Challenging construction project management institutions: the role and agency of BIM actors

References

• Akintola A, Venkatachalam S, Root D. 2017. New BIM roles’ legitimacy and changing power dynamics on BIM-enabled projects. J Constr Eng Manage. 143(9):04017066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosch-Sijtsema PM, Gluch P, Sezer AA. 2019. Professional development of the BIM actor role. Automat Constr. 97:44–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosch-Sijtsema PM, Isaksson A, Lennartsson M, Linderoth H. 2017. Barriers and facilitators for BIM use among Swedish medium-sized contractors – “we wait until someone tells us to use it”. Visualization Eng. 5(1):3.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A. 2008. Social science methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corbin J, Strauss A. 2008. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Davies K, Wilkinson S, McMeel D. 2017. A review of specialist role definitions in BIM guides and standards. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 22(10):185–203.
   Google Scholar
• Davies R, Harty C. 2013. Measurement and exploration of individual beliefs about the consequences of building information modelling use. Const. Manage Econ. 32(11):1110–1127.
   Google Scholar
• Dossick PE, Neff G. 2010. Organizational divisions in BIM-enabled commercial construction. J Constr Eng Manage. 136(4):459–467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froese TM. 2010. The impact of emerging information technology on project management for construction. Automat Constr. 19(5):531–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gluch P, Svensson I. 2018. On the nexus of changing public facilities management practices: purposive and co-creative actions across multiple levels. Constr Manage Econ. 36(5):259–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu N, London K. 2010. Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Automat Constr. 19(8):988–999.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampel C, Lawrence TB, Tracey P. 2017. In: Greenwood R, Oliver C, Lawrence TB, Meyer R, editors. Institutional work: taking stock and making it matter. SAGE Handbook of organizational institutionalism. 2nd ed. London: Sage; p. 558–590.
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann T, Fischer M. 2007. Supporting the constructability review with 3D/4D models. Build Res Inform. 35(1):70–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He Q, Wang G, Luo L, Shi Q, Xie J, Meng X. 2017. Mapping the managerial areas of building information modeling (BIM) using scientometric analysis. Int J Proj Manage. 35(4):670–685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosseini MR, Martek I, Papadonikolaki E, Sheikhkhoshkar M, Banihashemi S, Arashpour M. 2018. Viability of the BIM manager enduring as a distinct role: association rule mining of job advertisements. J Constr Eng Manage. 144(9):04018085.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes W, Hughes C. 2013. Professionalism and professional institutions in times of change. Build Res Inform. 41(1):28–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsson M, Merschbrock C. 2018. BIM coordinators: a review. Eng, Const and Arch Man. 25(8):989–1008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaradat S, Whyte J, Luck R. 2013. Professionalism in digitally mediated project work. Build Res Inform. 41(1):51–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones C, Massa FG. 2013. From novel practice to consecrated exemplar: unity temple as a case of institutional evangelizing. Org Stud. 34(8):1099–1136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadefors A. 1995. Institutions in building projects: implications for flexibility and change. Scand J Manage. 11(4):395–408.
   Google Scholar
• Kokkonen A, Alin P. 2016. Practitioners deconstructing and reconstruction practices when responding to the implementation of BIM. Constr Manage Econ. 34(7–8):578–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence TB, Leca B, Zilber TB. 2013. Institutional work: current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Org Stud. 34(8):1023–1033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence TB, Suddaby R. 2006. Institutions and institutional work. In: Clegg SR, Hardy C, Lawrence TB, Nord WR. editors. Institutions and institutional work. The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage; p. 215–254.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence TB, Suddaby R, Leca B. 2009. Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM, Barley SR. 2010. What’s under construction here? Social Action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Acad Manage Annals. 4(1):1–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao L, Teo E. 2018. Managing critical drivers for building information modelling implementation in the Singapore construction industry: an organizational change perspective. Int J Constr Manage. 19(3):240–256.
   Google Scholar
• Lieftink B, Smits A, Lauche K. 2019. Dual dynamics: project-based institutional work and subfield differences in the Dutch construction industry. Int J Proj Manag. 37(2):269–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäki T, Kerosuo H. 2015. Site manger’s daily work and the uses of building information modelling in construction site management. Constr Manage Econ. 33(3):163–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald S. 2005. Studying actions in context: a qualitative shadowing method for organizational research. Qual Res. 5(4):455–473.
   Google Scholar
• Muzio D, Brock DM, Suddaby R. 2013. Professions and institutional change: towards an institutionalist sociology of the professions. J Manage Stud. 50(5):699–721.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Org. Sci. 11(4):404–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinch TJ. 2008. Technology and institutions: living in a material world. Theor Soc. 37(5):461–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raviola E, Norbäck M. 2013. Bringing technology and meaning into institutional work: making news at an Italian business newspaper. Org Stud. 34(8):1171–1194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schatzki TR, Knorr-Cetina K, Von Savigny E. 2001. The practice turn in contemporary theory. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Scott WR. 2008. Lords of the dance: professionals as institutional agents. Org Stud. 29(2):219–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebastian R. 2011. Changing roles of the clients, architects and contractors through BIM. Eng, Const and Archit Manage. 18(2):176–187.
   Google Scholar
• Suddaby R, Greenwood R. 2009. Methodological Issues in Researching Institutional Change. In: Buchanan, DA, Bryman A. editors. Methodological Issues in Researching Institutional Change. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: Sage; p. 176–195.
   Google Scholar
• Uhm M, Lee G, Jeon B. 2017. An analysis of BIM jobs and competencies based on the use of terms in the industry. Automat Constr. 81:67–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urup L. 2016. Integrated design-build management – studying institutional processes to understand project coordination and performance [dissertation]. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers Technical University.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Azhar S, Nadeem A, Khalfan M. 2018. Using building information modelling to achieve lean principles by improving efficiency of work teams. Int J Constr Manage. 18(4):293–300.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao X. 2017. A scientometric review of global BIM research: analysis and visualization. Automat Constr. 80:37–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng L, Lu W, Chen K, Chau KW, Niu Y. 2017. Benefit sharing for BIM implementation: tackling the moral hazard dilemma in inter-firm cooperation. Int J Proj Manage. 35(3):393–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zilber TB. 2002. Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: the case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Acad Manage J. 45(1):234–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar