Formal and informal relations within BIM-enabled supply chain partnerships

Figures & data

Table 1. Scientific literature on BIM adoption and implementation across various actors.

Focus	Goal	Scientific literature	Research method
Architect	BIM adoption drivers	Son et al. (2015)	Survey using the technology acceptance model (TAM)
	Factors affecting BIM adoption	Ding et al. (2015)	Survey using structural equation model
Facility owner	Framework to realize benefits from BIM investment	Love et al. (2014)	Conceptual model based on resource-based view
	Assessment of BIM competency	Giel and Issa (2016)	Delphi method from various maturity matrices
	BIM benefits and challenges	Korpela et al. (2015)	Survey using cultural historical activity theory
Contractor	Transformation strategies for BIM adoption	Ahn et al. (2015)	Literature review and interviews
Supplier	BIM acceptance model	Mahamadu et al. (2014)	Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and Technology–Organizational-Environmental (TOE)
Installations engineers	Collaboration with BIM	Dossick and Neff (2010)	Ethnographic observations and interviews
Designers & engineers	Governance of BIM implementation	Rezgui et al. (2013)	Interviews with industry participants and focus group meetings
	Responsibility for adopting BIM innovation	Elmualim and Gilder (2014)	Literature review and questionnaire survey
Engineers & contractors	BIM adoption decisions	Gu and London (2010)	Interviews with focus groups
Multi-actors (incl. suppliers)	Adoption and benefits from BIM	Eadie et al. (2013)	Online questionnaire

Table 2. Taxonomy of studies applying SNA regarding the focus and the modelled entity.

Focus	Node	Tie (Link)	Scientific literature	SNA metric used
Intra-organizational	Employees	Awareness (informal)	Larsen (2011)	Network density
	Employees	Physical communication (formal and informal), also inter-organizational focus	El-Sheikh and Pryke (2010)	Degree centrality, closeness centrality
	Employees	Physical communication (informal), also project-based focus	Loosemore (1998)	Degree, betweenness and closeness centrality
Project-based	Employees	Physical communication (informal)	Chinowsky et al. (2008)	Betweenness centrality
	Employees	Physical communication (informal)	Alsamadani et al. (2013)	Network density, degree and betweenness centrality
	Employees	Digital communication (formal)	Hossain and Wu (2009) and Hossain (2009)	Network density, degree, betweenness and closeness centrality
	Firms	Hierarchical leadership (formal)	Solis et al. (2012)	Network density, centrality and structural equivalence
	Firms	Physical communication (informal)	Wambeke et al. (2011)	Degree and eigenvector centrality
	Firms	Physical (informal), digital communication (formal)	Thorpe and Mead (2001)	Degree centrality
	Firms	Knowledge (informal)	Chinowsky et al. (2010)	Network density
	Firms	Knowledge (informal)	Ruan et al. (2012)	Network density, degree, betweenness and closeness centrality
Inter-organizational	Employees	Physical communication (informal)	Pryke et al. (2011)	Network density, actor (degree) centrality and tie strength
	Employees	Financial incentive (formal)	Pryke and Pearson (2006)	Degree centrality
	Firms	Physical communication (informal)	Pryke (2004, 2005)	Degree centrality
	Firms	Performance incentives and contracts (formal)	Pryke (2005)	Network density, degree centrality
	Firms	Contracts (formal)	Park et al. (2011)	Network density, degree centrality
	Firms	Contracts (formal)	Chowdhury et al. (2011)	Degree, betweenness, closeness and eigenvector centrality
	Firms	Contracts (formal)	Sedita and Apa (2015)	Network density, average path length, betweenness and closeness centrality
	Firms	Contracts (formal)	Liu et al. (2015)	Degree distribution, average path length, and clustering co-efficient

Figure 1. The conceptual model of the study and the relation between the research questions.

Table 3. Description of cases A and B.

Aspect	Case A	Case B
Contract	Multi-party UAV-GC contract	Bipartite contractual relations stemming from the contractor
Portfolio	The contractor has a wide project portfolio	The contractor has a dry construction project portfolio
Architect	The architect was external to the partnership	The architect was internal to the partnership
Client	The client was internal to the partnership	The client was external to the partnership
Suppliers	The suppliers were hired at pre-construction	The suppliers were hired after Definitive Design
BIM use	BIM is used from preliminary design until maintenance	BIM is used from initiation until construction phase
Maintenance	UAV-GC contract including 20 years maintenance	No maintenance plans
Project scale	Large multi-functional project	Medium housing project
Energy	Special energy requirements	No special energy requirements
History	The partners have previously collaborated in three projects	The partners have previously collaborated in >10 projects

Table 4. Interviewed firms and employees of Case A and B.

Case A			Case B
Firm	Role/position	BIM user	Firm	Role/position	BIM user
Facility manager	Project manager		Contractor	Project leader
Contractor	Site engineer	x		Site engineer	x
	BIM manager	x	Architect	Project architect	x
	Design coordinator	x		BIM modeller	x
Architect	Project architect		Structural engineer	Lead engineer	x
	BIM modeller	x	Mechanical engineer	Tender manager
Structural engineer	Director			Site engineer	x
	BIM modeller	x		BIM modeller	x
Mechanical engineer	Project leader	x	Subcontractor B1	Project leader
Supplier (Supp2)	Tender manager		Supplier (Supp3)	Director
	BIM engineer	x		BIM modeller	x

Figure 2. Relations among actors, phases and building information from the CDE.

Figure 3. Contractual relations, BIM users (top part) and type of BIM-based information exchange in cases A and B (lower part).

Table 5. Node degree centrality, weighted centrality (see Figure 3) and BIM use per actor.

Case A				Case B
Firm	Degree centrality	Weighted degree	BIM user	Firm	Degree centrality	Weighted degree	BIM user
GCon(tractor)	23	31.5	x	GCon	17	20.5	x
install3	4	8	x	SubCon1	2	2.5
Client	3	6	x	Arch	1	2	x
EnergyEng	3	6	x	StrEng	1	2	x
Supp8	3	1.5		InstEng	1	2	x
Install4	2	2	x	Supp1,3	1	1	x
Install2	2	2.5	x	Supp2	1	0.5	x
Advisor1,2	1	2	x	Client	1	0.5
StructEng, Install1, Supp2,3,4,5	1	2	x	Drafter	1	0.5	x
Supp1,6	1	1	x	Supp4,5,6,8,10	1	1	x
Supp7	1	1		Supp7,9	1	1
Supp9,10,11,12	1	0.5		SubCon2	1	2
Architect, Drafter1,2,3	1	0.5	x	SubCon3	1	0.5	x
FM	1	2

Figure 4. Organization (files per actor) and intensity (versions per actor) of BIM-based information exchanges (IFC) in Cases A and B.

*Note that the axes of the diagrams from Case A and Case B have different scale.

Figure 5. Analysis of the content of information from each actor per phase.

*Note that the axes of the diagrams from Case A and Case B have different scale.

Table 6. Occurrences of recurring concepts across the narratives of the cases’ interviewees.

		Case A					Case B
Topic	Concepts	Architect	Structural	Mechanical	Contractor	Supplier	Architect	Structural	Mechanical	Contractor	Supplier	Subcontractor
SCM	Legal commitments	13	7	9	16	7	10	12	7	12	4	13
	Equal partners-SCM	5	2	8	6	4	1	5	5	0	1	6
	Price-orientation	13	6	18	25	6	7	3	4	12	1	12
	Quality requirements	5	1	4	2	1	1	4	3	6	2	6
	Previous experiences	2	3	9	15	10	4	10	4	8	1	13
	Safe atmosphere	2	3	13	2	14	2	1	5	4	0	13
SCM and BIM	Early discussions	2	5	10	5	15	13	6	14	18	2	5
	Shared learning	3	8	10	35	13	9	11	7	18	3	16
	Informal communication	5	10	9	12	19	3	9	8	3	5	5
	Joint responsibility	10	3	6	11	11	12	5	4	6	0	9
	Partner selection/investment	6	5	5	15	8	4	2	2	10	5	5
	Collaboration (together)	8	8	3	6	10	4	18	6	19	8	17
	Clear scope	13	5	6	17	2	9	10	3	14	2	3
	Consensus	6	2	0	1	7	11	2	7	1	1	6
BIM	BIM clash controls	5	6	1	5	5	1	5	4	6	3	2
	BIM coordinator	5	3	0	3	3	1	3	1	4	3	1
	BIM protocol	4	1	0	12	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
	BIM agreements	21	13	1	19	1	2	6	2	10	2	1
	Common Data Environment	2	0	4	1	4	0	1	0	5	2	0
	Colocation	2	0	0	1	1	3	3	6	5	1	3
	Continuous phasing	5	1	6	7	4	3	0	2	4	1	2

Table 7. Summary of formal and informal relations of case A and B.

Dimension	Case A	Case B
Formal	The overall project planning was decided from the top management of the UAV-GC contract	The construction plan was decided in pull-planning sessions among the suppliers
	BIM competency was a factor of tender award	Cultural alignment was a SC selection criterion
	The BIM clash sessions were held per building unit and discipline; many federated models	The BIM clash-sessions were held at a contingency level; only one federated model
Informal	The actors focused more on the project	The actors focused more on the SC partnership
	The BIM collaboration process was pre-defined	The BIM collaboration process was flexible
	The engineers never conferred with the suppliers	The communication extended across multiple tiers
	The BIM protocol was detailed but not followed	The BIM protocol included basic agreements
	Colocations took place only to troubleshoot problems that emerged on site	Regular colocations of the team was encouraged
	The use of informal communication channels was minimal and always through the contractor	The use of informal communication channels was highly encouraged across multiple tiers

Son, H., Lee, S., and Kim, C., 2015. What drives the adoption of building information modeling in design organizations? an empirical investigation of the antecedents affecting architects’ behavioral intentions. Automation in construction, 49 (Part A), 92–99.10.1016/j.autcon.2014.10.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ding, Z., Zuo, J., Wu, J., and Wang, J.Y., 2015. Key factors for the BIM adoption by architects: a China study. Engineering construction and architectural management, 22, 732–748.10.1108/ECAM-04-2015-0053

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Love, P.E., et al., 2014. A benefits realization management building information modeling framework for asset owners. Automation in construction, 37, 1–10.10.1016/j.autcon.2013.09.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Giel, B. and Issa, R.R.A., 2016. Framework for evaluating the BIM competencies of facility owners. Journal of management in engineering, 32 (04015024), 1–15.

 Google Scholar

Korpela, J., et al., 2015. The challenges and potentials of utilizing building information modelling in facility management: the case of the center for properties and facilities of the university of Helsinki. Construction management and economics, 33, 3–17.10.1080/01446193.2015.1016540

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ahn, Y.H., Kwak, Y.H. and Suk, S.J., 2015. Contractors’ transformation Strategies for adopting Building Information Modeling. Journal of management in engineering, 32 (05015005), 1–13.

 Google Scholar

Mahamadu, A.-M., Mahdjoubi, L., and Booth, C.A., 2014. Determinants of building information modelling (BIM) acceptance for supplier integration: a conceptual model. In: A. Raiden and E. Aboagye-Nimo, eds. Proceedings 30th annual ARCOM conference, Portsmouth: Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 723–732.

 Google Scholar

Dossick, C.S. and Neff, G., 2010. Organizational divisions in BIM-enabled commercial construction. Journal of construction engineering and management, 136, 459–467.10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000109

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rezgui, Y., Beach, T., and Rana, O., 2013. A governance approach for bim management across lifecycle and supply chains using mixed-modes of information delivery. Journal of civil engineering and management, 19, 239–258.10.3846/13923730.2012.760480

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Elmualim, A. and Gilder, J., 2014. BIM: innovation in design management, influence and challenges of implementation. Architectural engineering and design management, 10, 183–199.10.1080/17452007.2013.821399

 Google Scholar

Gu, N. and London, K., 2010. Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Automation in construction, 19, 988–999.10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eadie, R., et al., 2013. BIM implementation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: An analysis. Automation in construction, 36, 145–151.10.1016/j.autcon.2013.09.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Larsen, G.D., 2011. Understanding the early stages of the innovation diffusion process: awareness, influence and communication networks. Construction management and economics, 29, 987–1002.10.1080/01446193.2011.619994

 Google Scholar

El-Sheikh, A. and Pryke, S.D., 2010. Network gaps and project success. Construction management and economics, 28, 1205–1217.10.1080/01446193.2010.506643

 Google Scholar

Loosemore, M., 1998. Social network analysis: using a quantitative tool within an interpretative context to explore the management of construction crises. Engineering, construction and architectural management, 5, 315–326.10.1108/eb021085

 Google Scholar

Chinowsky, P., Diekmann, J., and Galotti, V., 2008. Social network model of construction. Journal of construction engineering and management, 134, 804–812.10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:10(804)

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alsamadani, R., Hallowell, M. and Javernick-Will, A.N., 2013. Measuring and modelling safety communication in small work crews in the US using social network analysis. Construction management and economics, 31, 568–579.10.1080/01446193.2012.685486

 Google Scholar

Hossain, L. and Wu, A., 2009. Communications network centrality correlates to organisational coordination. International journal of project management, 27, 795–811.10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.02.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hossain, L., 2009. Communications and coordination in construction projects. Construction management and economics, 27, 25–39.10.1080/01446190802558923

 Google Scholar

Solis, F., Sinfield, J.V., and Abraham, D.M., 2012. Hybrid approach to the study of inter-organization high performance teams. Journal of construction engineering and management, 139, 379–392.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wambeke, B.W., Liu, M., and Hsiang, S.M., 2011. Using Pajek and centrality analysis to identify a social network of construction trades. Journal of construction engineering and management, 138, 1192–1201.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thorpe, T. and Mead, S., 2001. Project-specific web sites: friend or foe? Journal of construction engineering and management, 127, 406–413.10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:5(406)

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chinowsky, P.S., Diekmann, J. and O’Brien, J., 2010. Project organizations as social networks. Journal of construction engineering and management, 136, 452–458.10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000161

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ruan, X., et al., 2012. Knowledge integration process in construction projects: a social network analysis approach to compare competitive and collaborative working. Construction management and economics, 30, 5–19.10.1080/01446193.2011.654127

 Google Scholar

Pryke, S., Zagkli, G., and Kougia, I., 2011. Resource provision ego-networks in small Greek construction firms. Building research and information, 39, 616–636.10.1080/09613218.2011.628558

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pryke, S. and Pearson, S., 2006. Project governance: case studies on financial incentives. Building research and information, 34, 534–545.10.1080/09613210600675933

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pryke, S., 2005. Towards a social network theory of project governance. Construction management and economics, 23, 927–939.10.1080/01446190500184196

 Google Scholar

Park, H., et al., 2011. Social network analysis of collaborative ventures for overseas construction projects. Journal of construction engineering and management, 137, 344–355.10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000301

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chowdhury, A.N., Chen, P.H., and Tiong, R.L., 2011. Analysing the structure of public–private partnership projects using network theory. Construction management and economics, 29, 247–260.10.1080/01446193.2010.537354

 Google Scholar

Sedita, S.R. and Apa, R., 2015. The impact of inter-organizational relationships on contractors’ success in winning public procurement projects: The case of the construction industry in the Veneto region. International journal of project management, 33, 1548–1562.10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, L., Han, C., and Xu, W., 2015. Evolutionary analysis of the collaboration networks within national quality award projects of China. International journal of project management, 33, 599–609.10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.11.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar