Advertisement

Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 307–338 | Cite as

BIM’s social role in building energy modeling

  • Reuven Maskil-LeitanEmail author
  • Iris Reychav
Original Paper

Abstract

With increasing awareness of the contribution of buildings to global warming, the construction industry has begun to be more responsive to energy-efficient buildings. The emergence of building information modeling (BIM) with building energy modeling (BEM) provides industry with means to address related issues through integrated energy analysis of buildings. Nevertheless, connecting BIM technology to BEM includes issues of information exchange among the participants in the process. While the prevailing view in the literature is that there is a need to redefine the process, it is suggested that beyond that the success of BEM includes stakeholder management, which can be implemented through BIM’s social capabilities. Therefore, in order to address the integration issues between them, this study proposes a social concept for connecting BIM to BEM, which is reflected in the model for implementation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) through BIM for BEM (CSR–BIM–BEM model). The examination of the relevance of BIM’s social capabilities to the BEM process according to this model was conducted on three levels. First, the implications of integrating BIM technology into the BEM process were examined through expert interviews, and the need for social perception became apparent. Second, the examination of the model’s criteria by the experts supported its ability to promote the BEM process. Third, an examination of two case studies proved, using social network analysis and participant interviews, the model’s feasibility, in terms of BEM process parameters. A direct link was found between BIM’s management centrality, reflected in BIM involvement in stakeholder management, and progress in the BEM process. These results illustrate the importance of BIM’s social role in building energy modeling.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Building information modeling (BIM) Building energy modeling (BEM) Corporate social responsibility (CSR) Sustainability Social network analysis (SNA) 

Abbreviations

BIM

Building information modeling

BEM

Building energy modeling

CSR

Corporate social responsibility

SNA

Social network analysis

HVAC

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor-in-chief and the reviewers for their valuable suggestions to enhance the manuscript.

References

  1. AEC (UK) (2015) BIM technology protocol. AEC UK, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. AIA (2012) An architect’s guide to integrating energy modeling in the design process. The American Institute of ArchitectsGoogle Scholar
  3. Asif M, Searcy C, Zutshi A, Fisscher OAM (2013) An integrated management systems approach to corporate social responsibility. J Clean Prod 56:7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M (2009) Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: International AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, vol 2. AAAI Press, Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng JCP, Das M (2014) A BIM-based web service framework for green building energy simulation and code checking. J Inf Technol Constr (ITcon) 19:150–168Google Scholar
  6. Cho C S, Chen D, Woo S (2011) Building information modeling (BIM)-based design of energy efficient buildings. In: Proceedings of 28th international symposium on automation and robotics in construction, pp 1079–1084Google Scholar
  7. Crosbie T, Baker K (2010) Energy-efficiency interventions in housing: learning from the inhabitants. Build Res Inf 38:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuvelier E, Aufaure MA (2012) Graph mining and communities detection. In: Aufaure MA, Zimányi E (eds) Business intelligence. eBISS. Lecture notes in business information processing, vol 96. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  9. Divjak B, Peharda P, Begičević N (2010) Social network analysis of Eureka project partnership in Central and South-Eastern Europe. JIOS 34:163–173Google Scholar
  10. Dubois A, Gadde LE (2002) Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. J Bus Res 55:553–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dun & Bradstreet (2018) Dun’s 100. https://www.duns100.co.il/en/about. Accessed Nov 2018
  12. Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Jackson P (2012) Management research, 4th edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Feilzer MY (2009) Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. J Mixed Methods Res 4:6–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frei B, Sagerschnig C, Gyalistras D (2017) Performance gaps in Swiss buildings: an analysis of conflicting objectives and mitigation strategies. Energy Proc 122:421–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. GCCG (2011) Strategy paper for the government construction client group from the BIM industry working group. https://www.scribd.com/document/72278806/Building-Information-Modelling-BIM-Working-Party-Strategy-Paper-March-2011. Accessed Nov 2018
  16. Gerrish T, Ruikar K, Cook M, Johnson M, Phillip M (2017) Using BIM capabilities to improve existing building energy modelling practices. Eng Constr Archit Manag 24:190–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gholami E, Kiviniemi A, Kocaturk T, Sharples S (2015) Exploiting BIM in energy efficient domestic retrofit: evaluation of benefits and barriers. In: Proceeding of the 2nd international conference on civil and building engineering informaticsGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldkuhl G (2012) Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. Eur J Inf Syst 21:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gourlis G, Kovacic I (2017) Building information modelling for analysis of energy efficient industrial buildings—a case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 68:953–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 Manag 35:670–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hickethier G, Tommelein ID, Lostuvali B (2013) Social network analysis of information flow in an IPD-project design organization. In: Proceedings of the international group for lean construction, Fortaleza, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  22. Hossaini N, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2018) Path toward net-zero buildings: a natural capital assessment framework. Clean Technol Environ Policy 20:201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ILGBC (2018) About ILGBC. https://ilgbc.org/about/about-ilgbc/. Accessed Nov 2018
  24. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA (2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res 1:112–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jokonya O, Kroeze JA, van der Poll JA (2015) Investigating users’ perception of stakeholder approach during IT adoption in organizations. Proc Comput Sci 72:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Magee L, Scerri A, James P, Thom JA, Padgham L, Hickmott S, Deng H, Cahill F (2013) Reframing social sustainability reporting: towards an engaged approach. Environ Dev Sustain 15:225–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mani V, Gunasekaran A, Delgado C (2018) Enhancing supply chain performance through supplier social sustainability: an emerging economy perspective. Int J Prod Econ 195:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maskil-Leitan R, Reychav I (2018) A sustainable sociocultural combination of building information modeling with integrated project delivery in a social network perspective. Clean Technol Environ Policy 20:1017–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murphy K (2012) The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 8:15–29Google Scholar
  30. NIBS (2018) What is BIM? National Institute of Building Sciences, https://www.nationalbimstandard.org/faqs. Accessed Nov 2018
  31. Nikolova V, Arsić S (2017) The stakeholder approach in corporate social responsibility. Eng Manag 3:24–35Google Scholar
  32. Papadonikolaki E, Vrijhoef R, Wamelink H (2015) Supply chain integration with BIM: a graph-based model. Struct Surv 33:257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pryke S (2004) Analyzing construction project coalitions: exploring the application of social network analysis. Constr Manag Econ 22:787–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pryke S (2005) Towards a social network theory of project governance. Constr Manag Econ 23:927–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pryke S (2012) Social network analysis in construction. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pryke S, Badi S, Almadhoob H, Soundararaj B, Addyman S (2018) Self-organizing networks in complex infrastructure projects. Proj Manag J 49:18–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rasche A, Morsing M, Moon J (2017) Corporate social responsibility: strategy, communication, governance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reychav I, Maskil Leitan R, McHaney R (2017) Sociocultural sustainability in green building information modeling. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19:2245–2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ridder HG (2017) The theory contribution of case study research designs. Bus Res 10:281–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ritchie J, Lewis J, Nicholls CM, Ormston R (eds) (2014) Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Sackey E, Tuuli M, Dainty A (2014) Sociotechnical systems approach to BIM implementation in a multidisciplinary construction context. J Manag Eng 31(1):A4014005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2007) Research methods for business students, 4th edn. Pearson Education Limited, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  43. SII (2018) Green building. https://portal.sii.org.il/eng/green/.aspx. Accessed Nov 2018
  44. Singh R, Vitthal M, Khazaeli M (2017) The effects of building orientation on energy consumption using building information modeling. In: IIE annual conference. Proceedings. Institute of industrial and systems engineers (IISE), pp 958–963Google Scholar
  45. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (1998) Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  46. US Department of Energy (2018) About building energy modeling. https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/about-building-energy-modeling. Accessed Nov 2018
  47. USGBC (2018) About LEED. www.usgbc.org/articles/about-leed. Accessed Nov 2018
  48. Van Audenhove L (2007) Expert interviews and interview techniques for policy analysis. Vrije University, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  49. Venkataraman V, Cheng JCP (2014) Social network analysis on the inter-organizational interactions in green building projects. In: Raiden AB, Aboagye-Nimo E (eds) Proceedings of 30th annual ARCOM conference, association of researchers in construction management, Portsmouth, UK, pp 845–854Google Scholar
  50. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang RJ, Shen GQP (2015) Framework for stakeholder management in construction projects. J Manag Eng 31(4):04014064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods, 5th edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  53. Zedan S, Miller W (2015) Using relationship mapping to understand sustainable housing stakeholders’ actions. In: Zhu Y, Lam KP, Tao Y (eds) Sustainable human–building ecosystems. American Society of Civil Engineers, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, pp 204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zedan S, Miller W (2017) Using social network analysis to identify stakeholders’ influence on energy efficiency of housing. Int J Eng Bus Manag 9:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ariel UniversityArielIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Engineering & ManagementAriel UniversityArielIsrael

Personalised recommendations