Exploring the influence of socio-historical constructs on BIM implementation: an activity theory perspective

References

• Ahmed, A.L., and Kassem, M., 2018. A unified BIM adoption taxonomy: conceptual development, empirical validation and application. Automation in construction, 96, 103–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akintola, A., Venkatachalam, S., and Root, D., 2020. Understanding BIM’s impact on professional work practices using activity theory. Construction management and economics, 38 (5), 447–467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aksenova, A., et al., 2019. From Finnish AEC knowledge ecosystem to business ecosystem: lessons learned from the national deployment of BIM. Construction management and economics, 37 (6), 317–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akintoye, A., Goulding, J., and Zawdie, G., 2012. Construction innovation and process improvement. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Alnaggar, A., and Pitt, M., 2019. Towards a conceptual framework to manage BIM/COBie asset data using a standard project management methodology. Journal of facilities management, 17 (2), 175–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antwi-Afari, M.F., et al., 2018. Critical success factors for implementing building information modelling (BIM): a longitudinal review. Automation in construction, 91, 100–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awwad, K.A., Shibani, A., and Ghostin, M., 2020. Exploring the critical success factors influencing BIM level 2 implementation in the UK construction industry: the case of SMEs. International journal of construction management, 1–8. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1744213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., and Swan, J., 2004. Embedding new management knowledge in project-based organizations. Organization studies, 25 (9), 1535–1555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., and Swan, J., 2005. Implementing change in construction project organizations: exploring the interplay between structure and agency. Building research & information, 33 (6), 547–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bromley, P., Hwang, H., and Powell, W.W., 2012. Decoupling revisited: common pressures, divergent strategies in the U.S. M@n@gement, 15 (5), 469–501.
   Google Scholar
• British Standards Institution. 2019. BIM Level 2. Available from: https://bim-level2.org/ [Accessed 18 November 2019].
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A., and Bell, E., 2011. Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Çıdık, M.S., Boyd, D., and Thurairajah, N., 2017. Ordering in disguise: digital integration in built-environment practices. Building research & information, 45 (6), 665–680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dainty, A., et al., 2017. BIM and the small construction firm: a critical perspective. Building research & information, 45 (6), 696–709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowsett, R.M., and Harty, C.F., 2019. Assessing the implementation of BIM – an information systems approach. Construction management and economics, 37 (10), 551–566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K.M., and Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50 (1), 25–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., 1987. Learning by expanding: an activity theory approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., 2001. Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14 (1), 133–156.
   Google Scholar
• Easterby-Smith, M., et al., 2018. Management & business research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Floricel, S., et al., 2014. Extending project management research: insights from social theories. International journal of project management, 32 (7), 1091–1107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, S., 2014. Getting real about BIM. International journal of managing projects in business, 7 (3), 405–422.
   Google Scholar
• Foxell, S., and Cooper, I., 2015. Closing the policy gaps. Building research & information, 43 (4), 399–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gade, P.N., et al., 2019. A holistic analysis of a BIM-mediated building design process using activity theory. Construction management and economics, 37 (6), 336–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gondo, M.B., and Amis, J.M., 2013. Variations in practice adoption: the roles of conscious reflection and discourse. Academy of management review, 38 (2), 229–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groleau, C., et al., 2012. From hand drawings to computer visuals: confronting situated and institutionalized practices in an architecture firm. Organization science, 23 (3), 651–671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurevich, U., Sacks, R., and Shrestha, P., 2017. Mapping the impact of BIM adoption efforts on occupant value. Building research & information, 49 (6), 610–630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustavsson, T.K., 2018. Liminal roles in construction project practice: exploring change through the roles of partnering manager, building logistic specialist and BIM coordinator. Construction management and economics, 36 (11), 599–610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, D.M., Algiers, A., and Levitt, R.E., 2018. Identifying the role of supply chain integration practices in the adoption of systemic innovations. Journal of management in engineering, 34 (6), 04018030–04018031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, D.M., Whyte, J.K., and Lessing, J., 2020. Mirror-breaking strategies to enable digital manufacturing in Silicon Valley construction firms: a comparative case study. Construction management and economics, 38 (4), 322–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann, T., Fischer, M., and Haymaker, J., 2009. Implementing information systems with project teams using ethnographic-action research. Advanced engineering informatics, 23 (1), 57–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harty, C., 2005. Innovation in construction: a sociology of technology approach. Building research & information, 33 (6), 512–522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harty, C., 2008. Implementing innovation in construction: contexts, relative boundedness and actor-network theory. Construction management and economics, 26 (10), 1029–1041.
   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
• Kaptelinin, V., and Nardi, B., 2006. Acting with technology: activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kassem, M., and Succar, B., 2017. Macro BIM adoption: comparative market analysis. Automation in construction, 81, 286–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblad, H., 2019. Black boxing BIM: the public client’s strategy in BIM implementation. Construction management and economics, 37 (1), 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindgren, J., 2016. Diffusing systemic innovations: influencing factors, approaches and further research. Architectural engineering and design management, 12 (1), 19–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linderoth, H.C.J., 2017. 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
• Mäki, T., and Kerosuo, H., 2015. Site managers’ daily work and the uses of building information modelling in construction site management. Construction management and economics, 33 (3), 163–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews, J., et al., 2018. Building information modelling in construction: insights from collaboration and change management perspectives. Production planning & control, 29 (3), 202–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miettinen, R., and Paavola, S., 2014. Beyond the BIM utopia: approaches to the development and implementation of building information modelling. Automation in construction, 43, 84–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, B., 2019. Organizing for digitalization through mutual constitution: the case of a design firm. Construction management and economics, 37 (7), 400–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oraee, M., et al., 2017. Collaboration in BIM-based construction networks: a bibliometric-qualitative literature review. International journal of project management, 35 (7), 1288–1301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orstavik, F., 2014. Innovation as re-institutionalization: a case study of technological change in housebuilding in Norway. Construction management and economics, 32 (9), 857–873.
   Google Scholar
• Papadonikolaki, E., 2018. Loosely coupled systems of innovation: aligning BIM adoption with implementation in Dutch construction. Journal of management in engineering, 34 (6), 05018009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadonikolaki, E., van Oel, C., and Kagioglou, M., 2019. Organising and managing boundaries: a structurational view of collaboration with Building Information Modelling (BIM). International journal of project management, 37 (3), 378–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poirier, E., Staub-French, S., and Forgues, D., 2015. Embedded contexts of innovation: BIM adoption and implementation for a specialty contracting SME. Construction innovation, 15 (1), 42–65.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, R., et al., 2018. BIM handbook: a guide to building information modelling for owners, designers, engineers, contractors and facility managers. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A., 2012. Research methods for business students. London: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W., 2014. Institutions and organisations. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Shibeika, A., and Harty, C., 2015. Diffusion of digital innovation in construction: a case study of a UK engineering firm. Construction management and economics, 33 (5–6), 453–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smiley, J.-P., Fernie, S., and Dainty, A., 2014. Understanding construction reform discourses. Construction management and economics, 32 (7–8), 804–815.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, J. E., 2006. Three perspectives on innovation in interorganizational networks: Systemic innovation, boundary object change, and the alignment of innovations and networks. Stanford: Stanford University.
   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
• Yamagata-Lynch, L., 2010. Activity systems analysis methods: understanding complex learning environments. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R., 2014. Case study research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar