Building information modeling and its impact on users in the lifeworld: a mediation perspective

doi:10.1007/s42524-019-0013-8

Front. Eng

2019, Vol. 6

Issue (2) : 193-206 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-019-0013-8

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Building information modeling and its impact on users in the lifeworld: a mediation perspective

Hans VOORDIJK(

)

Department of Construction Management and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands

Download: PDF(175 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Building information modeling (BIM) is expected to have a large impact on users in the lifeworlds in a construction supply chain. The impact of BIM on users in their lifeworlds is explored using the concepts of Heidegger, Habermas, and Ihde from the perspective of technical mediation. This impact is explored by a case study. BIM mediates and shapes the relationship between users and their lifeworlds and can be characterized as either a hermeneutic or an alterity relationship. BIM conflicts with existing work practices in a ready-to-hand work environment. For users that cannot work with BIM, the work environment remains present-at-hand. The many heterogeneous BIM applications and systems used by the various parties involved result in interoperability problems that are a major barrier to enframing the supply chain by BIM. Although invitation and inhibition of certain actions by BIM may stimulate the rationalization of the lifeworlds, the lack of intrinsic motivation and mutual background knowledge inhibits an alignment of BIM and working practices.

Keywords building information modeling mediation enframing lifeworld rationalization Heidegger Habermas Ihde

Corresponding Author(s): Hans VOORDIJK

Online First Date: 01 March 2019 Issue Date: 17 May 2019

Cite this article:

Hans VOORDIJK. Building information modeling and its impact on users in the lifeworld: a mediation perspective[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(2): 193-206.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-019-0013-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2019/V6/I2/193

Tab.1 Two levels of exploring the mediating effects of BIM

Strategy	The vision and objectives for BIM, how these are supported by the management, and how the introduction of BIM involves experts and specific designated groups.
Management support	The extent to which the management supports the implementation and further development of BIM by making budgets available and through communicating the relevance of BIM.
BIM expertise	Depending on the organization size, a BIM expert, a BIM working group, and/or a BIM-related department can be appointed. This player will often have leading, advisory, and supporting roles in the BIM implementation process.
Organizational structure	An organization’s structure includes the formal structure of the organization, including the hierarchical structure and job descriptions. The project structure defines how, in relation to BIM duties, responsibilities and risks are organized among the different parties in a project.
Tasks and responsibilities	The extent to which the tasks and responsibilities related to BIM processes are formalized, and the way in which they are addressed.
People and culture	Factors that are related to the characteristics and competencies of individuals and the organization as a whole. Individual motivation and/or a trait within the corporate culture will determine not only the current BIM use, but also the transition to new working methods and technologies.
Personal motivation and readiness to change	Individual drivers to accept and support BIM implementation. This motivation will determine the willingness of people to adjust their way of working to use BIM. The prevailing organizational culture has a major influence on the extent and speed of change processes.
Requesting actor (internal)	A requesting actor acts as a driver for the BIM implementation process. This so-called BIM champion steers and stimulates other people in the organization to use BIM.
Education, training, and support	Education, training, and support for BIM include both general organization-level information as well as specific instructions and guidance for particular people/target groups. Also involves the development of competences to execute BIM-related tasks.
Processes and procedures	The extent to which organizational and project-based processes are documented, e.g. in procedures and work instructions. This affects the consistency in the performance of processes.
Job instructions and procedures	The extent to which the organization’s internal processes for the various BIM applications are formalized in job instructions and procedures.
ICT (infrastructure)	The ICT-related resources that facilitate BIM, including both hardware and software.
Hardware and network environment	The physical elements and systems required to use and to store software and data. The quality of the network environment determines the ease with which a construction model and associated data can be exchanged both internally and externally. The ability to work simultaneously within the BIM environment also depends on the network environment.
Software	Operating and application tools that facilitate BIM applications.
Data(structure)	The management, structure, (re-)use, and exchange of project-related data.
Information structure	Use of a document management system (DMS), such as SharePoint, to save project data in a structured way and to make it accessible.
Object structure and decomposition	The decomposition/breakdown of a construction work, where physical or functional elements of a building are defined on different levels of detail. The structure that this creates can be used to provide insights into different parts of the construction work, to draw up and manage work packages, or to link information to specific elements.
Objects library and object attributes	In constructing a building model, standardized objects from an object library (a database of objects) can be used. An object’s attributes add additional, non-graphical information to objects in the building model, including characteristics and properties of an object.
Data exchange	The exchange and sharing of data via or from the building model with other parties. This creates various possibilities such as working on the basis of partners’ data (part models).

Strategy
Management support 1. Is there support for BIM from the management? What aspects do they support: financial, propagating the importance of BIM, etc.? 2. Are sufficient resources made available to apply BIM (do investments in BIM implementation depend on project budgets or are additional resources available)? 3. Are these funds sufficient to further develop and deploy new BIM applications? How is the support for the future guaranteed? (Has a multi-year program been prepared in which the support is defined?)
BIM expertise 1. Is there within the organization, a BIM expert, a BIM working group or a central department appointed to implement BIM? 2. Is sufficient time and priority given to the BIM expert/group? From which part/components and layers of the organization is this person / are these people from?
Organizational structure
Tasks and responsibilities 1. Is working with BIM integrated into the duties of regular functions (planner, designer, etc.) or are specialists needed, for example to operate software? 2. What is the impact of a changing environment on the BIM definitions of roles and responsibilities?
People and culture
Personal motivation and readiness to change 1. BIM is in many ways different from traditional practices. You should therefore see it as a change process. Does the motivation for this transition result from the organizational culture, or does it depend on individual drivers or those within a project team?
Requesting actor (internal) 1. Are there within the Organization one or more people who act as drivers for the implementation and use of BIM? 2. Do these drivers have enough time to optimally fulfill this role? On which layer/layers of the organization is/are this/these driver(s) active and do they act on behalf of the management? 3. Do the drivers of the BIM implementation process work together with partners, other organizations, or agencies to further encourage BIM development?
Education, training, and support 1. Is there education or training within the Organization linked to BIM software/BIM applications? 2. If so, what is the content (general education and/or specific training and guidance)? Are there opportunities to learn from experience and practical situations (both good and bad practices)? What is the target group of this education and training, who qualify to take part? 3. Are there IT employees/professionals who can offer personal guidance and technical support on BIM use? Is there an education program with a plan for education/training (or is it ad hoc)?
Processes and procedures
Job instructions and procedures 1. Are detailed procedures or work instructions prepared in which the processes related to BIM are described (or does this depend on the competences of individuals/teams?) Do these procedures/work instructions exist for all specific BIM applications? 2. How is it ensured that these procedures are followed consistently by everyone? Are there, for example, quality targets established for performance measurement? 3. What is the influence of experience gained and results on the work instructions (are these more static or dynamic documents)?
ICT (infrastructure)
Hardware and network environment 1. Do the organization’s physical systems- the hardware- facilitate the BIM software to function properly (and to support any BIM applications)? 2. Is advanced BIM software also supported? On all workstations in the organization, or only in specific spaces? 3. To what extent does the network environment support the cooperation of different parties in BIM? Are files exchanged across the network, is there also simultaneous working on a building model within a network environment?
Software 1. Is the software able to exchange (parts of) a BIM with external parties? 2. Does the software have restrictions whereby not all the desired BIM applications can be used?
Data (structure)
Information structure 1. Is a document management system (such as SharePoint) used? Is this system used for all BIM applications/all projects? 2. Is use of the document management system included in work procedures and/or job descriptions? 3. Is this system linked to the BIM platform? 4. Is the document management system only for internal use or does it act within a project as an 'umbrella ' system, in which all parties can store their information?
Object structure and decomposition 1. Is systematic object decomposition used, such as a System Breakdown Structure (within the framework of the Systems Engineering method), the Stabu or the RGD BIM standards (Government Buildings Agency)? 2. Is this decomposition prepared per project, or used as a uniform decomposition with standardized object encodings? 3. Does decomposition take place in cooperation with external partners? Are general agreements made or agreements on a project basis? Is your organization involved in further standardization of object structures in the sector?
Objects library and object attributes 1. Is an object library used in the construction of building information models? 2. Has the organization built a generic object library or is a specific library created for each project? 3. Are objects in the object library exchanged with project partners (using open standards)? Are objects from the objects library aligned with industry standards? Are there standard sets of properties associated with the object types in the objects library? What (non-geometric) information has to still be added to the separate objects in the building model (properties materials, requirements, etc.)?
Data exchange 1. Is an object library used in the construction of building information models? 2. Has the organization built a generic object library or is a specific library created for each project? 3. Are objects of the object library exchanged with project partners (using open standards)? Are objects from the objects library aligned with industry standards? Are there standard sets of properties associated with the object types in the objects library? What (non-geometric) information has to still be added to the separate objects in the building model (properties materials, requirements, etc.)?

1	AAdriaanse, H Voordijk, GDewulf (2011). Improving the use of interorganisational ICT in a project-based environment. International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management, 5(1): 36–53 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISCM.2011.039069
2	B ABechky (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14(3): 312–330 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162
3	JBroadbent, R Laughlin, SRead (1991). Recent financial and administrative changes in the NHS: A critical theory analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 2(1): 1–29 https://doi.org/10.1016/1045-2354(91)90017-8
4	GBurrell, G Morgan (2017). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Routledge
5	DCecez-Kecmanovic (2005). Basic assumptions of the critical research perspectives in information systems. In Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research: Theory and Application, 19–46
6	DCecez-Kecmanovic, MJanson, ABrown (2002). The rationality framework for a critical study of information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 17(4): 215–227 https://doi.org/10.1080/0268396022000017752
7	C UCiborra, O Hanseth (1998). From tool to Gestell: Agendas for managing the information infrastructure. Information Technology & People, 11(4): 305–327 https://doi.org/10.1108/09593849810246129
8	PDepaoli (2012). Experiencing information systems research and phenomenology: The case of Claudio Ciborra and Martin Heidegger. In: Gianluidi V, Gian M C, Ylenia C, eds. Phenomenology, Organizational Politics, and IT Design: The Social Study of Information Systems. Hershey: IGI Global
9	W P SDias (2003). Heidegger’s relevance for engineering: Questioning technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(3): 389–396 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-003-0035-8
10	W P SDias (2006). Heidegger’s resonance with engineering: The primacy of practice. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3): 523–532 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0050-7
11	SDorrestijn (2012a). The Design of Our Own Lives: Technical Mediation and Subjectivation after Foucault. Enschede: Universiteit of Twente Press
12	SDorrestijn (2012b). Technical mediation and subjectivation: Tracing and extending Foucault’s philosophy of technology. Philosophy & Technology, 25(2): 221–241 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0057-0
13	SDorrestijn (2012c). Theories and figures of technical mediation. Design and Anthropology: 219–230
14	H LDreyfus, S E Dreyfus (1996). The relationship of theory and practice in the acquisition of skill. Expertise in Nursing Practice: Caring, Clinical Judgment, and Ethics, 29–47
15	JEllul (1964). The Technological Society. New York: Vintage Books
16	AFeenberg (2000). From essentialism to constructivism: Philosophy of technology at the crossroads. Technology and the Good Life, 294–315
17	JHabermas (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1 Reason and the vationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press
18	JHabermas, J Habermas (1985). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2: Lifeworld and system: A critigue of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press
19	THartmann, N Vossebeld (2013). A semiotic framework to understand how signs in construction process simulations convey information. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 27(3): 378–385 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2013.04.001
20	MHeidegger (1977). Sein und Zeit (GA 2). Frankfurt a. M: V. Klostermann
21	MHeidegger (1994). Basic Questions of Philosophy: Selected“ problems” of “logic”. Bloomington: Indiana University Press
22	AHonneth, H Joas (1991). Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s the Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
23	DIhde (1990). Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press
24	DIhde (2009). Postphenomenology and Technoscience: The Peking University Lectures. New York: Suny Press
25	DKehily, J Underwood (2015). Design Science: Choosing an appropriate methodology for research in BIM.
26	BLatour (1992). Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a FewMundane Artifacts. In: Bijker W E, Law J, eds. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 225–258
27	BLi, R Lou, FSegonds, FMerienne (2016). Multi-user interface for co-located real-time work with digital mock-up: A way to foster collaboration? International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 1–13
28	ALockamy III, K McCormack (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management, 9(4): 272–278 https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540410550019
29	JMessner, R Kreider (2013). BIM planning guide for facility owners. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA
30	LMumford (1970). The Myth of the Machine: Vol. II The Pentagon of Power. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
31	O KNgwenyama, A SLee (1997). Communication richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 21(2): 145–167 https://doi.org/10.2307/249417
32	W JOrlikowski, J JBaroudi (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1): 1–28 https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.1.1
33	EPapadonikolaki, R Vrijhoef, HWamelink (2016). The interdependences of BIM and supply chain partnering: Empirical explorations. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(6): 476–494 https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1212693
34	APorwal, K N Hewage (2013). Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering framework for public construction projects. Automation in Construction, 31: 204–214 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.12.004
35	KRiemer, R Johnston (2011). Artifact or Equipment? Rethinking the Core of IS using Heidegger’s ways of being
36	RRosenberger, P-P Verbeek (2015). A field guide to postphenomenology. Postphenomenological Investigations: Essays on Human-Technology Relations, 9–42
37	SSikka (2001). Heidegger and Jaspers: Being, language, technicity. International Studies in Philosophy, 33(2): 105–130 https://doi.org/10.5840/intstudphil200133221
38	M SSilver, M L Markus, C M Beath (1995). The information technology interaction model: A foundation for the MBA core course. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19(3): 361–390 https://doi.org/10.2307/249600
39	ŽTurk (2001a). Multimedia: providing students with real world experiences. Automation in Construction, 10(2): 247–255 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(99)00034-5
40	ŽTurk (2001b). Phenomenologial foundations of conceptual product modelling in architecture, engineering and construction. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 15(2): 83–92 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0954-1810(01)00008-5
41	ŽTurk (2016). Ten questions concerning building information modelling. Building and Environment, 107: 274–284 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.08.001
42	P-PVerbeek (2001). Don Ihde: the technological lifeworld. American Philosophy of Technology: The Empirical Turn, 119–146
43	P PVerbeek (2005). What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press
44	P PVerbeek (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3): 361–380 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905285847
45	P PVerbeek (2008). Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of human–technology relations. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7(3): 387–395 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-008-9099-x
46	P PVerbeek (2012). Expanding mediation theory. Foundations of Science: 1–5

[1]	Mingyue LI, Zhuoling MA, Xi TANG. Owner-dominated building information modeling and lean construction in a megaproject[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(1): 60-71.
[2]	Albert P. C. CHAN, Xiaozhi MA, Wen YI, Xin ZHOU, Feng XIONG. Critical review of studies on building information modeling (BIM) in project management[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(3): 394-406.
[3]	Takashi KANETA, Shuzo FURUSAKA, Nisi DENG. Overview and problems of BIM implementation in Japan[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(2): 146-155.
[4]	Dongping CAO, Heng LI, Guangbin WANG. Impacts of building information modeling (BIM) implementation on design and construction performance: a resource dependence theory perspective[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(1): 20-34.
[5]	Wei-dong Wang,Jie Wu,Kai-jun Wang,Xin Wen. Construction Duration and Cost Simulation via Network-Program-Diagram[J]. Front. Eng, 2014, 1(2): 210-217.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed