually.
§ 2.7.2
Thinking in Systems in AEC
From as early as the 1990s, the SCs have been described more as systems – or
networks – rather than linear configurations (Christopher, 1992; Lambert et al., 1998). Mentzer et al. (2001) suggested that SCM as a management philosophy is closely affiliated to system considerations. They concluded that SCM implies a (a) necessary systems approach, which considers the SC as a whole and manages the “total flow of goods inventory from the supplier to the ultimate customer”, (b) “strategic orientation towards cooperative efforts to synchronise and converge intra-firm and interfirm operational and strategic capabilities into a unified whole”, and (c) “customer focus to create unique and individualised sources of customer value, leading to customer satisfaction” (Mentzer et al., 2001). Often, such system-based views for the SC, focus more on the inclusiveness of the multi-disciplinary actors, e.g. clients, customers and suppliers, but neglect their respected links. A system contains essential parts or sub-systems with innate behaviours and properties that constitute a functional whole
(Ackoff & Gharajedaghi, 2003). Thus, focusing on SC systems, and particularly on both the multi-actor network and their collaboration and interactions (relations) is essential for understanding and potentially improving the AEC industry.
Other researchers, who have been viewing the AEC SC as a system, have enriched the generic descriptions by delving deeper into the system properties, i.e. its components, e.g. nodes of products or actors and their respective relations, e.g. couplings,
connections. Winch (1998) described the construction industry as complex product system, which consists of inter-connected and customised elements (or products) where the high degree of user involvement (behaviour) plays an essential role in the innovation process. Dubois and Gadde (2002a) again described the AEC industry as a complex system, where the couplings among the involved actors are closely inter- related, and any change upon one of them may impact the rest of the couplings (inter- relations). They claimed that any effort to organise those couplings in patterns shapes and is shaped by the actors’ behaviour, and subsequently, each pattern may solve or create new uncertainties (interdependence) (Dubois & Gadde, 2002a). Therefore, it is essential to analyse not only certain fragments of the construction system but also the behaviour of these respective fragments, the inter-relations among the various actions and the interdependences that develop among those inter-relations.
Describing the construction industry as only a system of interacting actors still is not sufficient to capture all the relevant opportunities and respond to all the challenges in AEC because more variables are into play. Ackoff (1971) underlined that in
Management Science, the concept of systems has greatly been tinted from and catered to the particular research viewpoints. Likewise, adopting Systems Thinking to the AEC industry should focus on the AEC system as a whole and not only on its parts in isolation. To analyse a system, we construct a conceptual model, which is – de facto – an abstraction of the reality (Richmond, 2003). Shannon (1975) described and explained modelling based on Systems Thinking: “the process of designing a model of a real system and conducting experiments with this model for the purpose (…) of understanding the behaviour of the system”. The mismatch between system properties and their conceptualisation are main root causes of system failures (Ackoff &
Gharajedaghi, 2003). For this reason and based on the literature review of this chapter, the AEC industry has been conceptualised, abstracted, and modelled as a set of:
–
processes (see section § 2.2);–
products (see section § 2.4) and;–
actors (see sections § 2.3 and § 2.6).From a generic SC perspective, the combination of the systematic analyses in SCs and the shift towards integrated approaches has been suggested. Houlihan (1988)
proposed that not only managing the interfaces of the systems is required, but also integrating their multivariate facets (or components). From the references above, it could be deduced, that describing the AEC industry as a system or a network, might be related more to a positivist approach. The term ‘System’ is quite older than the term ‘Network’. The term ‘system’ originates from the Ancient Greek word sústēma, i.e. organised ‘standing’ whole or body. The term ‘network’ pertains more to
representation approaches and physical constructs, whereas the term ‘system’ pertains to both tangible and intangible constructs. The Networks have been associated to both positivist and interpretivist standpoints and lately, to both engineering and social sciences, as in management in networks (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Klijn, 2008). The thesis applies ‘Systems Thinking’ by focusing on the concept of ‘network’, unless underscored differently by the bibliography, across the ensuing chapters. In this spirit, this thesis has been focused on addressing all these process-, product-, and actor-related complexities of the multi-actor network of the AEC industry. This direction also aligns with the vision of the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, also known as CIB, from the former name: “Conseil International du Bâtiment” for Integrated Design and Delivery Solutions (IDDS). According to IDDS, to achieve is a maximum impact, AEC needs to transform its capabilities holistically and based on integrated processes, interoperable technology and collaborating people, i.e. organisational issues (Owen, Amor, Dickinson, Prins, & Kiviniemi, 2013). This chapter has attempted a chronological review of the concepts of SCM and BIM, to explore the areas of their potential compatibility and alignment. On the one hand, the concept of SCM has matured from a processual view of managing the complexities of the AEC industry into an inter-organisational concept. On the other hand, the concept of BIM has evolved from a product-related view of managing the complexities of the AEC industry also into an inter-organisational concept. Therefore, it is concluded that inter-organisational considerations suggest common ground for both SCM and BIM constructs. Figure 9 illustrates some advancements and milestones during the evolution of both SCM and BIM constructs to a more actor-related or inter- organisational perspective. 1960s Concept of Operations Research 1999 Eastman Building Product Models 1980s Concept of Supply Chain Management 1992 Christopher Logistics & Supply Chain Management 2016 Mandated Level 2 BIM in UK 1994 IAI: International Alliance for Interoperability 2005 Building Smart 2008 Eastman et al. BIM Handbook 1990s Concept of
Supply Chain Partnership 1970s Concept of Supply Chain 1998 ‘Egan’s Report’: Rethinking Construction
SCM: From ‘processual’ to ‘actor-related’ considerations
BIM: From ‘product-related’ to ‘actor-related’ considerations
This chapter aimed to reveal the construction challenges that SCM philosophy and BIM technology could potentially manage (RQ#1). To respond to this RQ, first, a short review of similar challenges in other industries and how they were solved by either managerial or technological innovations was presented (section § 2.1). Then, the study on the origins of SC explained the capacity of SCM to deal with processual complexities (section § 2.2). However, the pragmatic impact of SC thinking nowadays emphasises more on balancing the multivariate organisational complexities (section § 2.3). Subsequently, the review of the origins of BIM illustrated the efforts for minimising the technical complexities of building products by regulating and standardising the information flow (section § 2.4). After that, the areas where BIM could be applied as a compatible technology to SCM indicated that BIM could support the material, and information flows among SC systems (section § 2.5). The adoption of BIM affects the organisational structures in AEC and creates an additional mismatch among policy and industry (section § 2.6). Thinking of the AEC as a system is then proposed to support the combination of SCM and BIM, given that both domains have been considered opportunities for managing the AEC (section § 2.7). Table 5 builds on the aspects of complexity defined in Table 3 and illustrates the complexities that could be individually tackled by SCM and BIM as well as on which dimension of complexity the remaining research questions of the study focus.
TABLE 5 Complexities and fragmentation in the AEC industry and the extent that they could be tackled by SCM and BIM as presented in the previous sections; the relation between the alignment of SCM and BIM and the RQs.
PROCESSUAL COMPLEXITY TECHNICAL (OR PRODUCT RELATED) COMPLEXITY
ORGANISATIONAL COMPLEXITY & FRAGMENTATION
SCM 2.2 – Logistical perspective of SCM - 2.3 – Inter-organisational perspec-
tive of SCM
BIM 2.5 – Processual opportunities
from BIM
2.4 – Object-oriented modelling, i.e. BIM
2.6 – Inter-organisational BIM adoption and maturity
SCM & BIM RQ#2, RQ#3 and RQ#6 RQ#3, RQ#4 and RQ#6 RQ#4, RQ#5 and RQ#6