Models, mock-ups and materials: artefacts of collaboration in the planning of large-scale construction projects

References

• Addis, B. (1994). The art of the structural engineer. Artemis.
   Google Scholar
• Ammon, S. (2019). Drawing inferences: Thinking with 6B (and sketching paper). Philosophy & Technology, 32(4), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0323-5
   Google Scholar
• Bucciarelli, L. L. (2002). Between thought and object in engineering design. Design Studies, 23(3), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00035-7
   Google Scholar
• Bygballe, L. E., & Swärd, A. (2019). Collaborative project delivery models and the role of routines in institutionalizing partnering. Project Management Journal, 50(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818820213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chia, R., & Holt, R. (2006). Strategy as practical coping: A Heideggerian perspective. Organization Studies, 27(5), 635–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606064102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicmil, S., & Marshall, D. (2005). Insights into collaboration at the project level: Complexity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Building Research & Information, 33(6), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210500288886
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connaughton, J. N., & Collinge, W. H. (2021). Trialling a new approach to interdisciplinary collaboration in UK construction: A projects-as-practice analysis. Construction Management and Economics, 39(7), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2021.1933558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: The story of practice. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deamer, P. (2020). Architecture and labor. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dimitrova, V., Grubbauer, M., Ruge, J., & Bögle, A. (2021). Large-scale projects as ‘arenas’ for interaction: Negotiating professional cultures of architects and engineers. In J. Thiel, V. Dimitrova, & J. Ruge (Eds.), Constructing innovation: How large-scale projects drive novelty in the construction industry (pp. 176–193). Jovis.
   Google Scholar
• Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. K. (2007). Visual representations as ‘artefacts of knowing’. Building Research & Information, 35(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210600950377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 07–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608083014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flick, U. (2016). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabher, G. (2004). Learning in projects, remembering in networks? Communality, sociality, and connectivity in project ecologies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 11(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776404041417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubbauer, M. (2015). Circulating knowledge, marketization and norm-making: International developers and construction firms in Eastern Europe since 2000. Global Networks, 15(3), 288–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutman, R. (1988). Architectural practice: A critical view. Princeton Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann, A., & Bresnen, M. (2011). The emergence of partnering in construction practice: An activity theory perspective. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2010.549609
   Google Scholar
• Harty, C. (2005). Innovation in construction: A sociology of technology approach. Building Research & Information, 33(6), 512–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210500288605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, K. (1999). On line and on paper – visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in design engineering. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, D., Williams, T., & Ren, Z. (2012). Differing perspectives on collaboration in construction. Construction Innovation, 12(3), 355–368.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr Cetina, K. (1997). Sociality with objects. Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(4), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327697014004001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knorr Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 184–197). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lahdenpera, P. (2012). Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. Construction Management and Economics, 30(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.648947
   Google Scholar
• Lobo, S., & Whyte, J. (2017). Aligning and reconciling: Building project capabilities for digital delivery. Research Policy, 46(1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, D. (2009). The global architect: Firms, fame and urban form. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Moran, D., Turner, J., & Jewkes, Y. (2016). Becoming big things: Building events and the architectural geographies of incarceration in England and Wales. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(4), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolini, D., Menges, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oraee, M., Hosseini, M. R., Edwards, D., & Papadonikolaki, E. (2021). Collaboration in BIM-based construction networks: A qualitative model of influential factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(3), 1194–1217. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2020-0865
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahman, M. M., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2004). Potential for implementing relational contracting and joint risk management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(4), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2004)20:4(178)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sage, D. (2013). ‘Danger building site-keep out!?’ A critical agenda for geographical engagement with contemporary construction industries. Social & Cultural Geography, 14(2), 168–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2012.737009
   Google Scholar
• Sage, D., & Vitry, C. (Eds.). (2018). Societies under construction geographies, sociologies and histories of building. Springer International Publishing: Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sydow, J., & Braun, T. (2018). Projects as temporary organizations: An agenda for further theorizing the interorganizational dimension. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800411409884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trompette, P., & Vinck, D. (2009). Revisiting the notion of boundary object. Revue D'anthropologie des Connaissances, 3, 1(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.006.0003
   Google Scholar
• Vriesema, M. A., & Kloosterman, R. C. (2022). Recapturing creative space in architectural design unravelling the production network of a young, innovative architectural practice in Rotterdam. Creative Industries Journal, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2022.2030102
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yaneva, A. (2005). Scaling up and down: Extraction trials in architectural design. Social Studies of Science, 35(6), 867–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705053053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaneva, A. (2009). Made by the office for metropolitan architecture: An ethnography of design. 010 Publishers.
   Google Scholar