Automation in Construction 43 (2014) 84–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Beyond the BIM utopia: Approaches to the development and

implementation of building information modeling
Reijo Miettinen ⁎, Sami Paavola 1
Center for Research on Activity, Development, and Learning (CRADLE), Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 3 A), Fin-00014, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Building information modeling (BIM) refers to a combination or a set of technologies and organizational solutions
Received 13 August 2013 that are expected to increase interorganizational and disciplinary collaboration in the construction industry and
Received in revised form 3 February 2014 to improve the productivity and quality of the design, construction, and maintenance of buildings. In this paper
Accepted 8 March 2014
we analyze first the rhetorical–promotional dimension of the BIM implementation sometimes characterized as a
Available online xxxx
“BIM utopia.” Second, we analyze the views of the enhancement of BIM implementation. Although BIM visions
Keywords:
and promises are needed for BIM implementation, they need to be complemented with a more realistic view
Building information modeling of conditions of the implementation. For this we outline an activity–theoretical and evolutionary view by
BIM promises drawing conceptual tools from science and technology studies and other relevant social scientific literature.
BIM implementation According to this view, in addition to standards and guidelines underlined by normative approaches,
Experimentation local experimentation and continuous learning play a central role in the implementation of BIM.
Cultural historical activity theory © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Evolutionary theory of innovation

1. Introduction The high expectations of the increased productivity and a new level
of collaboration express the rhetorical dimension of BIM development
There is no single satisfactory definition of what building infor- and implementation. As a matter of fact the term BIM, introduced in
mation modeling (BIM) is. Rather, it needs to be analyzed as a 2002 by Jerry Laiserin, may be regarded as a new promotional umbrella
multidimensional, historically evolving, complex phenomenon. concept [2]. Historically, the need and possibility for developing more
BIM can first be defined as a digital representation of a building, integrated or interoperable software was recognized already in the
an object-oriented three-dimensional model, or a repository of 1970s by researchers of construction projects developing “integrated
project information to facilitate interoperability and exchange of design databases” [3] or “integrated design systems” [4] (see also
information with related software applications. BIM tools support Björk [5], p. 12). BIM can be seen as an evolution of CAD systems but
parametric modeling and allow new levels of spatial visualization, providing more “intelligence” and interoperable information. These sys-
simulation of the behavior of the building, as well as more efficient tems were named with terms like Virtual Building, Project Modeling,
project management. BIM is also emphatically a tool of collaboration. Virtual Design and Construction, and nD Modeling (see Aranda-Mena
When BIM is extended from design to construction, and facility et al. [6], p. 420-1, Succar [1], p. 359). One central background for BIM
management and maintenance of the building, new levels of inter- was product data models concerning the information of buildings [5].
operability and collaboration can be achieved. The collaborative use The literature is growing on how technological visions and promises
of BIM reduces design mistakes and increases the productivity of are used for finding support and funding for the development of new
the construction industry. BIM therefore, provides an emerging technologies [7–10]. The promises are an essential part of legitimating
new paradigm for construction management or “an emerging tech- the development of technology and getting the funders and future
nological and procedural shift in the Architecture, Engineering and users convinced of the importance of investing in its development
Construction industry” (Succar [1], p. 357). (Brown et al. [11], p. 881): “Initial promises are set high in order to
attract attention from (financial) sponsors, to stimulate agenda setting
(both technical and political) and to build ‘protected spaces’.” In its
analysis of the European innovation policy, an expert group of the
European Commission on science policy (Felt & Wynne [9], p. 24)
⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: +358 9 191 44579.
E-mail addresses: reijo.miettinen@helsinki.fi (R. Miettinen), sami.paavola@helsinki.fi
found what is called a “regime of technoscientific promise.” According
(S. Paavola). to the group (Felt & Wynne [9], p. 25), the first principle or rhetorical
1
Fax: +358 9 191 44579. move operative in this regime is: “the creation of a fiction in order to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.03.009
0926-5805/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 R. Miettinen, S. Paavola / Automation in Construction 43 (2014) 84–91 85

attract resources (…) that the emerging technology (biotechnology in on the BIM implementation. Our research group [19,20] has followed
the 1980s, nanotechnology now) will solve human problems (health, consecutive life-cycle projects of four public schools in Eastern
sustainability, etc.) through a wide range of applications.” Finland. In addition, we have followed several projects in different
These technical visions have been characterized in terms of phases of the construction process as well as the uses of information
“generalized technological promise” [8] “or a guiding vision” [12] technology in facility management and maintenance [21].
or a “promotional metaphor” [13] by the science and technology
studies. New technologies are naturally future-oriented and try to 2. Four elements of the BIM utopia
change reality, improve technology-mediated practices, and create
new opportunities. These visions are generative and guide activities. All new technologies include potential to improve productive
The BIM can also be characterized as a transdiscursive term [14] that activities. These potentials are expressed in future-oriented visions
develops and operates simultaneously in research, policy making, of the advantages that will be achieved when the new technology
and industry. Such a term must be loose and abstract enough in order is fully implemented. Such visions have also been called BIM “utopias”
to function as an interdisciplinary organizer enabling different groups [22] or “idealistic goals” of BIM (Howard & Björk [23], p. 277). A central
to articulate a roughly shared direction of interests and moral commit- concern in the building industry is to increase productivity and efficien-
ments and still maintain their own identity and goals [15]. Because of its cy of the business, and BIM is seen as a central vehicle here. BIM prom-
fuzziness organizing visions can constantly be complemented with new ises take many other forms: to eliminate design errors and quality of
promises that reflect the development of the technology itself and react design, to help management of processes in construction, to deepen col-
to the problems and challenges that emerge in the construction indus- laboration and communication between partners in the construction
try. This paper will focus on the rhetorical–promotional viewpoint of process, and to provide new forms of collaboration with clients. The in-
the BIM development and on the views of the enhancement of BIM fluential BIM Handbook [18] lists several benefits of BIM in relation to
implementation. preconstruction, design, construction and fabrication, and post construc-
This paper is a position paper. We analyze how the development and tion phases (Eastman et al. [18], p. 19–25). The handbook also points out
future of BIM has been represented in BIM literature. We complement that BIM is a buzzword used by the software vendors: “The term BIM
the existing literature by introducing theoretical concepts of technology is a popular buzzword used by software developers to describe the
development and implementation which are not yet widely used. They capabilities that their products offer” (ibid. 19). That is why the def-
originate from cultural historical activity theory, science and technology initions of BIM are “subject to variation and confusion.”
studies, as well as from information systems and innovation studies. Borup et al. [12] point out that the technological visions are
This allows us to construct two alternative frameworks of understand- future-oriented abstractions. They tend to transform the technological
ing and analyzing the BIM implementation, which we respectively call potentiality into a picture of future reality simultaneously disregarding
the normative and the activity–theoretical/evolutionary frameworks. many of the conditions and constrains that in reality will complicate
These are theoretical constructs that help to make sense of the ways and retard the realization of the vision. The technological visions
in which BIM implementation can be understood and how the imple- particularly tend not to take fully into account the social and human
mentation can be enhanced. We are not arguing that either of these conditions of the implementation of a technology.
frameworks is true, but rather that they emerge from different theoret- In the following we discern four key elements of the BIM rhetoric
ical traditions, complement each other and suggest different ideas and or promises often included in the BIM definitions and accounts of the
means for the enhancement of the BIM implementation. Since the latter BIM implementation. They are characterizations that concurrently are
framework is less known in BIM research, it may serve to enrich the included in the visions of BIM. These four elements are: 1) all relevant
discussion and to provide new ideas and means for BIM implementation. data needed in the design and construction of a building will be included
We proceed in the paper as follows. First, we characterize four in a single BIM model or is easily available with BIM tools, through
key promises of the BIM rhetoric that can, in a full-blown form, be common repositories or distributed database systems. 2) In allowing
called a “BIM Utopia.” These promises are integral means of promot- interoperability between data (shared with open standards like IFC)
ing awareness of the usefulness of BIM, and can be found in many of from several native design models, BIM becomes a tool of collaboration
the BIM definitions. On the other hand, these promises have also allowing new integrated ways of working. 3) BIM will be maintained
been criticized and questioned in BIM literature. Second, we analyze and used throughout the lifecycle of the building. 4) BIM is expected to
the ways in which BIM development and implementation have been increase considerably the efficiency and productivity of the building
discussed in BIM literature and their connection to guidelines and industry. As the following examples show, many definitions in the litera-
capability maturity models developed in information systems theory. ture reproduce and combine these elements:
Thirdly, we briefly characterize how technology implementation has
“Building information modeling (BIM) is an IR-based approach that
been discussed in activity theory, science and technology studies as
involves applying and maintaining an integral digital representation
well as information science and innovation studies during the last
of all building information for different phases of the project lifecycle
decades. The theories that will be reviewed find the mediating tools,
in the form of a data repository.” (Gu & London [24], p. 988)
local learning and collaboration with users essential for the implemen-
tation of new technologies. We present three constitutive features of an
“BIM refers to a set of interacting policies, processes and technolo-
activity theoretical and evolutionary view. Finally, we compare it with
gies that generate a methodology to manage the essential building
the normative framework and discuss the recommendations for
design and project data in digital format throughout the building's
enhancing the BIM implementation they suggest.
life-cycle.” (Succar et al. [25], p. 120)
We analyze promises of BIM and how the problem of implementa-
tion has been dealt with in the BIM literature resorting to systematic
Shen et al. ([26], p. 197) characterize FIATECH's roadmap for systems
reviews of the field (e.g. [1,16,17]), the recognized handbook of the
integration:
field [18], as well as a set of papers which deals with the development
and implementation of BIM (see the list of references). We have selected “Information is available on demand, wherever and whenever it is
concepts from science and technology-, information system and needed to all interested stakeholders. (…) Interconnected automated
innovation studies that deal with the problem of implementing systems, processes and equipment will drastically reduce the time
new technologies and specifically information systems. Although and cost of planning, design and construction. (…) With a common
the paper is mainly theoretical, we also refer to our own empirical data model, it is possible for building information to be created once,
studies on uses of BIM in Finland which provide a local perspective re-used and enriched in the rest building lifecycle.”
86 R. Miettinen, S. Paavola / Automation in Construction 43 (2014) 84–91

The US National Institute for Building Sciences has given a 2.2. BIM and transformation of collaboration
following vision and a definition for BIM (Eastman et al. [18],
p. 15–16) A part of the BIM rhetoric is that the deployment of integrated
technology allows and requires an integrated way of collaboration.
“An improved planning, design, construction, operation, and Various versions for such collaborative arrangement have been
maintenance process using a standardized machine-readable developed as project partnering, project alliancing and Integrated
information model for each facility, new or old, which contains Project Delivery [16]. Some observers, however, conclude that
all appropriate information created or gathered about the facility increased use of BIM has not caused a qualitative change to the basic
in a format usable by all throughout its lifecycle.” ways of working in disciplinary “silos” in the construction projects. Neff
and her colleagues ([37], p. 2–3), for example, conclude in their paper
The elements of the BIM utopia have also been questioned. Empirical on observation of BIM use that “even though BIM usage has doubled
studies have found a tension between the promises and the reality. They since 2007, work practices that support increased collaboration and
have referred to fragmentation of the field, adversial relationships knowledge sharing across organizational and disciplinary boundaries
between partners, discontinuities of projects, and organizational condi- have been slow to emerge.” Several studies suggest that the fragmented
tions that prevent and retard BIM implementation. We think a richer and dispersed structure of building industry feeds adversarial attitudes
picture of nature and means of BIM implementation is needed in that do not favor trust-based forms of collaboration [38]. Organizational
order to evaluate the elements of the BIM utopia. In the following, we and legal issues seem to be central barriers for extended collaboration
review some of this discussion which shows that there are several [39,17]. Forgues and Koskela ([40], p. 378) report how this fragmentation
ways of seeing BIM. frustrated the establishment of an integrated team in a Canadian project.
An attempt to solve this problem is the development of multi-party
relational contracts based on sharing of the risk and reward [16].
2.1. A single BIM data or a variety of BIM models used together with other An alternative to an ideal organizational integration would be a
software and tools stepwise or a gradual transformation of existing organizational and
collaboration practices. This requires understanding of real-live
The technological promise of BIM has its basis on the idea of in- problems of BIM implementation [41]. In a Finnish project we studied,
teroperability and integrated wholly sharable information allowed the participant organizations were convinced that IPD, or a Big room,
by ICT and standards. Many papers [27,28,17] see interoperability even if they are good as ideal targets for developing more integrated
and systems' integration as continuous big challenges for BIM. collaboration, were not realistically to be implemented in the near future
Different technical solutions have been suggested to data sharing in their projects. Instead, they started to look for alternative ways of
and exchange of information [29,30]. Howard and Björk have, how- deepening collaboration with BIM. One solution developed and
ever, suggested ([23], p. 273) that the comprehensive single BIM experimented was an intensive and carefully organized two day
“has been the holy grail but it is doubtful whether there is the collaboration (characterized as a “knot”) to produce the design alter-
will to achieve it.” An alternative way of defining BIM is to see it natives for the customer [42].
as a multifunctional set of instrumentalities for specific purposes
that will increasingly be integrated, but to what extent is an open 2.3. Use of BIM during the lifecycle
question. Howell and Batcheler ([22], p. 6–8) maintain that BIM
is only one of the many purpose-built models, e.g. software con- The promise of BIM use during the whole lifecycle of the building is
structed to be used in the specific task of functions such as architect a dream far from being realized. One of the central challenges in BIM
design, modeling of lightning, or fire simulation. They concluded development seems to be that BIM use and updating ends (at least
(Howell & Batcheler [22], p. 9) that BIM is likely to be developed mostly) during the construction phase. A recent review concludes
through the production and implementation of models for special (Volk et al. [17], p. 122) that owners, facility managers, deconstructors
purposes. In addition, BIM is implemented as a part of “hybrid practices”: and related consultants are yet hardly involved in the BIM functionality
BIM tools are used in parallel with other digital tools and also with many development. Even if there is a growing interest in BIM use in facility
nondigital tools [31,32]. management (FM), it is still not clear how BIM could be realistically
This idea of multifunctionality and heterogeneity of information used in FM, and there is little empirical data on the topic [43]. The
technologies has been widely discussed in the study of implemen- facility managers use various information systems in their work. For in-
tation of enterprise information systems. They have been charac- stance in the Helsinki University the facility managers use five informa-
terized as architectural [33] or configurational technologies [34]. tion systems and the maintenance personnel use four different systems.
Typically parts and modules developed by several vendors are They have tailored the systems for their own needs and were hesitant
combined and adjusted to meet the local needs of the user [35, about additional value of the BIM modeling tools [21]. In our interviews
36]. This is also what we found when we studied the information a property manager in charge of the maintenance of life-cycle project
tools of the Center for Properties and Facilities of the Helsinki finds that the RYHTI maintenance manual software largely used in
University. It had five different software systems (a space manage- Finland in the 1990s is an excellent information tool both for the proper-
ment system, a maintenance manual, a cleaning measurement and ty owner and for the maintenance company [21]:
management system, a room reservation system, and an outdoor
maintenance management system) from five different developers. It is an unbeatable tool for a property owner today… It's an ab-
The Center has been active in developing and tailoring these tools solute precondition for being able to do my job properly… The
for their own purposes and in assuring their compatibility. A link maintenance manual is a tool for a maintenance company. It's
from the space system to both the maintenance manual and the a tool for the management of a maintenance company. It's a tool
cleaning system was constructed so that the space information in for a property manager. It's a supervisory tool for a property
all three systems is similar. The property manager characterizes owner. He will be able to see what's going on all the time. For
their strategy in the development of the systems as “modular”. By the users, in this regard it is a tool, because all service requests
keeping multiple systems, it is easier to change one system to a are made using it.
more suitable one if needed and in this way one maintains the
flexibility and control of the system [21]. It is an open question He did not have trust in BIM models, because he regarded that the sub-
whether and in which ways these systems can be integrated to BIM. contractors are likely to deviate from the design models, and these
 R. Miettinen, S. Paavola / Automation in Construction 43 (2014) 84–91 87

changes are not brought to the models: “If such things are done and for implementation and as the criteria for evaluation of the process.
they are not brought to the model, the model loses its foundations.” This normative approach seems to be characteristic also in the BIM
He doubted whether the players during a project have sufficient capa- literature. The means of enhancing implementation are national
bilities, time, or motives to update the model into an as-built model. guidelines and presentations of the exemplary cases in which BIM
These observations may clarify why property owners and mainte- has been implemented with significantly increased efficiency and
nance personnel have not been eager to invest in the implementation economic benefits. This can be interpreted in terms of the classical
of BIM [43,44,17]. The key challenge seems to be whether they can theory of diffusion of innovations [48] and the theory of lead users
draw parts of the information from the BIM tools and models. However, in innovation [49]. The forerunners first adopt a new technology
part of the information needed in maintenance – such as information of and the majority will follow their example. The normative approach
the technical equipment – will likely not be included in design and as has its roots in the history of technical sciences. It has traditionally
built models. This information must be included in the maintenance strived to optimize the efficiency and economy of the technological
systems in a separate way. This refers to the possibility of a partial systems. By experimenting the best parameters for driving a system
integration of the systems. can be found and included in a normative model or to an “evidence-
BIM has without doubt potential to be used throughout the lifecycle based” best practice [50]. This might also be a foundation for an attempt
of the building. There is, however, little knowledge about uses with to find or define one optimal normative model and clear guidelines for
authorities, or collaborative uses by designers and users in early phases the BIM implementation.
of building design. The latter is an important challenge, if client and user A theoretical framework widely used to make sense of the organiza-
involvement is to be increased in construction industry following the tional changes in construction industry is lean production focusing on
example of many other industries [45]. the improvement of the process and flow of information, actions and
materials. Last planner has been used as an instrument inspired by
2.4. BIM and the increase of productivity lean thinking to improve the coordination in construction projects
(see [18,51]). Arayici et al. [52] have used lean-inspired action research
There is very little empirical, research-based evidence on the in- interventions to enhance the adoption of BIM in an architectural
creased productivity of the implementation of BIM [46]. As Becerik- company. The project developed detailed guidelines on an operational
Gerber and Rice [47] point out, this kind of evaluation is complicated level to be used in implementation.
and the evidence presented on the efficiency of BIM is often anecdotal Another source for enhancing the implementation has been
based on case descriptions. Both researchers and project participants maturity models developed and largely and successfully used in the
have reported on successful cases of BIM use with figures concerning information systems research and development [53]. Attempts have
savings of time and reports of an improved quality. The BIM guidelines been made to apply this procedure also to the construction industry
and textbooks employ the measurement of the advantages of BIM use as [54]. In Bilal Succar's [1,25] model of BIM capability stages the maturity
a means of promoting the implementation of BIM. There are, however, model is connected to the ideal of IPD: (…) “the major milestones that
considerable difficulties in developing credible metrics, because the need to be reached by teams and organizations as they implement BIM
impact of BIM is difficult to isolate from the other factors that contribute technologies and concepts.” The stages are used both to conceptualize
to the success of a project and it is difficult to organize comparative the BIM development and to provide metrics for measuring BIM
research designs. On the basis of a survey, Becerik-Gerber and Rice performance which would help BIM users to evaluate the level and
([47], p. 199) concluded that many respondents noted that it is “too maturity of their BIM use. The first version of the model (Succar [1],
early to determine the value of BIM, as the industry is still at its early p. 363) defined five stages of the development: 1) Pre-BIM, 2) Object-
stages of BIM adoption”. based modeling, 3) Model-based collaboration, 4) Network-based
The discussion of the four elements of BIM utopia can summarized as integration, and 5) IPD as the long-term goal of BIM implementation.
follows: the potentials of implementing BIM technologies are evident. The final stage, IPD, is characterized as follows:
The development and implementation of BIM is, however, a long-
term, historical process; the various conditions of which need to be “The integrated project delivery (IPD) is a project delivery approach
studied. Side by side with the vision of an integrated trust-based team that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices
practice the BIM literature sees BIM as a set of software tools that into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights
are used simultaneously with non-BIM tools (e.g., [18]). Such view of all participants to optimize projects results, increase value to the
underlines the need of studying in detail the development of specific owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases
uses of BIM in different phases of the construction process by different of design, fabrication and construction.” (Succar [1], p. 365)
disciplines and a group of practitioners as well as ways of organizing
the new uses of BIM. Succar refers to AIA (The American Institute of Architects) California
Council's Guide for Integrated project delivery [55] as a presentation of
3. Normative approach to stages and means of BIM implementation IPD. It is a strongly rhetorical and wishful future-oriented paper that
seduces readers to a new kind of collaboration. In the beginning, the
Most of the literature in the implementation of BIM sees the process guide asks the readers to envision a new world where among others:
as a socio-technical process. The adoption of the technology also
requires changes in the forms of collaboration and contracts regulating “… facilities managers, end users, contractors and suppliers are all
the interaction between the stakeholders. These expectations are involved at the start of the design process… all communication
materialized in the idea of Integrated Product Development (IPD), throughout the process is clear, concise, open, transparent,
Big room, project partnering and project alliancing [16]. The BIM and trusting.… This is the world of Integrated project delivery,”
handbook suggests (p. 357) that “[t]he benefits of integrated practice (IAI [55], p. 2)
receiving wide review and extensive experience using IDP on specific
projects has been accumulated. Leading AEC firms increasingly recognize This ideal world will be achieved through collaborative integrated
that future building process will require integrated practice of whole project teams composed of the key project participants. These teams
construction team and will be facilitated by BIM.” are guided by nine principles which include among others trust,
Technological research aims at defining the efficient and eco- transparency, effective collaboration, open information sharing,
nomic functioning of a system or process. This optimal way is in- and shared risks and rewards. Relational contracts allow just distri-
cluded in the guidelines and standards and is used both as a model bution of the rewards among the partners of a project for the team
88 R. Miettinen, S. Paavola / Automation in Construction 43 (2014) 84–91

members. They function as incentives to collaboration, efficiency, tools and organizational forms to meet these incompatibilities [20].
and innovations. The selection of core team members is important, Such a learning process is typically expansive: complex objects call for
and team-building methods such as personality assessment and extended collaboration and mobilization of different kinds of knowledge
communication training may be used. and expertise. Activity theory finds experimentation of new solutions
In a later version of the model Succar and his colleagues (Succar et al. with novel tools a central way of learning and developing new practices.
[25], p. 124) adopt the term Virtually Integrated Design, Construction In such a process the practitioners of an organization take the initiative to
and Operation (ViDCO) as “the ultimate goal of implementing BIM” define the objects of improvements and become agents of development
(Succar et al. [25], p. 124). It is used instead of the IPD “to prevent any supported by the researchers.
confusion with the term's evolving contractual connotation in the Science and technology studies (STS) is a heterogeneous area of
United States” (ibid.). The new version is used as a foundation for research that has developed such approaches as actor network theory
developing a performance assessment system and metrics to measure [65,66], theory of infrastructures [67], or the idea of boundary object
how the BIM is used in an interoperable way. that allows “different groups work together without consensus” (Star
We are hesitant in which sense the IPD or the ViDCO really can [68], 602). These theories have been applied also in the studies of the
be seen as the ‘final end’ of the BIM development and implementa- construction projects [e.g. 31,32,69]. We want to take up such STS studies
tion. 2 In our understanding, they are far too general to depict the that have discussed implementation of technology and have been applied
potential richness of the future BIM uses. Even if the relational in organizational, design and information systems research [70].
contracting will be an important part of the future of BIM and the Economic theory has long explained the gradual increase in productivity
construction industry, IPD's conception of the nature, quality, and with learning by doing [71] and with learning by using [72]. In his seminal
conditions of the division of labor and collaboration in the design study on the adaption of computer-aided production management
and construction process is highly wishful. We find it likely that systems by a firm James Fleck [34] found that it took great effort, over
several workable ways of utilizing BIM will be developed to respond substantial period of time to bring such complex company-wide informa-
to the structure and specific circumstances of national, regional, and tion systems to the point where they can be used effectively. The imple-
local construction businesses. For instance, instead of an integrated mentation required substantial reworking of the systems to get them to
central team, efficient tools and collaborative ways of solving critical meet the tradition, local circumstances and specific requirements of the
tasks in the design, construction, and FM process will be developed. firm. The learning is not the incremental learning by doing but rather
‘A knot’ for joined, effectively concerted production of design alter- learning by trying or “by struggling to get the overall system to work”
natives is an example [42]. Such a solution may be more usable (Fleck [34], p. 638). Fleck concluded that innovation continues during
for instance in situations where project teams cannot stay regularly the implementation4 and therefore could be called “innofusion”.
together and are involved in several projects simultaneously. Numerous studies on the implementation of automation systems
[73] and business management systems [74,35] have shown that
there are a lot of bugs, problems and failures in the beginning of adapta-
4. Elements of an activity theoretical and evolutionary view of
tion that need be resolved by innovative solutions to get the system to
BIM implementation
work efficiently. In a review article on empirical studies on user involve-
ment in the development of IT systems Kujala ([75], p. 11) found among
An activity theoretical and evolutionary view of BIM development
others the following benefits of the involvement: more accurate user
and implementation draws from theoretical traditions that have not
requirements, avoiding costly system features that that the user did
yet been widely used in the BIM literature: cultural historical–activity
not want or cannot use, improved levels of the acceptance of the systems
theory, science, technology and organizational studies, and evolutionary
and greater understanding of the system by users. It is also likely that
economics of innovation (e.g. [56–58]). In spite of their differences
users are able to require and develop uses for the technology that the
these traditions share a number of ideas, among them: an unanticipated
designers have not anticipated. The adoption of a technology requires
nature of technological and social development, a focus on tools and
the learning and tuning of the technology to meet the local conditions,
artifacts, the significance of continuous learning and the importance of
which often result in redesigning of the technology. The contribution of
studying user activities and local experiments in detail. In addition
users is also the central theme in innovation studies [76–78].
activity theory underlines the significance of agency, that is, motives
Evolutionary economics of innovation is the predominant theoreti-
and commitments of individuals and groups of people to transformative
cal framework in innovation studies [57,79]. It uses the metaphor of
projects, interventions and experiments as means of studying and
biological evolution as a framework for analyzing technological change.
enhancing the development of human activities.
Variation of technological solutions is the source of development, and
Cultural historical activity theory originally emerged from psychology
a selection among these variants takes place by competition in the
from where it has been extended during the last decades to the fields of
market, through standardization and regulation. However, in contrast
education, learning at work, development of information systems [59],
to biological evolution, the technological development is not a contingent
in study of innovations [60] and recently also to the study of design
process of adaptation. It is driven by human agents who have their objects
collaboration [61]. It provides a structured model of human activity that
of activity and interests: the International Alliance for Interoperability
allows an analysis of the development of an activity.3 Activity is object-
creates standards, software firms do business by designing and selling
oriented (purposeful) activity mediated by tools and signs, a division of
BIM software, and developers want BIM software to be used to get better
labor and rules [62–64]. Elements are interdependent and historically
quality plans for construction etc.
changing. When one of the elements changes (e.g. introduction of BIM
Economics of innovation has also introduced the concept “techno-
as new means), it clashes with the elements (the division of labor,
economic” paradigms (or long cycles of economic development) each
rules) established in the previous phase of the development. The solution
of which is based on the development of new generic technology,
to these structural contradictions involves learning in the form of
the full deployment of which requires the creation of new forms of or-
re-mediation; that is, the adoption and development of new concepts,
ganization and institutions [80]. It, however, suggests that there is a
time lag in this process. The new technology is first brought to
2
ViDCO seems more open-ended than IPD being a “variable ending point” (Succar al.
4
[25], p. 125) but is outlined only very briefly. “The term ‘implementation’ is particularly appropriate here… the verb ‘to implement’
3
“Activity theory focuses on activities instead of processes, and provides a much richer means ‘to complete, perform, fulfill.. to supplement’. As a noun ‘implement’ refers to
framework than traditional variance or process approaches used in social science to inves- ‘things that serve as… instruments employed in any trade… There is also substantive
tigate complex phenomena (Nardi 1996)” (Forgues & Koskela [40], p. 374). use (…) meaning ‘full performance’” (Fleck [34], 640).
 R. Miettinen, S. Paavola / Automation in Construction 43 (2014) 84–91 89

organizational structures based on a previous paradigm, and it takes prioritization of software tools and adopted functions reflect the history,
about two decades before the new social and institutional arrangements culture and key challenges of a firm or a coalition of partners.
start molding. This view fits well to characterize the situation in the con-
struction industry: the challenge is to reform the organizational, institu-
4.2. Multiple solutions will persist: the development is a differentiation–
tional, and contractual practices that allow the full deployment of BIM.
integration process
Drawing from these social scientific resources, we outline three
principles of an activity theoretical evolutionary view of BIM develop-
The nature of BIM development and implementation may be
ment and implementation.
described by using the metaphor used to characterize the development
of science: processes of integration and differentiation happen simulta-
neously. In spite of the promotional work and standardization efforts by
4.1. BIM development and implementation is an open-ended expansive
national and international agencies, multiple solutions will continue to
process
develop. In science and technology studies this phenomenon has been
analyzed in terms of simultaneous development of standard procedures
To say that BIM implementation is an open-ended process is to say
and tools and their constant reconfiguration locally [84]. Schmidt and
that it will not be a realization of any predefined final goal or state as
Wagner [85] have analyzed it in architectural design and planning.
suggested by the normative or “teleological” theory of the BIM develop-
The software producers develop competing BIM-software platforms
ment. Teleological is a view according to which final causes or ends exist
and environments. It is hard to predict if a branch manages to become a
in nature and are analogous to purposes found in human action. Accord-
dominant solution regionally or globally. When the users adopt specific
ing to activity theory and other practice theories, although men set
combinations of software and complementary tools they need to
goals, transform institutions and make history, the development of
develop practices to get them to work in a proper way. When BIM
society or technology does not have any preconceived purpose or end
is becoming a strategic asset in construction business, the strong
goal. Contingency is always involved: unanticipated and only partially
players develop their own ways of managing BIM use to achieve a
understood developments and events that are independent of goals of
competitive edge. Constellations of regular partners may regionally
an individual or an organization decisively influence the course of the
develop joint solutions.
development (e.g. [81]). As the history of technology has convincingly
On the other hand, standardization takes steps forward, guidelines
shown, attempts to foresee the future development of technology
will be written, and governments and public authorities will increas-
have repeatedly failed (e.g. [82]). Following the evolutionary concep-
ingly require the implementation of BIM. The construction industry,
tion, a variety of BIM software and other software tools will emerge
software developers, and public sector initiatives have all influenced
also in the future which will be connected to each other in unexpected
the development of the IFC standardization in unexpected ways (see
ways. Novel solutions open new possibilities and new constraints.
[86]). For example, the decision in the United Kingdom that BIM will
Instead of following maturity stages that could be defined reliably in
be mandatory in all public sector contracts from 2016 has had a huge
advance, the process can be characterized by its nature to be expansive:
impact on the interest in BIM in the UK. These measures together
according to this BIM will be used in a widening array of functions in
constitute a strong tendency toward the unification of practices. Evo-
design and building and it will be used by ever more wider networks
lutionary economics of innovation would characterize the process of
of collaboration. Although the early developers of product models
implementation in terms of a balance between variation and selection
and BIM were inspired by the idea using the model during the whole
[87]. On one hand, too much and strict standardization will inhibit inno-
lifecycle of building, BIM development has thus far primarily been
vations, whereas on the other hand too much variation will lead to a
applied to increase collaboration and sharing of information between
chaotic situation which curbs the development of technology.
the design disciplines.5 It is now spreading to the construction, project
management, analysis of building behavior, and to the fabrication
of building elements. Eastman et al. ([18], p. 359) characterize this 4.3. Implementation of BIM implies learning by experimenting and invention
process of tool development as follows: “BIM vendors are increasingly of novel uses in which process the practitioners and users play a key role
expanding their scope and providing special tools to an expanding
set of disciplines (…) adding discipline-specific interfaces, objects, All research approaches mentioned above regard implementation of
design rules, and behaviors to the same base parametric modeling a technology as a creative process. The designers of technology define
engine (….).” As a result of this, also new extended collaborative the specification for the product to meet the needs of the client or the
relationships will emerge. user. The designers' idea of the function and use of technology has
The idea of functional and social expansion can be applied at a firm been called a ‘script’. However, the implementation of technology by a
level. Firms have their own strategies and ideas of increasing the use user in a specific situation always includes interpretation and learning.
of BIM. The Finnish firm Skanska, for example, established a BIM center In science and technology studies Madeleine Akrich [88] has described
of expertise in 2009. The Vice President of Research and Development of such a ‘redefinition’ of a script as de-scription of a technological object.
Skanska (Finland and Estonia) characterized the development of the The designers of a technology have a limited view of the user situations
center as expanding zones in which new uses and functions emerge and particular conditions in which the technology will be used. In new
at each level. The first zone includes clash detection and product site situations users are likely to develop and invent new uses. BIM has
planning; the third zone included supply chain management, logistics thus far mainly been used by architects, engineers and contractors and
and energy, and fire simulations.6 Like in the implementation of enter- they “still dominate the elaboration of BIM functionalities” (Volk et al.
prise information and production management systems, the process [17] 124). That is why it is no surprise that its uses during construction
will likely be configurational and in many points unexpected. The create new functionalities and extend the significance of BIM.
The adoption of the tool cannot be fully based on general guidelines
and it is unrealistic to suppose that the first attempts produce excellent
results. The guidelines must be interpreted to get them to meet the local
circumstances. The development of workable solutions of BIM use
5
“BIM software was developed as a response from design professional who began to requires experimenting, learning from the problems and ideas for im-
see the need to create a single source of information that can shared, added to, altered,
and responsibility distributed among the design team” (Hardin [83], p. 35).
provement. They are becoming visible in the attempts to implement
6
A keynote lecture of Ilkka Romo (Skanska Finland and Estonia) “BIM Utilization in BIM (e.g. [89,90]). The development by experimenting (continuous
Skanska” in ECPPM 2012, Reykjavik July 27, 2012. learning and improvement) is needed from the beginnings of
90 R. Miettinen, S. Paavola / Automation in Construction 43 (2014) 84–91

implementation and should not only be addressed to the highest documented cases of the implementation can help keeping guidelines
level of maturity, as some maturity models suggest [25]. updated and inform the development of BIM-related tools and practices.

5. Conclusions Acknowledgments

In this paper, BIM has been analyzed both as a technology and an This article was developed as a part of the Built Environment Process
emerging new collaborative practice which requires new contractual Re-engineering research program and its ModelNova -workpackage
arrangements, as well as local experiments and solutions. It might be (http://www.rym.fi/en/programs/builtenvironmentprocessreengineer
characterized using the term – introduced by evolutionary economics ingpre/) (2011–2013). The program is organized by RYM Oy and funded
– as a new socio-economic paradigm. The idea of a shift from by TEKES (The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innova-
fragmented into an integrative way of construction is a generalized tion)(1105/10) and Finnish construction companies. The authors wish
technological promise based on the potentiality of BIM technologies. to thank all the people who have read and commented on various ver-
This future-oriented promotional rhetoric is as such a natural part of sions of the paper.
the development of the BIM technology. However, this rhetoric does
not provide a realistic conception of the complexity of the conditions
of the implementation of the new technology. References
We have suggested that a normative view needs to be complemented
by an activity theoretical and evolutionary view that draws from cultural [1] B. Succar, Building information modeling framework: a research and delivery
foundation for industry stakeholders, Autom. Constr. 18 (2009) 357–375.
historical psychology and sociological and organizational studies of [2] J. Laiserin, Comparing Pommes and Naranjas, The Laiserin Letter, No 15, http://
technology implementation. This view regards the BIM development www.laiserin.com/features/issue15/feature01.php December 16 2002 (last accessed
and implementation as an open-ended process directed by ideals 8 July, 2013).
[3] C.M. Eastman, The representation of design problems and maintenance of
of integration with no well-defined final stage. It is an expansive their structure, in: J.-C. Latombe (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition
process where the organizations and coalitions of partners learn to in Computer Aided Design, Proceedings of the IFIP Working Conference,
improve their activity, use BIM technologies with other tools and North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1978, pp. 335–365.
[4] A. Bijl, D. Stone, D. Rosenthal, Integrated CAAD systems, Final Report of DoE funded
find ways of transcending the problems caused by the fragmentation
research project DGR 470/12, EdCAAD Studies, 1979.
of the field. This takes place through conscious experimentation and [5] B.-C. Björk, Requirements and information structures for building product data
learning by the practitioners [91,92]. This view suggests that simul- models, Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT Publications 245, Espoo, 1995.
[6] G. Aranda-Mena, J. Crawford, A. Chevez, T. Froese, Building information modelling
taneously with the integration by standardization and national
demystified: does it make business sense to adopt BIM? Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2
guidelines, differentiation through the development of competing (3) (2009) 419–433.
software platforms and local configurations of tools and practices [7] C. Bazerman, The Languages of Edison's Electric Light, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
the BIM use and development will continue. In addition to general Mass., 1999.
[8] H. Van Lente, A. Rip, The rise of membrane technology: from rhetoric to social
guidelines, solutions that respond to the specific circumstances, the reality, Soc. Stud. Sci. 28 (2) (1998) 221–254.
size of the project, composition of the partners, and the set of software [9] U. Felt, B. Wynne, Taking European knowledge society seriously, Report of the
tools used are needed. Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society
Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Comission, European
The two approaches have different views of the means of enhancing Communities, Belgium, 2007.
the implementation of BIM and learning related to it. The normative [10] C.K. Ansell, Pragmatist democracy, Evolutionary Learning as Public Philosophy,
framework relies on guidelines of different levels that define the best Oxford University Press, New York, 2011.
[11] N. Brown, B. Rappert, A. Webster (Eds.), Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective
or mature state of technology development, training as well as descrip- Techno-Science, Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, 2000.
tions of the cases of BIM use in which savings, efficiency and rewards [12] M. Borup, N. Brown, K. Konrad, H. van Lente, The sociology of expectations in science
have been achieved. These are used for providing exemplary cases of and technology, Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 18 (3–4) (2006) 285–298.
[13] D. Nelkin, Promotional metaphors and their popular appeal, Public Underst. Sci. 3
the advantages of the BIM use and constitute a positive model for the
(1994) 25–31.
implementation. We however think that this framework needs to be [14] R. Miettinen, Innovation, Human Capabilities and Democracy. Towards an Enabling
complemented with more practically oriented approaches for effective Welfare State, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.
[15] I. Löwy, The strength of loose concepts–boundary concepts: federative experimental
organizational learning.
strategies and disciplinary growth. The case of immunology, Hist. Sci. 30 (1992)
The activity theoretical approach suggests that accounts of experi- 371–396.
ments of BIM implementation in different organizations and contexts [16] P. Lahdenperä, Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project
are needed. BIM implementation does not only provide solutions that partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery, Constr. Manage. Econ.
30 (1) (2012) 57–79.
can be adopted and further developed in other organizations and [17] R. Volk, J. Stengel, F. Schultmann, Building Information modeling (BIM) for existing
contexts sharing the similar challenges. It also provides knowledge buildings — literature review and future needs, Autom. Constr. 38 (2014) 109–127.
about problems and bottlenecks of implementation which informs [18] C. Eastman, P. Teicholz, R. Sacks, K. Liston, BIM Handbook (2nd Edition) A Guide to
Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and
the further development of BIM models, complementary tools and Contractors, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2011.
organizational arrangements [93,94]. That is why well-documented [19] H. Kerosuo, R. Miettinen, T. Mäki, S. Paavola, J. Korpela, T. Rantala, Expanding uses of
accounts of experiments help to assess both achievements, problems building information modeling in life-cycle construction projects, Work 41 (Supple-
ment 1/2012) (2012) 114–119.
and further challenges of developing the BIM use. They need to include [20] R. Miettinen, H. Kerosuo, T. Mäki, S. Paavola, An activity theoretical approach to BIM,
detailed analyses of the forms of collaboration, ways of exchanging in: G. Gudnasen, R. Scherer (Eds.), eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering
information, and of the uses of tools in order to allow learning across and Construction, Proceedings of the European Conference on Product and Process
ModelingTaylor &Francis, London, 2012, pp. 777–781.
organizational boundaries. In addition, expansive learning in an
[21] J. Korpela, R. Miettinen, BIM in facility management and maintenance — the case
organization or networks of stakeholders requires several successive of Kaisa library of Helsinki University, Paper Presented in 29th Annual ARCOM
cycles of experimentation through which new functionalities and Conference, September, 2-4, Reading, 2013.
[22] I. Howell, B. Batcheler, Building information modeling two years later — huge
uses are achieved. It is no surprise that the most developed production
potential, some success and several limitations, The Laiserin Letter, May 2005.
control systems in the industry include the ‘standard part’ in which the [23] R. Howard, B.-C. Björk, Building information modeling — experts' views on
agreed and proven parameters and practices are preserved as standards standardisation and industry deployment, Adv. Eng. Inform. 22 (2) (2008) 271–280.
and guidelines, and the ‘problem part’ in which problems of production [24] N. Gu, K. London, Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry,
Autom. Constr. 19 (2010) 988–999.
and open questions are studied by trying and experimenting until [25] B. Succar, W. Sher, A. Williams, Measuring BIM performance: five metrics, Archit.
the proven solutions has been achieved [95]. In the same way well- Eng. Des. Manage. 8 (2012) 120–142.
 R. Miettinen, S. Paavola / Automation in Construction 43 (2014) 84–91 91

[26] W. Shen, Q. Hao, H. Mak, J. Neelamkavil, H. Xie, J. Dickinson, et al., Systems integration [60] R. Miettinen, The riddle of things. Activity theory and actor network theory as
and collaboration in architecture, engineering, construction and facilities management; approaches of studying innovations, Mind Cult. Act. 6 (3) (1999) 170–195.
a review, Adv. Eng. Inform. (34) (2010) 196–207. [61] A. Hartmann, M. Bresnen, The emerging partnership in construction practice: an
[27] T. Cerovsek, A review and outlook for a ‘Building Information Model’ (BIM): a activity theoretical perspective, Eng. Proj. Organ. J. 1 (2011) 41–52.
multi-standpoint framework for technological development, Adv. Eng. Inform. [62] L.S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,
25 (2011) 224–244. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978.
[28] V. Singh, N. Gu, X. Wang, A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multidisciplinary [63] Y. Engeström, Learning by Expanding, Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki, 1987.
collaboration platform, Autom. Constr. 20 (2011) 134–144. [64] Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory,
[29] U. Isikdag, G. Aouad, J. Underwood, S. Wu, Building Information Models: a review on Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
storage and exchange mechanisms, in: D. Rebolj (Ed.), Proceedings of CIB W78 [65] J. Law, M. Callon, The life and death of an aircraft. A network analysis of technical
2007, Maribor, Slovenia, 2007. change, in: W. Bijker, J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society, Studies
[30] N. Bakis, G. Aouad, M. Kagioglou, Towards distributed product data sharing in sociotechnical change, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1992
environments — progress so far and future challenges, Autom. Constr. 16 (2007) [66] B. Latour, Aramis or the Love of Technology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
586–595. Mass., 1996.
[31] C. Harty, J. Whyte, Emerging hybrid practices in construction design work: role of [67] J. Bowker, S.L. Star, Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences, The MIT
mixed media, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (4) (2010) 468–476. Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1999.
[32] J. Whyte, Managing digital coordination of design: emerging hybrid practices in an [68] S.L. Star, This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origins of a concept, Sci.
institutionalized project setting, Eng. Proj. Organ. J. 1 (3) (2011) 159–168. Technol. Hum. Values 35 (5) (2010) 601–617.
[33] R.M. Henderson, K.B. Clark, Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing [69] J. Whyte, S. Lobo, Coordination and control in project-based work: digital objects
product technologies and the failure of established firms, Adm. Sci. Q. 35 (1) (1990) and infrastructures for delivery, Constr. Manage. Econ. 28 (6) (2010) 557–567.
9–30. [70] J. Stewart, R. Williams, The wrong trousers? Beyond the design fallacy: social
[34] J. Fleck, Learning by trying: the implementation of configurational technology, Res. learning and the user, in: D. Howcroft, E.M. Trauth (Eds.), Handbook of
Policy 23 (1994) 637–652. Critical Information Systems Research, Theory and Application, Edward Elgar
[35] T.H. Davenport, Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system, Harv. Bus. Rev. 76 Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, 2005, pp. 195–221.
(4) (1998) 121–131. [71] K.J. Arrow, The economic implications of learning by doing, Rev. Econ. Stud. 29 (2)
[36] N. Pollock, R. Williams, R. Procter, Fitting standard software packages to non- (1962) 155–173.
standard organizations: the ‘biography’ of an enterprise-wide system, Tech. Anal. [72] N. Rosenberg, Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge University
Strat. Manag. 15 (3) (2003) 317–332. Press, Cambridge, 1982.
[37] G. Neff, B. Fiore-Silfvast, C.S. Dossick, A case study of the failure of digital communi- [73] L. Norros, Acting Under Uncertainty: The Core-Task Analysis in Ecological Study of
cation to cross knowledge boundaries in virtual construction, Inf. Commun. Soc. 13 work, VTT Publications 546, Espoo, 2004.
(4) (2010) 556–573. [74] C.U. Ciborra, K. Braa, A. Cordella, B. Dahlbom, A. Failla, O. Hanseth, V. Hepso, J.
[38] D. Bishop, A. Felstead, A. Fuller, N. Jewson, L. Unwin, K. Kakavelakis, Constructing Ljungberg, E. Monteiro, From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate
learning: adversarial and collaborative working in the British construction industry, Information Infrastructures, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
J. Educ. Work. 22 (4) (2009) 243–260. [75] S. Kujala, User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges, Behav. Inform.
[39] C.S. Dossick, G. Neff, Organizational divisions in BIM-enabled commercial construction, Technol. 22 (1) (2003) 1–16.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (4) (2010) 459–467. [76] E. von Hippel, The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation
[40] D. Forgues, L. Koskela, The influence of a collaborative procurement approach using process, Res. Policy 5 (1976) 212–239.
integrated design in construction on project team performance, Int. J. Manag. Proj. [77] E. von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation, University Press, New York and Oxford,
Bus. 2 (3) (2009) 370–385. 1988.
[41] A. Moum, Design team stories: exploring interdisciplinary use of 3D object models [78] E. von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2005.
in practice, Autom. Constr. 19 (2012) 554–569. [79] J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, R.R. Nelson (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Innovation,
[42] H. Kerosuo, T. Mäki, J. Korpela, Knotworking — a novel BIM-based collaboration Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005.
practice in building design projects, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference [80] C. Perez, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital. The Dynamics and Bubbles
on Construction Engineering and Project Management, Orange County, California, and Golden Ages, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2002.
January 9–11 2013, (http://www.iccepm-2013.org ). [81] R. Miettinen, Theories of invention and an industrial innovation, Sci. Stud. 9 (2)
[43] B. Becerik-Gerber, F. Jazizadeh, N. Li, G. Calis, Application areas and data (1996) 34–48.
requirements for BIM-enabled facilities management, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. [82] N. Rosenberg, Why technology forecast often fail? The Futurist, June–August 1995,
138 (3) (2012) 431–442. pp. 17–21.
[44] A. Kiviniemi, Value of BIM in FM/OM — why have we failed in attracting owners and [83] B. Hardin, BIM and construction management, Proven Tools, Methods, and
operators? Presentation in “BIM and Facility Management” Seminar, April 4th, in Workflows, Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, 2009.
Aalto University, Espoo, 2013. [84] L. Suchman, Human–Machine Reconfigurations, Cambridge University Press,
[45] B. Victor, A.C. Boynton, Invented Here: Maximizing Your Organization's Internal Cambridge, 2007.
Growth and Profitability, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998. [85] K. Schmidt, I. Wagner, Ordering systems: coordinative practices and artifacts in
[46] M. Gray, J. Gray, M. Teo, S. Chi, F. Cheung, Building information modeling, an architectural design and planning, Comput. Supported Coop. Work 13 (2004)
international survey, World Building Congress 2013, May 5–9 2013, (Brisbane, 349–408.
Australia). [86] M. Laakso, A. Kiviniemi, A review of IFC standardization — interoperability through
[47] B. Becerik-Gerber, S. Rice, The perceived value of building information modeling in complementary development approaches, Proceedings of the CIB W78-W102 2011:
the U.S. building industry, J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 15 (2010) 185–201. International Conference — Sophia Antipolis, France, October 26–28 2011.
[48] E.M. Rogers, The Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, 2003. [87] M. McKelvey, Using evolutionary theory to define systems of innovations, in: C.
[49] E. von Hippel, Lead users: a source of novel product concepts, Manag. Sci. 32 (7) Edquist (Ed.), Systems of Innovation, Technologies, Institutions and Organizations,
(1986) 791–805. Pinter, London and Washington, 1997, pp. 200–222.
[50] B. Berner, Teknikens Värld, Teknisk Förändring och Ingenjörsarbete i Svensk [88] M. Akrich, The de-scription of technological objects, in: W.E. Bijker, J. Law (Eds.),
Industri, Arkiv avhandlingsserie 11, Sättning UN-sats, Lund, 1981. Shaping Technology/Building Society, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1992,
[51] H. Kerosuo, T. Mäki, R. Codinhoto, L. Koskela, R. Miettinen, In time at last—adaption pp. 205–224.
of Last Planner tools for the design phase of a building project, in: I.D. Tommelein, C. [89] T. Hartmann, M. Fischer, J. Haymaker, Implementing information systems with
L. Pasquire (Eds.), 20th Annual Conference of the International Group of Lean project teams using ethnographic–action research, Adv. Eng. Inform. 23 (1)
Construction. Are We Near a Tipping Point? Montezuma Publishing, San Diego, (2009) 57–67.
2012, pp. 1031–1041. [90] R. Davies, C. Harty, Implementing ‘Site BIM’: a case study of ICT innovation on a large
[52] Y. Arayici, P. Coates, L. Koskela, M. Kagioglou, C. Usher, K. O'Reilly, Technology hospital project, Autom. Constr. 30 (2013) 15–24.
adoption in the BÌM implementation for lean architectural practice, Autom. Constr. [91] D.T. Campbell, M.J. Russo, Social Experimentation, Sage Publications, Thousand
20 (2) (2011) 189–195. Oaks, 1999.
[53] P. Adler, The evolving object of software development, Organization 12 (3) (2005) [92] C. Sabel, Learning by monitoring. The institutions of economic development, in: N.J.
401–435. Smelser, R. Swedberg (Eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Princeton
[54] A. Hutchinson, M. Finnmore, Standardized process improvement for construction University Press, New York, 1994, pp. 137–165.
enterprises, Total Qual. Manag. 10 (4–5) (1999) 576–583. [93] J. Plume, J. Mitchell, Collaborative design using a shared IFC building model —
[55] IAI, Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide. Version 1, AIA National/AIA California learning from experience, Autom. Constr. 16 (1) (2007) 28–36.
Council, The American Institute of Architects, 2007. [94] R. Sacks, I. Kaner, C.M. Eastman, Y.-S. Jeong, The Rosewood experiment — building
[56] W.B. Arthur, The Nature of Technology: What It Is And How It Evolves, Penguin information modeling and interoperability for architectural precast facades,
Books, London, 2009. Autom. Constr. 19 (4) (2010) 419–432.
[57] J. Ziman (Ed.), Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process, Cambridge [95] N. Lazaric, P.-A. Mangolte, M.-L. Massué, Articulation and codification of collective
University Press, Cambridge, 2000. know-how in the steel industry: evidence from blast furnace control in France,
[58] R. Miettinen, Dialogue and Creativity: Activity Theory in the Study of Science, Res. Policy 32 (10) (2003) 1829–1847.
Technology and Innovations, Lehmanns Media, Berlin, 2009.
[59] V. Kaptelinin, B.A. Nardi, Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction
Design, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2009.