Digital disruption of the AEC industry: technology-oriented scenarios for possible future development paths

References

• Amer, M., Daim, T.U., and Jetter, A., 2013. A review of scenario planning. Futures, 46, 23–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balarezo, J. and Nielsen, B.B., 2017. Scenario planning as organizational intervention. Review of international business and strategy, 27 (1), 2–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, T., 2015. The future of construction automation: technological disruption and the upcoming ubiquity of robotics. Automation in construction, 59, 113–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bröchner, J., 1990. Impacts of information technology on the structure of construction. Construction management & economics, 8, 205–218.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P., 2001. Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organization science, 12 (2), 198–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlile, P.R., 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization science, 13 (4), 442–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlile, P.R., 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization science, 15 (5), 555–568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chermack, T.J., 2004. Improving decision-making with scenario planning. Futures, 36 (3), 295–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, C.M., 1997. The innovator’s dilemma – when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Cambridge: Harvard Business Review Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crosby, M., et al., 2016. BlockChain technology: beyond bitcoin. Applied innovation review, (2), 6–19.
   Google Scholar
• Di Marco, M.K., Alin, P., and Taylor, J.E., 2012. Exploring negotiation through boundary objects in global design project networks. Project management journal, 43 (3), 24–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Smedt, P., Borch, K., and Fuller, T., 2013. Future scenarios to inspire innovation. Technological forecasting and social change, 80 (3), 432–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E., 2002. The construction industry as a loosely coupled system: implications for productivity and innovation. Construction management and economics, 20, 621–631.
   Google Scholar
• Erdogan, B., et al., 2009. Construction it in 2030: a scenario planning approach. Journal of information technology in construction, 14 No. Next Generation Construction IT: Technology Foresight, Future Studies, Roadmapping, and Scenario Planning, 540–555.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, S. and Hietanen, J., 2007. Interorganizational use of building information models: potential for automational, informational and transformational effects. Construction management and economics, 25 (3), 289–296.
   Google Scholar
• Gawer, A., 2014. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an integrative framework. Research policy, 43 (7), 1239–1249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems – insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research policy, 33, 897–920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerbert, P., et al., 2016. Shaping the future of construction – a breakthrough in mindset and technology, World Economic Forum in collaboration with The Boston Consulting Group, Cologny/Geneva Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Goodier, C.I., et al., 2008. Anticipating tomorrow: the future of the European construction industry. Loughborough: European Construction Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Harty, C. and Leiringer, R., 2017. The futures of construction management research. Construction management and economics, 35 (7), 392–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harty, C., et al., 2007. The futures of construction: a critical review of construction future studies. Construction management and economics, 25 (5), 477–493.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobsson, M., Linderoth, H.C.J., and Rowlinson, S., 2017. The role of industry: an analytical framework to understand ICT transformation within the AEC industry. Construction management and economics, 35 (10), 611–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavikka, R., Smeds, R., and Jaatinen, M., 2015. Coordinating collaboration in contractually different complex construction projects. Supply chain management: an international journal, 20 (2), 205–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehtinen, T., Långström, M., and Salonen, A., 2017. AEC start-ups that base their business on digital technologies. Kiradigi project. Available from: https://kirastartup.fi/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/startup-table.pdf [Accessed 26 Apr 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Levina, N. and Vaast, E., 2005. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29 (2), 335–363.
   Google Scholar
• Linderoth, H.C.J., 2016. From visions to practice – the role of sensemaking, institutional logic and pragmatic practice. Construction management and economics, 35 (6), 324–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J.G. and Simon, H.A., 1958. Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Mineraud, J., et al., 2016. A gap analysis of internet-of-things platforms. Computer communications, 89, 5–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miorandi, D., et al., 2012. Internet of things: vision, applications and research challenges. Ad hoc networks, 10 (7), 1497–1516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, M.E. and Heppelmann, J.E., 2014. How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard business review, 92 (11), 64–88.
   Google Scholar
• Pulkka, L., et al., 2016. Applicability and benefits of the ecosystem concept in the construction industry. Construction management and economics, 34 (2), 129–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringland, G., 1998. Scenario planning: managing for the future. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, S. and Norvig, P., 2009. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Schober, K.-S. and Hoff, P., 2016. Digitization in the construction industry – building Europe’s road to “construction 4.0”, Munich: Roland Berger Gmbh, Civil Economics, Energy & Infrastructure Competence Center.
   Google Scholar
• Schoemaker, P.J.H., 1995. Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan management review, 36 (2), 25–40.
   Google Scholar
• Schoemaker, P.J.H. and Mavaddat, V., 2000. Scenario planning for disruptive technologies. In: G. Day and P. Schoemaker, eds. Wharton on managing emerging technologies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 206–241.
   Google Scholar
• Senge, P., 1990. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Shirazi, B., Langford, D.A., and Rowlinson, S.M., 1996. Organizational structures in the construction industry. Construction management and economics, 14 (3), 199–212.
   Google Scholar
• Soergel, A., 2015. Pretty soon, old people will have all the jobs. U.S. News & World Report. Available from: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015-12-24/older-workers-to-dominate-labor-market-by-2024.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrata zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19 (3), 387–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turk, Ž. and Klinc, R., 2017. Potentials of blockchain technology for construction management. Procedia engineering, 196, 638–645.
   Google Scholar
• Van Alstyne, M.W., Parker, G.G., and Choudary, S.P., 2016. Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard business review, 94 (4), 54–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varum, C.A. and Melo, C. 2010. Directions in scenario planning literature – a review of the past decades. Futures, 42 (4), 355–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vass, S. and Gustavsson, T.K., 2017. Challenges when implementing BIM for industry change. Construction management and economics, 35 (10), 597–610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Hippel, E., 1994. “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Management science, 40 (4), 429–439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick, K.E. and Quinn, R.E. 1999. Organizational change and development. Annual review of psychology, 50, 361–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H., 1993. Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative science quarterly, 38 (3), 357–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whyte, J. and Lobo, S., 2010. Coordination and control in project-based work: digital objects and infrastructures for delivery. Construction management and economics, 28 (6), 557–567.
   Google Scholar
• Winch, G., 2003. How innovative is construction? Comparing aggregated data on construction innovation and other sectors – a case of apples and pears. Construction management and economics, 21 (6), 651–654.
   Google Scholar