How to implement BIM in the Dutch AEC industry?

(1)

How to implement BIM in the Dutch AEC industry?

Master thesis

By

ROLAND OLDENKAMP University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MsC Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Januari 2016

First supervisor: Dr. Olga Belousova Second supervisor: Dr. P.S. Zwart

(2)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to get a deeper understanding in the matter of BIM, with the focus on how this new innovation in de Dutch AEC can be implemented, with help of legitimacy explaining why. Further the theory of innovation diffusion is explained related to BIM. This is done by a search for barriers and challenges evaluated by experts on the field of BIM in the Dutch AEC industry. Study illustrates the current barriers are fewer than in the amount of barriers and challenges listed in previous researches. This shows there is a development going on the matter. Further it illustrates a deeper understanding of the current barriers and challenges still existing in the Dutch AEC, and shows that the market of the Dutch AEC industry is going to change. Study contributes to the current literature because it gives the current barriers and challenges for implementing this innovative way of working. It shows some consequences and shifts in the Dutch AEC market, which are caused by BIM. Further it gives an explanation for what needs to be done in order to implement BIM successfully.

Keywords: innovation, innovation diffusion, legitimacy, managing legitimacy, gaining legitimacy, temporary network, BIM.

(3)

Acknowledgement

(4)

1. Introduction

Adoption of new technologies, even most promising, is never easy. Expected benefits of technological innovations do not guarantee their transfer and diffusion (Linderoth, 2009). It is well known that the introduction of new information and communication technologies (ICT) into an organizational context is typically fraught with uncertainty. Organizational level studies have revealed that technological innovations may induce changes in users roles, interaction patterns and power relations. Thus disrupting existing routines and requiring expert advice and support to be mastered (Attewell, 1992). Therefore, new technologies, before getting accepted need to gain legitimacy, that is, to be perceived as desirable, proper, or appropriate within an organizations system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions (Suchman, 1995). Legitimacy affects not only how people act toward organizations, but also how they understand them. Thus, audiences perceive the legitimate organization not only as more worthy, but also as more meaningful, more predictable, and more trustworthy. But how do new technologies gain enough legitimacy to be accepted by the whole industry? In this study we address this problem using a specific case of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Dutch architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry.

In the past years Building Information Modelling (BIM) is more and more important in the AEC industry. BIM provides an alternative to the typical business processes and practices in the building industry. BIM offers new ways of doing business, enhances with the use of technology as a means to improve productivity in the design and construction processes. In the study of Bryde (2012) concluded that BIM is an effective tool in improving certain key aspects of the delivery of construction projects, cost being the one most positively influenced by the implementation of BIM aspect, followed by time, communication, coordination improvement and quality.

The industry has long sought techniques to decrease project costs, increase productivity and quality and reduce project delivery time (Azhar, 2011). Many firms in the industry still seem to be happy to continue using traditional Computer-aided design (CAD) whereas it is

noticeable that the Dutch government wants to convert their processes to utilise the new BIM technologies. CAD is the use of computer systems to aid in the creation, modification,

(6)

which the Rijksgebouwendienst, sought to provide professionals with a standard for the organization of information required of a BIM project (RGD.nl)

However, the industry adoption rate of BIM varies across the industry. A number of factors have been identified as major barriers to the use of BIM in the literature. Some of examples of these are: lack of awareness and training, the fragmented nature of the AEC industry,

industry’s reluctance to change existing work practices and hesitation to learn new concepts and technologies, lack of clarity on roles, responsibilities and distribution benefits (Ning, G., London, K, 2010). But a systematic understanding of the matter is still missing. Specifically, while we have a number of barriers listed in diverse studies (e.g. Khosrowshahi et al., 2012, Ireland, 2009), we still don’t know if the list of potential problems is exhaustive and whether the roadmaps suggested give a generalizable advice. We, therefore, need to uncover the underlying mechanisms behind these barriers and how they affect acceptance of the new technology. Therefore, in this master thesis we are looking into the following research question:

What are the factors impeding acceptance of BIM in the DAEC, and what are the possible ways to resolve these issues?

We believe, legitimacy theory could be a suitable approach to answer this RQ because legitimacy not only affects how people act towards barriers of BIM, but also how they understand the barriers, and by this understand the change. This is of great importance because the implementation of any technological system within an organisation should accommodate its impact on culture, personnel and the organisation’s use of technologies. Every organisation has its own culture and capabilities based on the competencies of their employees and technological assets used for standard processes. For implementation of information systems to be successful and make an effective contribution to the

implementation of a business strategy requires that there is a strategic fit between the business strategy and the external domain (Venkatraman et al., 1993).

(7)

Therefore this paper aims to give a better understanding of the main mechanisms of how technologies get accepted in the industry by gaining legitimacy across different networks within the AEC industry. Further it aims to identify the current state of BIM realisation and the readiness of Dutch construction organizations to implement BIM. This can potentially be important for the Dutch AEC industry. From this a roadmap can be derived. Therefore the following research question will be addressed.

What are the factors impeding acceptance of BIM in the DEAC, and what are the possible ways to resolve these issues?

Sub questions:

What is the current situation of BIM in the Dutch industry? What are the barriers perceived by the Dutch industry?

The paper proceeds as follows: we first discuss the problem of diffusion of technologies from a theoretical perspective and discuss how legitimacy theory could be applied here and help to explain why legitimacy is needed. Then we introduce the Dutch AEC industry and problems related to BIM. Next, methodology will elaborate on the interviews conducted and how these are coupled to the theories introduced in the theory section. After this the results are shown and by this discussed and followed by a conclusion of the research.

2.Literature review

2.1 Innovation diffusion

To understand how a new innovation is spread across an organization it is useful to

understand the concept of innovation diffusion. Innovation diffusion plays an important role in theories describing information technology implementation (Rogers, 2003). According to the theory of innovation diffusion, an innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is

perceived as new by an individual or group, and diffusion is the process in which an

(8)

describe the relationship between the rate of diffusion and the number of potential adopters over a predefined time period.

Diffusion is a special type of communication concerned with the spread of messages that are perceived as dealing with new ideas, and necessarily represent a certain degree of uncertainty to an individual or organization. The four main elements in the diffusion of new ideas are, innovation, communication channel, time and the social system (Rogers, 2002). As stated before, innovation is an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. But why do certain innovations spread more quickly than other innovations?

To answer this question it is important to know the characteristics of innovation. The

characteristics of an innovation, as perceived by the members of a social system, determine its rate of adoption. The characteristics that determine an innovation's rate of adoption are: (1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4) trialability and (5) observability. Relative advantage can be described as the degree to which an innovation has an objective advantage. What matters is whether an individual perceives the innovation as advantageous. Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use. Complexity can be understood as the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use. Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. Last, observability can be described as the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others (Rogers, 2002).

Innovations that are perceived by individuals as having greater relative advantage,

(9)

2.2 Legitimacy

As described above, innovation diffusion is largely about objective measures of an innovation in order to be perceived as useful by individuals to be accepted. However subjective measures are not included, therefore the theory of legitimacy is useful to understand the diffusion of the innovation through the organizations. Gaining legitimacy is imperative in starting something that is considered innovative. Suchman (1995) defines legitimacy in a broad sense as “a generalised perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed systems of norms, values, beliefs, and

definitions”. According to Suchman (1995) it is a perception or assumption in that it represents a reaction of observers to the organization as they see it; thus, legitimacy is possessed objectively, yet created subjectively. It is socially constructed in that it reflects congruence between the behaviours of the legitimated entity and the shared (or assumedly shared) beliefs of some social group. Thus legitimacy is dependent on a collective audience, yet independent of particular observers.

Legitimacy provides for a decision-making that is different from other rational methods. People's decisions are influenced by the belief that other legitimated organizations or persons decisions are correct or appropriate and must be followed (Zelditch, 2001). Legitimacy can also induce voluntary compliance from external agents by creating feelings of obligation (Tyler 2006). In this sense, legitimacy facilitates the continuity of an organization's activities since its stakeholders are more likely to support organizations that they consider to be

desirable, proper, or appropriate (Parsons, 1960). Because of this, legitimacy increases the chances of acquiring necessary resources for survival and growth such as capital, technology, management teams, employees, clients, and networks (Aldrich and Fiol 1994, Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1995).

Suchman (1995) describes three types of legitimacy termed pragmatic legitimacy, moral legitimacy and cognitive legitimacy. Each type rests on a somewhat different behavioural dynamics.

(10)

further their own interests, not necessarily because the organization achieves its goals (Diez et al, 2013). So at the simplest level it can be seen as a sort of exchange legitimacy support for an organizational policy based on that policy’s expected value a particular set of constituents (Suchman, 1995). Suchmann (1995) goes further by saying that next to exchange legitimacy there is a related, but more socially constructed type of pragmatic legitimacy termed influence legitimacy. With this type constituents support the organization not because they believe that is provides specific favourable exchanges, but rather because they see it as being responsive to their larger interest. These two types of pragmatic legitimacy are most studied in the past. This is broader than relative advantage that is provided by technology. For example, a technology can be superior, but at the same time not in political/exchange interest of a party. When looking for example at the electric car. It is well known for a long time that these cars are cheaper and better for the environment. But they do not use gas; this is why oil people blocked this technological development for decades.

Moral legitimacy: Moral legitimacy rests not on judgments about whether a given activity benefits the evaluator, but rather on judgments about whether the given activity is ‘ the right thing to do’. It is the result of explicit public discussion (Suchman, 1995). An organization shows moral legitimacy when it treats employees and clients in the expected fashion within its given social system (Diez et al., 2013). Moral legitimacy reflects a prosaically logic that differs fundamentally from narrow self-interest. For this reason moral claims can be undercut by even an appearance of cynicism, and managers charged with enunciating such claims frequently find it difficult to avoid buying into their own initially strategic pronouncements (Weick, 1969).

In general, moral legitimacy takes one of three forms: evaluations of outputs and

consequences, evaluations of techniques and procedures, and evaluations of categories and structures

(11)

that allows them to be empirically discovered”. These are broader outcomes than just technical superiority.

Procedural legitimacy: Suchman (1995) goes further in his paper by saying that in addition to producing socially valued consequences; organizations also can garner moral legitimacy by embracing socially accepted techniques and procedures. Such procedural legitimacy becomes most significant in the absence of clear outcome measures (Scott, 1992), when the way they do it, may serve to demonstrate that the organization is making a good faith effort to achieve valued, maybe invisible, ends. According to Berger, Berger & Kellner (1973) the proper means and procedures are given a positive moral value. Suchman (1995) continuous by saying that it is especially the case in professional activities where cultural beliefs define certain outcomes as largely stochastic. This comes closest to the compatibility of technology to the current practices in the industry

Structural legitimacy: with this type of legitimacy audiences see the organization as valuable and worthy of support because its structural characteristics locate it within a morally favoured taxonomic category. Scott (1992) described structures as indicators of an organization’s socially constructed capacity to perform specific types of work. Meyer and Rowan (1991) say that institutionally prescribed structures give the message that an organization is acting on collectively valued purposes in a proper and adequate manner. It becomes the right organization for the job.

Cognitive legitimacy: The assessment that organizational activities are desirable, proper or appropriate because they match pre-constructed beliefs about ways of organizing work and generating social value. Cognitive legitimacy is concerned with the definition and meaning of organizational activities. It is what makes organizational activities simply ‘ make sense’ (Suchman, 1995). It builds on the assumption of mutual behavioural expectations, which are routinized in a way upon which different actors have agreed. An organization exhibits desirability and acceptance by developing methods, concepts and ideas that are commonly accepted and considered useful and desirable by professionals and experts in its surrounding environment (Scott, 1995; Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002). This type of legitimacy is

(12)

The types legitimacy of Suchman (1995) mentioned above reflect two important underlying distinctions. Pragmatic legitimacy rests on audience self-interest whereas moral and cognitive do not. This is because audience base pragmatic assessments largely on self-regarding utility calculations, and organizations often can purchase pragmatic legitimacy by directing tangible rewards. Moral and cognitive legitimation types implicate larger cultural rules. The second distinction is that both pragmatic and moral legitimacy rest on discursive evaluation, whereas cognitive does not (Suchman, 1995).

The study of Diez et al, (2013) showed that there is a link between legitimacy and

organizational results. They linked the three types of legitimacy of Suchman (1995) to the question if the types are associated with improved access to resources and improved organizational results. They found support for the fact that indeed it leads to better

organizational results and better access to resources. However with the exception of moral legitimacy not resulting in better organizational results, but it does give better access to resources though. For cognitive legitimacy they did not found support, but it is stated that the companies, which scored lowest on this type of legitimacy, also showed the lowest scores on organization results and access to resources.

2.3 Managing legitimacy

In order to answer the research question it is important to know how to manage legitimacy in order to determine a strategy to gain legitimacy.

Suchman (1995) explains how to manage legitimacy. He first starts with the fact that legitimacy can be managed along multiple dimensions. The first dimension is the type of legitimacy, cognitive, moral or pragmatic legitimacy. The second dimension is the intent of legitimacy management. This refers to whether efforts are aimed at gaining, maintaining or repairing legitimacy. The third dimension is the target of legitimacy, which refers to whether efforts are aimed at internal or external stakeholders. When you intersect these dimensions, multiple distinct legitimacy management domains are defined. Each domain has different requirements for managing legitimacy.

(13)

on establishing the definition and meaning of organizational activities. When looking at the intent they vary as well. According to Suchman (1995) strategies for gaining legitimacy rely on proactive and prospective strategies, which help institutionalize beliefs and behaviours. Strategies for maintaining legitimacy require less active work and rely on monitoring and regulating activities so they are perceived as being within a zone of acceptance. Strategies for repairing legitimacy rely on reactive strategies that are meant to convince stakeholders that the organization has not deviated from past expectations. Last but not least, the strategies vary in target. This can be the internal stakeholders or the external (Suchman, 1995). So when now we know the three dimensions the problem can be measured alongside these dimension that gives the right type, intent and target form where a strategy can be formed to gain, maintain or recover the legitimacy.

2.4 Gaining legitimacy

For this research we will only look at gaining legitimacy, since this s of importance in answering the research question. When introducing a new innovation, or activity, especially when many others do not use this one, organizations often face the task for winning

acceptance either for the propriety of the activity in general or for their own validity as practitioners. This liability of newness (Freeman, Carroll, & Hannan, 1983: 692) has at least two distinct aspects. The first one is that when new operations are technically problematic or poorly institutionalized, early entrants must devote a substantial amount of energy to sector building. So they need to create objectivity and exteriority, a sense that the new endeavours define a sector that exists independent of particular incumbents (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994). The second challenge of gaining legitimacy is the two-pronged outreach task of creating new, allegiant constituencies and convincing pre-existing legitimate entities to lend support. In other words, strategies for gaining legitimacy rely on proactive and prospective strategies, which help institutionalize beliefs and behaviours (Suchman, 1995).

(14)

When looking at the first cluster, conform to environments; managers seek legitimacy by positioning their organization within a pre-existing institution. Doing so, conformity can be achieved by individual organizations acting alone and so manipulating only their own structures. This type of strategy signal trust to the cultural order and pose few challenges to established institutional logics (Meyer & Rowan, 1991). However the nature varies. It depends on what type of legitimacy the organization seeks. When one wants to achieve pragmatic legitimacy through using this type of strategy, an organization must either meet the needs of various audiences or offer decision-making access, or both. Organizations may also adopt conformist stances in pursuit of moral legitimacy. When doing this they must conform to principles ideals.

For example by using co-optation, this is a system where members of an association assembly or council elect or appoint new members. By using this moral strategy the organization is associated with resected entities in its environment (Suchman, 1995). Gaining cognitive legitimacy is primarily by conforming to established models or standards. Organizations in uncertain environments often pursue mimicry. Here you have two forms according Khaire (2010), structural mimicry and ceremonial mimicry. With structural mimicry you copy the structures of established firms, specifically the job titles. This gives a professional

appearance, and increases the legitimacy of a young firm with an unproven track record. With ceremonial mimicry you adopt external criteria of worth.

(15)

The last cluster is about manipulating the environment. Most organizations gain legitimacy primarily through conformity and selection. But for some these strategies are not sufficient. Especially for innovators, who depart from prior practice, which means they need new support from their environment. This proactive cultural manipulation is less controllable, common, and less understood than the other two clusters (Ashford & Gibbs, 1990). Pragmatic legitimacy is the easiest to manipulate, because it reflects direct exchange and influence relations between a focal organization and specific constituents. For example, product advertising. When looking at moral legitimacy it takes a greater challenge. For isolated organizations the best hope is simply to accumulate a record of technical success (Ashford & Gibbs, 1990). Strategies for cognitive legitimacy are popularization (promoting

comprehensibility by explicating new cultural formulations) or standardization (promoting taken-for-grandness by encouraging isomorphism) (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994).

2.5 AEC industry

As explained above it is important to know the environment in order to determine which cluster you need to develop a strategy. For this research the AEC industry will be explained. The AEC industry plays a major role in both the economy and infrastructure project delivery worldwide. One major critical characteristic of the industry is the high cost incurred by the revolution of arising conflict and lawsuits in projects (Tamaki 2007). The pace of

technological change in this industry today is rapid, and often new technologies disrupt or displace existing technologies and work processes associated with those technologies requiring significant organizational and inter-organizational change (Unsal 2011). This is particularly the case in the AEC industry in which interdependent organizations on projects must keep pace with numerous and frequent changes in their business and operating

environment. A trend in this industry has been the implementation of a large number of computer-based construction application software systems to support project execution (Fong et al, 2007).

(16)

working schemes, unique project designs and temporary organized teams (Ruan et al, 2012). A number of collaborative forms including partnerships, strategic alliances and joint ventures suggest that collaboration among heterogeneous construction contractors is increasing in a wide range of construction fields (Liu et al, 2015).

The construction projects include several reciprocal interdependencies between different professionals, processes and tools that need to be managed concurrently, thus they require coordination through the continuous adjustment of plans throughout the project (Bankvall et al., 2010). The importance of collaboration, coordination and communication for effective project execution has been emphasized in the AEC industry (Morton et al., 2006). In the AEC industry all organizations are social networks and can be addressed in terms of a set of nodes linked by social relationships (Pryke 2004).

3. Methodology

We have discussed the innovation adoption and the potential benefits of looking at it through a legitimation lense. After this managing legitimacy is explained together with a description of the AEC industry. As described above the AEC industry is currently in such a transition and we use it as a case study. More specifically, we will look at the case of BIM adoption in the Dutch AEC industry.

3.1 Research setting/case description

BIM is a methodology for design and construction based on collaboration by all stakeholders. BIM uses multi-dimensional modelling tools from numerous vendor sources. The national BIM standard definition for BIM is (McCuen, 2009):

“Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility. A BIM is a shared knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life-cycle; defined as existing from earliest conception to demolition.

(17)

BIM is a technology that allows for the consistent management of information (Song et all, 2012). BIM simulates the construction project in a virtual environment. With BIM technology an accurate virtual model of a building is digitally constructed. The building information involved in the BIM approach can include both geometric data as well as non-geometric data. (Ning and Gu, 2010). When completed, the building information model contains precise geometry and relevant data needed to support the design, procurement, fabrication, and construction activities required to realize the project, but can also be used for the

maintenance. In other words, it is regarded as a tool for managing the entire lifecycle of a project from the initial conceptual design to its maintenance, (Azhar, 2011).

It can be viewed as a virtual process that encompasses all aspects, disciplines, and systems of a project within a single, virtual model, allowing all the actors in the temporary construction network to collaborate more accurately and efficiently than using traditional processes. As the model is being created, team members are constantly refining and adjusting their part

according to the project specifications and design changes to ensure the model is as accurate as possible before the project starts, (Azhar, 2011).

So with BIM you systematically connect all the information from all the actors in the temporary construction network and store them in a database. The model can be seen as an nD model, which means there are more dimensions coupled to the model. So the model does not only contain the construction information, but all the necessary information for all the stakeholders are present. This information can be used during the life cycle of the building or project. It can be used by the owner to understand project needs, by the design team to analyse, design and develop the project, by the contractor to manage the construction of the project and by the facility manager during operation and decommissioning phases (Bryde et all. 2012).

(18)

Case Study 1: Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn, Atlanta, Georgia The Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn project comprised a mixed-use hotel, retail shops, and a parking deck. Brief project details are as follows: • Project scope: $46 million, 484,000-square-foot hotel and parking structure • Delivery method: Construction manager at-risk (CM at-risk) • Contract type: Guaranteed maximum price • BIM scope: Design coordination, clash detection, and work sequencing • BIM cost to project: $90,000, or 0.2% of project budget ($40,000 paid by owner) • Cost benefit: Over $200,000 attributed to elimination of clashes • Schedule benefit: 1,143 hours saved

Case Study 2: Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia This case study illustrates the use of BIM at the project planning phase to perform options analysis (value analysis) for selecting the most economical and workable building layout. The project details are as follows: • Project: Higher education facility, Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia • Cost: $12 million • Delivery method: CM at-risk, guaranteed maximum price • BIM scope: Planning, value analysis • BIM cost to project: $5,000 • Cost benefit: $1,995,000

As seen in the above two case studies it is hard to determine the exact benefits of the use of BIM. This because as stated before, you can use BIM in multiple dimensions. This also means you can exclude some dimensions. You can also see that the use of BIM is different in every setting, and when applying this methodology, barriers and challenges come forward. 3.2 Collaboration for BIM

At the core of BIM are two primary principles: BIM relies on the collaboration between stakeholders, and second, BIM provides a data rich model of the project, which can be used afterwards also. Professionals of the AEC industry beginning to recognize the opportunity for improvement, and more have chosen to implement BIM in their organization, (Bernstein et al. 2009).

It is well known that the number and variety of design and construction stakeholders involved in building and construction projects can make effective and efficient collaboration difficult (Linderoth, 2009). As stated before, an important characteristic of the AEC industry is the disruptive nature of the networks that constitute building and construction projects. Although BIM technologies have been presented as a solution to collaboration challenges in the

(19)

organizational challenges that limit collaboration. Whether a project is BIM enabled or not, organizational and cultural divisions between designers and builders and between contractors and subcontractors may stifle collaborative work and joint problem solving, even as the expertise needed for buildings becomes increasing complex and professionally differentiated. No research is done regarding the change of processes within the organisation. When looking at BIM, it is clear that new IT related processes and equipment are needed.

In the case of the AEC industry these collaborations are mostly temporary. They are called construction networks. Construction networks are a group of specialist firms contracted to work together on specific construction projects. Projects are as instances of work for the construction network (Grilo et all, 2013).

The use of the BIM approach as a central repository for the building project information is promising and can revolutionize information management for a project and throughout its life cycle (Kymmell 2008). He also states that the fundamental concept of BIM to be taught is the collaboration. The model may enable better access to project information and thus improve project understanding and control and, thereby, become a powerful management tool within construction collaborative networks (Grilo et all, 2013). However as stated before, these people are characterized by the fact they have a different nature and maybe also different interests in the project. Khosrowshahi et al. (2012) studied the implementation of BIM in the UK industry and developed a road map. In their study they distributed a questionnaire to members of the UK construction domain, which identified several challenges and barriers regarding the use of BIM. The following barriers in the use of BIM came forward.

(1) Firms are not familiar enough with BIM use;   (2) Reluctance to initiate new workflows or train staff;  

(3) Benefits from BIM implementation do not outweigh the costs to implement it;   (4) Benefits are not tangible enough to warrant its use;  

(5) BIM does not offer enough of a financial gain to warrant its use;  

(20)

(8) Resistance to culture change; (9) No demand for BIM use.

As can be seen above the barriers of the use of BIM vary in that some are objective and some are subjective. For example, 3-5,7,9 relates to the potential lack or marginal utility and risk-weighted benefits to be realised, therefore objective (Khosrowshahi et al., 2012). 1,2,6,8 relate to the subjective part of the companies. It is important to note that there is a difference in the definition of a challenge and a barrier. A barrier can be something materialistic or immaterial that obstructs or impedes something, a challenge seems to be the “resolution” strategy to somehow overcome the barrier. In this case this is the implementation of the use of BIM and what obstructs of impedes this implementation and the challenges are the “

resolution strategies” to overcome these barriers.

As described in the section of innovation diffusion, this theory is concerned with the process in which an innovation is communicated over time among the members of a social system (Rogers, 2003). It needs the acceptance of the audience that is going to use the new

innovation in order to be used. This is where legitimacy helps to explain. Because as defined by Suchman (1995) legitimacy is “a generalised perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed systems of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions”. Therefore it is important that in order to let the new innovation to be diffused properly, the audience it is spread too accepts it and sees it as legitimate. When the innovation is seen as legitimate, it is easy to communicate the new innovation. Challenges for BIM implementation emerged in line with the barriers listed above. These are:

(1) Training staff on new process and workflow;   (2) Training staff on new software and technology;  

(3) Effectively implementing the new process and workflow;   (4) Establishing the new process, workflow and client expectations;   (5) Understanding BIM enough to implement it;  

(21)

(7) Understanding and mitigating liability;   (8) Purchasing software and technology; and   (9) Liability for common data for subcontractors.   3.3 Data gathering

Use is made of interviews. Interviews enable to gather perceptions and expectations of

individual members; it is a key to evaluating trust and serve as an instrument to triangulate the findings (Velez, Sanchez & Alvarez-Dardet, 2008). The interviews of this research are semi-structured to control for the potential bias of the researcher. Totally semi-structured interviews are not an option for this research, because this paper tries to provide a comprehensive overview of BIM and the barriers that exist by making use or implementing that process.

In order to answer the research question, this research uses a two-step procedure. First of all, a form of the Delphi method will be used to evaluate the barriers and challenges that came forward in the research of Khosrowshahi et al. (2012). The Delphi method is a structured, iterative consultation and survey process that typically includes two or more stages or rounds. It employs a systematic and interactive approach to asking a small group of experts in a specific field to forecast an outcome and/or estimate unknowns, for the purpose of generating opinions to help reach decisions (Hung et al. 2008). The Delphi method involves selecting a panel of experts, who remain anonymous to one another, to provide their opinions and ratings through multiple structured steps (Fletcher-Johnston et al., 2011). This is particularly useful to collect recent information, as the barriers and challenges sourced from the literature date back to 2012, and with technological innovations, three years is a long time. This research uses heterogeneous experts who work with BIM. The selection of a representative panel of experts is critical to the strength and validity of the Delphi method (Clayton, 1997). A heterogeneous group of individuals with differing opinions, skills, considered successful, knowledgeable in the area of study, and differing perspectives on the problem is needed to generate more comprehensive and robust results which will make a valid contribution to the study (Murphy et al., 1998, Powell 2003).

(22)

relevant. Like this a first step is made to evaluate the older barriers. The barriers and challenges that are rated four or higher are considered relevant.

With the open questions is asked what their exact profession is, how this is related to BIM, and what their perception of BIM is. This is of great importance since one of the main barriers listed in the most researches is that there is a lack of understanding of what it really is. As stated in the previous section, BIM is systematically connecting all the information. This means that multiple disciplines in the project need to share information, and therefore it is important to know the perceptions of the different disciplines. This also generates a more and comprehensive and robust answer, and by this makes a valid contribution to the study

(Murphy et al., 1998, Powell 2003).

A barrier for the one does not mean this is seen, or thought of, as a barrier for the other. When looking for example to a project, you have a main contractor who is dividing the work to sub-contractors. This is a good example where one can understand that the main contractor has different responsibilities and incentives in the model than the subcontractor does. Therefore this research uses the following interviewees. A project manager who is active in making models of older building to asses its profitability. Second a director of the BIM institute, located in Rotterdam. This person is active for years in working with BIM, and knows the developments over the past years. He is specialized in making, managing and using BIM models. He therefore can give a trustworthy answer on judging the barriers, and most important, any new barriers or challenges in the Dutch AEC industry. Third, a constructive BIM modeller. This person is specialized in modelling, and by this can give his experiences of this discipline in making a BIM model. Fourth, a director of a research and consulting firm that is specialized in BIM. This person also is a core teacher postgraduate training BIM engineer. He gives insight in educating people and is a perfect link between the existing companies already working with BIM and the new people who want to work with BIM. The detailed description of the interviewees about what they exactly do is given in the transcripts in the appendices 1-4.

(23)

three types of legitimacy, the intent and target as described as described by Suchman (1995). From here an answer is generated to give an answer to the research question of this paper.

4. Results

From the interviews can be said the following. It will end in a new list of barriers/challenges, which are up to date and applicable to the Dutch AEC industry. A brief summary of each interview is given in which is stated how they ranked the barriers and challenges, and what they said in their field or experience are the main barriers that are important.

The first one to discuss is the interview of Dik Spekkink. He states that the importance of BIM lies in the management of information through the whole life cycle of the building or project. This is in line with what the literature writes about how it should work. He rates challenges 1-5 as relevant and 1,2,7 and 8 are given as most relevant barriers for the

implementation of BIM. He states further that as most important barrier it is the culture and also perception. A challenge is working more transparent and closely together and the current culture/generation of builders.

The second interviewee Peter Fokkens understands BIM according to the literature. He states that challenges 1-4 are relevant and 1,2 and 6,7 are the relevant barriers. Further he mentioned that the new way of working and how it should be given form is a barrier. A challenge is the common understanding and the learning curve that comes with the time it needs.

The third interviewee, Bruno Bartelds understand BIM as it is stated by the literature. Further he states that challenges 1-4,6 and 8 are very relevant today. Barriers 1,3-7 are considered as relevant. Further he points out that the way of thinking is according to him the main barrier, and it is a challenge to re-educate them. A shift is made in the process. This new way of working results in the fact that it shifts to an industrial process. Lost of productivity and higher costs in starting phase. Availability/knowledge of the right software is a barrier. A cultural barrier is that big companies act in their own interest.

(24)

By listing the former barriers and challenges that are rated as relevant today, and including the barriers and challenges that came forward during the interviews, a new reliable list of barriers and challenges faced by the Dutch AEC is formed. Barriers and challenges that are all agreed upon are chosen to put on top of the list, barriers and challenges that are chosen as relevant by more than 2 interviewees are put below.

Barriers:

(1) Firms are not familiar enough with BIM use; (2) Reluctance to initiate new workflows or train staff;

(3) BIM is too risky from a liability standpoint to warrant its use; Challenges:

(1) Effectively implementing the new process and workflow;   (2) Establishing the new process, workflow and client expectations; (3) Training staff on new process and workflow;

(4) Training staff on new software and technology.

5. Discussion

What is interesting to see is that there is no common understanding of what BIM exactly is. All the experts agreed upon the fact that in their field they see that their clients do not understand what it is, and how it should work. This was also listed as number one barrier. Many see BIM as tools that help improve current processes. Tools are often used in the traditional processes, but by using it like this it is not possible to reach the benefits that possibly can be achieved. And because it is not understood properly, benefits are not seen. So from this point, the operations of BIM are poorly institutionalized, and the must be a substantial amount of time devoted in sector building. So they need to create objectivity and exteriority, a sense that the new endeavours define a sector that exists independent of

particular incumbents (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994). Therefore the first step is to manipulate the environment and use proactive strategies, which helps institutionalize BIM. With this an policy needs to be created which needs to be supported. This falls under the category of pragmatic legitimacy according to Suchman (1995).

(25)

modelling, and the party who eventually executes the project only uses the model to execute. This means a different process that needs to be understood, and important, a different way of thinking. The experts also give this as main challenges. The problem is that everybody thinks in documents and that needs to change to database thinking. Think in ingredients. In the end, the people working within the organization need to think of BIM, as it is ‘the right thing to do’. The procedures and techniques need to be accepted. Linking this back to Suchman (1995) procedural legitimacy needs to be gained.

As is clear by now BIM is about sharing information, and connect them systematically with each other. The current way of working stands opposite of how it should work. When starting a project every stakeholder needs to work closer together and be more transparent. This means they need to share the information they normally did not. For the Dutch EAC this is a cultural change. In order to overcome this cultural barrier, trust needs to be created among the members. When there is trust, this will lead to transparency and sharing information. This is key in working with BIM. How to overcome this cultural barrier?

According the interviewed experts this is going to be reached by the new generation of builders. This new generation is used to share information, not scared of sharing this. When an environment is created where a common understanding of the matter is present, companies can participate to this environment. This type of strategy signal trust to the cultural order and pose few challenges to established institutional logics (Meyer & Rowan, 1991). From this permanent working relations can be developed. This results in project independent deals. From this perspective, trust develops and so transparency. The result is they work on the implementation together; share development costs and standardization of processes make sense. One can also link this back to the fact the process is changing to industrial thinking. By standardizing processes and working together on the development of BIM, the barrier of costs becomes less relevant because costs can be shared. Only companies don’t see it like this. So they don’t see the benefits yet. However in the beginning there is a barrier for smaller

(26)

desirability and acceptance by developing methods, concepts and ideas that are commonly accepted and considered useful and desirable by professionals and experts in its surrounding environment (Scott, 1995; Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002).

6. Conclusion

BIM is becoming more important in the AEC industry, and professionals of the AEC industry beginning to recognize the opportunity for improvement, and more have chosen to implement BIM in their organization (Bernstein et al. 2009). This research has tried to search for a better understanding of the barriers in the Dutch EAC industry in order to implement BIM. By conducting a thorough literature review on the matter of innovation diffusion and legitimacy an answer is found on the RQ. Using interviews with persons active in using BIM, and with different expertise in the field of BIM a reliable set of barriers is conducted that is relevant for the Dutch AEC. If you want an innovation to be diffused properly, the audience it is spread too needs accepts it and needs to see it as legitimate. When the innovation is seen as

legitimate, it is easy to communicate the new innovation. The strategy of Suchman (1995) is used to give a strategy that result is legitimacy of the innovation. We can say that when looking at the list of barriers that came forward during this research, the main barrier is to understand what BIM is, and how this works. This is the basis of the other barriers and

challenges that came forward during this research. These because when BIM is not commonly understood as the same, the work processes, risks, and workflows are also not understood. By creating an environment where BIM is institutionalized, and the sharing of information and being transparent to each other is commonly accepted, the innovation can be diffused properly. Everyone must think of BIM that it is the right thing to do, and more important understand this is the right thing to do. When this new environment is created, and accepted, other can simply mimic the way of working.

(27)

Although this research was carefully prepared, I am still aware of its limitations and

shortcomings. First of all the research was conducted in two semesters, of which one semester consisted of two courses. Second, since this research involved interviewing persons active in the AEC industry, there was a two-week holiday in which the whole industry was not

(28)

References

Aken, van J. E., Berends, H., Bij, van der H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations – A methodological handbook for business and management students.

Aldrich, H. E. & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645-670.

Attewell, P. 1992. Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing. Organization Science, 3: 1–19.

Azhar, S. (2011). Building Information Modelling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks, and

Challenges for the AEC Industry. Leadership & Management In Engineering. 11(3), 241-252. Bankvall, L., Bygballe, L.E., Dubois, A. and Jahre, M. (2010), “Interdependence in supply chains and projects in construction”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(5), 385-393.

Bartunek, J. M., Bobko, P., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Toward Innovation and Diversity in Management Research Methods. Academy Of Management Journal, 36(6),

Barlish, K., Sullivan, K. (2012). How to measure the benefits of BIM — A case study approach. Automation in Construction, 2012, Volume 24, 149–159.

Baur, D., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The Moral Legitimacy of NGOs as Partners of Corporations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 579-604.

Benner, M. J., & Ranganathan, R. (2012). Offsetting Illegitimacy? How Pressures From Securities Anaytics Influence Incumbents in the Face of new Technologies. Academy Of Management Journal, 55(1), 213-233.

Berger, P. L., Berger, B., & Kellner, H. 1973. The homeless mind: Modernization and consciousness. New York: Random House. 

(29)

Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N., & Mezias, S. J. (2012). The Quest for Cognitive Legitimacy: Organizational Identity Crafting and Internal Stakeholder Support. Journal Of Change Management, 12(2), 189-207.

Brookes, N.J., Morton, S.C., Dainty, A.R.J. and Burns, N. D. (2006) Social processes, patterns and practices and project knowledge management: a theoretical framework and an empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 474–82.

Bryde, D., Broquetas, M,. & Volm, J. M. (2012). The project benefits of Building Information Modelling (BIM). International Journal Of Project Management. 31(7), 971-980.

Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17, 373–386.

Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(4), 411-424.

Díez-Martín, F., Prado-Roman, C., & Blanco-González, A. (2013). Beyond legitimacy: legitimacy types and organizational success. Management Decision,51(10), 1954-1969. Dossick, C. S., & Neff, G. (2010). Organizational Divisions in BIM-Enabled Commercial Construction. Journal Of Construction Engineering & Management, 136(4), 459-467. J.E. Taylor, P.G. Bernstein, Paradigm trajectories of building information modelling practice in project networks, Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE 25 (2) (2009) 69–76. Eisenhardt, K,M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of

management review, 1989, vol. 14, No. 4, 532 – 550.

(30)

Fong, P. W., & Lung, B. C. (2007). Interorganizational Teamwork in the Construction Industry. Journal Of Construction Engineering & Management, 133(2), 157-168. Freeman, J. H., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. 1983. The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48: 692-710. Grilo, A., Zutshi, A., Jardim-Goncalves, R., & Steiger-Garcao, A. (2013). Construction collaborative networks: the case study of a building information modelling-based office building project. International Journal Of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 26(1/2), 152-165.

Hung H-L, Altschuld JW, Lee Y-F. 2008. Methodological and conceptual issues confronting a cross-country Delphi study of education program evaluation. Eval Program Plan. 31:191 – 198.

Holmström, J., Stadler, F. (2001), Drifting technologies and multi-purpose networks: the case of the Swedish cashcard, Information and Organization, 11(3) 187–206. 

Ireland, B. (2009). Barriers to BIM. EC&M Electrical Construction & Maintenance. 108(3), 22-26

Kartam, N. A. (1999). Design/construction integration: issues and illustrative

prototype. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management (Wiley-Blackwell), 6(3), 299-314.

Khorsrowshahi, F., & Arayici, Y. (2012). Roadmap for implementation of BIM in the UK construction industry. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management (09699988), 19(6), 610-635.

Kymmell, w. (2008). Building information modelling: planning and managing construction projects with 4D CAD and simmulations. New York: McGraw Hill.

(31)

Linderoth, H. C. J.(2009). Understandin adoption and use of BIM as the creation of actor networks. Automation in Construction. 66-72

Liu, L., Han, C., & Xu, W. (2015). Evolutionary analysis of the collaboration networks within National Quality Award Projects of China. International Journal Of Project Management, 33(3), 599-609.

Lu, W., Peng, Y., Shen, Q., &Li, H. (2013. Generic Model for Measuring Benefits of BIM as a Learning Tool in Construction Tasks. Journal Of Construction Engineering & Management. 139(2), 195-203.

Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1991. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 41-62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCuen, T. L. (2009). The Quantification Process and Standards for BIM.AACE International Transactions, BIM.01.1-BIM.01.11.

Murphy, M. K., Black, N. A., Lamping, D. L., McKee, C. M., Sanderson, C. F., Askham, J., & Marteau, T. (1998). Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment, 1–88.

Ning, G., & London, K. (2010). Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Automation in Construction.988-999

Ng, H. S., Peña-Mora, F., & Tamaki, T. (2007). Dynamic Conflict Management in Large-Scale Design and Construction Projects. Journal Of Management In Engineering, 23(2), 52-66.

(32)

Parsons, T. 1960. Structure and process in modem societies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41, 376–382.

Pryke, S.D. (2004) Analysing construction project coalitions: exploring the applications of social network analysis. Construction Management and Economics, 22(8), 787–97.

Ruan, X., Ochieng, E. G., Price, A. D., & Egbu, C. O. (2012). Knowledge integration process in construction projects: a social network analysis approach to compare competitive and collaborative working. Construction Management & Economics, 30(1), 5-19.

Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Rogers, E. M. 2002. Diffusion of Preventive innovations. Elsevier Science. 2002 Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks: CA.

Scott, W. R. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Son, J., & Rojas, E. M. (2010). Evolution of collaboration in temporary project teams: an agent-based modeling and simulation approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 137(8), 619-628.

Song, S., Yang, J., & Kim, N. (2012). Development of a BIM-based structural framework optimization and simulation system for building construction. Computers In Industry, 63(9), 895-912.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy Of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.

(33)

Velez, M. L., Sanchez, J. M., Alvarez-Dardet, C. (2008). Management control systems as inter-organizational trust builders in evolving relationships: Evidence from a longitudinal case study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 968-994.

Weick, K. E. 1969. The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and methods. SAGE publications

Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of Case Study Research. SAGE publications

(34)

Appendices

Appendix I; Interview Dik Spekking Challenges implementing BIM

Please evaluate the challenges below in relevance. 1 is total irrelevant and 5 is relevant today. Answers have to be noted by means of key words + audio recording

(1). Training staff on new process and workflow.

Total irrelevant 1 2 3 4 5 Relevant

(2). Training staff on new software and technology

(3). Effectively implementing the new process and workflow

(4). Establishing the new process, workflow and client expectations.

(5). Understanding BIM enough to implement it.

(6). Realising the value from a financial perspective.

(7) Understanding and mitigating liability

(8). Purchasing software and technology.

(35)

(9). Liability for common data for subcontractors.

barriers implementing BIM

Please evaluate the barriers below in relevance. 1 is total irrelevant and 5 is relevant today. Answers have to be noted by means of key words + audio recording

(10). Firms are not familiar enough with BIM use

(11). Reluctance to initiate new workflows or train staff

(12). Benefits from BIM implementation do not outweigh the costs to implement it.

(13). Benefits are not tangible enough to warrant its use.

(14). BIM does not offer enough of a financial gain to warrant its use

(15). Lacks the capital to invest in having started with hardware and software.

(16) Resistance to culture change

(36)

(17). No demand for BIM use.

What is your function? , what work do you do, and what are your responsibilities?

Director of research and consulting firm specializing in BIM. Responsibilities: management of research programs at the industry level in the field of BIM, especially development and implementation of open standards; supervision of BIM implementations at companies, research & development, core teacher postgraduate training BIM engineer.

What is you perception of BIM, how should it work?

BIM should be about the management of information over the entire life cycle of a building or project, regardless of the software used (separation of data and applications). Ideal situation: single entry and multiple (re) use of data by various construction partners, for different purposes and using different software.

What are in your field of profession, related to BIM, barriers for implementation of BIM? The existing culture and ingrained mores of work in construction is one of the main barriers. The manner of procurement with focus on lowest price is an obstacle.

The absence, or the remaining implementation of standards that allow for software-independent exchange of digital information, also poses a problem.

Why you consider this as a barrier?

BIM requires different processes, different ways of sharing the relevant information in a project (collaboration information into the building). Now BIM tools are often used in traditional organized processes, and then you never reach the benefits that can be achieved potentially with BIM. Decisions are still too much taken based on initial investment costs, too little based on total cost of ownership, the total life-cycle of a building.

What are your suggestions to solve this barrier?

(37)

As is clear, the bigger companies have the resources to invest in knowledge and hardware, where the smaller do not. This is important to know since in a construction network many contractors need to work together. But in the end this should not be a problem. Because big companies subscribe to the big project, and they hire the subcontractors to make the final project. In this sense the big company is responsible for the information. So what they need to do is give the subcontractors the format of providing the right information.

But there is a difference in subcontractors, you have those who do an engineering part(for example provide the windows they make), and those who do something in the working process(who place the windows). This is different information.

This is true, but it is the question if this is necessary for the facility management. Looking for those who is responsible for some work processes is mostly defined in the contract. And again, the main contractor has the responsibility to deliver the information model. So their problem.

However this is a big cultural change for subcontractors, because they are not used to deliver information about how they did it.

And how do you think this part is going to be changed?

Well, for the engineering part, they already doing it. They already have the capacity to do it, the only thing is that they need to adjust their way of working. So other competences and software etc. The big change is that they need to work clos together with other parties in the project, and processes and information need to be integrated. It requires more transparency, and this in place requires more involvement en more interaction than the old process. And how do you think this transparency is going to be reached?

(38)

Well, if you look to companies who understand BIM as it is supposed to work, permanent working relations develop. Project independent deals to work on projects together. When doing this trust develops, and by this transparency in information. And this is key in working with BIM. What happens then is that by working together more often, standardisation is more useful, you both invest in the relationship of sharing information, and by this share the cost. So you benefit is reducing the cost, and in the end making more money. This is something not much contractors see, but if they do, investing money and capital shouldn’t become a barrier. Appendix II; Interview Peter Fokkens

Challenges implementing BIM

(39)

barriers implementing BIM

(40)

(16) Resistance to culture change

(17). No demand for BIM use.

What is your function? , what work do you do, and what are your responsibilities? I am a BIM modeller and make models for the use of BIM in the construction industry What is you perception of BIM, how should it work?

My perception is that it is a flexible application of internal (little) BIM to fully integrated (big)BIM. Control all facets, and explain the chosen application before starting a project. The idea is that the application of BIM should generate more money than it costs money, time and quality. These factors are scaled different for every company, but for the most money is the factor that weights the most.

What are in your field of profession, related to BIM, barriers for implementation of BIM? Each company has different criteria. For collaboration between companies it is mainly the search for the new way of working, and how this should be given form. Here it is for every innovation in technique that the one who holds on wins. Implementation takes long and is complex because there is a lot to be discovered in using BIM. One can say the is a learning curve which is difficult to influence. This is a point, which companies need to face to not get disappointed and back down.

Why you consider this as a barrier?

(41)

What are your suggestions to solve this barrier?

I suggest that making a thorough research about the matter before getting started with it. You have to have a network, or make one with “ partners” who already using it. Like this you can learn and reduce costs in implementing.

Appendix III; Interview Bruno Bartelds Challenges implementing BIM

(42)

Total irrelevant 1 2 3 4 5 Relevant

Barriers implementing BIM

How to implement BIM in the Dutch AEC industry?