Dynamics of Design Collaboration: BIM Models as Intermediary Digital Objects

Abstract

Engineering and architectural design research has studied the uses of various kinds of artefacts and visual representations like sketches, drawings and design plans. The implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) creates a new constellation of instruments and calls for further reconceptualising of the collaborative design process. The paper presents analysis of BIM models as co-developed intermediary objects in the design. They function both as objects of joint problem solving and as a concrete but dynamic means for collaboration both virtually and in face-to-face meetings. We suggest that BIM models provide novel forms of ‘virtual materiality’: in design meetings BIM models provide a tangible means for designers’ collaboration. Versatile indexical use of 3D BIM models dominates discussion and problem solving in design meetings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Indexicality has been emphasized by many researchers close to distributed cognition or situated cognition by pointing out that human beings, even when dealing with conceptual issues are using resources from the material, social and cultural surrounding as an essential part of their activities (see e.g. Goodwin 2000; Hindmarsh and Heath 2000; Hutchins 2005; Clark 2005)

  2. 2.

    ‘Virtual materiality’ (the latter term referring to tangibility or concreteness) might sound like a contradiction in terms. One of our reviewers pointed this out: “if we accept that it [the BIM model] really is virtual, how can it provide a “novel kind of concreteness”? What do “virtual,” and “concrete” and “concreteness” mean in this context?”. Our argument is, however, that the uses of BIM models do not follow this kind of a dichotomy but are virtual and concrete at the same time.

References

  1. Alhava, Otto; Enni Laine; and Arto Kiviniemi (2015). Intensive big room process for co-creating value in legacy construction projects. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), Special Issue: ECPPM 2014, vol. 20, pp. 146–158.

  2. Alves, Thais da C. L.; and Cynthia C. Y. Tsao (2007). Lean construction – 2000 to 2006. Lean Construction Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 46-70.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Becerik-Gerber, Burcin; and Samara Rice (2010). The perceived value of building information modeling in the U.S. building industry. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, vol. 15, pp. 185–201.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bishop, Dan; Alan Felstead; Allison Fuller; Nick Jewson; Lorna Unwin; and Konstantinos Kakavelakis (2009). Constructing learning: adversarial and collaborative working in the British construction industry. Journal of Education and Work, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 243-260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Blanchette, Jean-François (2011). A material history of bits. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1042-1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boujut, Jean-Francois; and Eric Blanco (2003). Intermediary objects as a means to foster co-operation in engineering design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 205-219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bresnen, Mike; and Chris Harty (2010). Editorial: objects, knowledge sharing and knowledge transformation in projects. Construction Management and Economics, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 549-555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bucciarelli, Louis L. (1994). Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bucciarelli, Louis L. (2002). Between thought and object in engineering design. Design Studies, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 219-231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Christensen, Lars Rune (2014). Practices of stigmergy in the building process. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1-19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Christensen, Lars Rune; and Richard H. Harper (2016). The Many Faces of Computational Artifacts. In COOP 2016: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 23–27 May 2016, Trento, Italy. Springer International Publishing, pp. 93–106.

  12. Clark, Herbert H. (2005). Coordinating with each other in a material world. Discourse Studies, vol. 7, nos. 4–5, pp. 507-525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Crotty, Ray (2012). The impact of Building Information modelling. Transforming Contruction. London: Spon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Davenport, Thomas H. (1998). Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Business Review, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 121-131.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Deken, Fleur; and Kristina Lauche (2010). Expansive learning and new practice creation: a conceptualization of collaborating in inter-organizational product innovation. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Process Organization Studies, pp. 1–33.

  16. Deken, Fleur; and Kristina Lauche (2014). Coordinating through the development of a shared object: an approach to study interorganizational innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, vol. 11, no. 1, 1440002 (24 pages).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eastman, Charles M.; Paul Teicholz; Rafael Sacks; and Kathleen Liston (2011). BIM Handbook (2nd Edition) A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Eckert, Claudia; and Jean-Francois Boujut (2003). The role of objects in design co-operation: Communication through physical or virtual objects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 145–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ekbia, Hamid R. (2009). Digital artifacts as quasi-objects: Qualification, mediation, and materiality. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 2554-2566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Engeström, Yrjö; Katherine Brown; L. Carol Christopher; and Judith Gregory (1997). Coordination, cooperation, and communication in the courts: Expansive transitions in legal work. In M. Cole, Y. Engeström and O. Vasquez (eds.) Mind, Culture and Activity: Seminal Papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 369-388.

  21. Ewenstein, Boris; and Jennifer Whyte (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 7-30.

  22. Faulkner, Philip; and Jochen Runde (2011). The social, the material, and the ontology of non-material technological objects. A paper presented at the 27th EGOS Colloquium, Gothenburg, July 6–9.

  23. Fetterman, David M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-step. Third Edition. Los Angeles: Sage.

  24. Goodwin, Charles (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1489-1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Harty, Chris; and Jennifer Whyte (2010). Emerging hybrid practices in construction design work: Role of mixed media. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 136, no. 4, pp. 468-476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Henderson, Kathryn (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 448-473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Henderson, Kathryn (1999). On Line and on Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hindmarsh, Jon; and Christian Heath (2000). Embodied reference: A study of deixis in workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 1855-1878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hui, Yuk (2012). What is a digital object?. Metaphilosophy, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 380-395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hutchins, Edwin (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1555-1577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ilyenkov, Evald V. (1977). Dialectical Logic: Essays on Its History and Theory. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kallinikos, Jannis (2002). Reopening the black box of technology artifacts and human agency. In R. Galliers and L. Markus (eds.): ICIS 2002: 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain, 14–16 December 2002, pp. 287–294.

  33. Kallinikos, Jannis; Aleksi Aaltonen; and Attila Marton (2010). A theory of digital objects. First Monday, vol. 15, 6–7 June 2010.

  34. Kaptelinin, Victor; and Liam J. Bannon (2012). Interaction design beyond the product: Creating technology-enhanced activity spaces. Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 277-309.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kaptelinin, Victor; and Bonnie A. Nardi  (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Korpela, Jenni; Reijo Miettinen; Teppo Salmikivi; and Jaana Ihalainen (2015). The challenges and potentials of utilizing building information modelling in facility management: The case of the Center for Properties and Facilities of the University of Helsinki. Construction Management and Economics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 3-17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuutti, Kari (2011). Out of the shadow of Simon: Artifacts, practices, and history in design research. Proceedings of the Doctoral Education in Design Conference. Hong Kong 23-25 May 2011.

  38. Laakso, Mikael; and Arto Kiviniemi (2012). The IFC standard – A review of history, development, and standardization. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 134-161.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lahdenperä, Pertti (2012). Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. Construction Management and Economics, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 57-79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Latour, Bruno (1986). Visualization and cognition. Knowledge and society, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1-40.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Leonardi, Paul M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, vol. 15, 6–7 June.

  42. Leontjev, Aleksei N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Love, Peter E.; Jane Matthews; Ian Simpson; Andrew Hill; and Oluwole A. Olatunji (2014). A benefits realization management building information modeling framework for asset owners. Automation in Construction, vol. 37, pp. 1-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Manovich, Lev (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Miettinen, Reijo; and Sami Paavola (2014). Beyond the BIM utopia: Approaches to the development and implementation of building information modeling. Automation in Construction, vol. 43, pp. 84-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Miettinen, Reijo; and Sami Paavola (2018) Reconceptualizing object construction: The dynamics of building information modelling in construction design. Information Systems Journal.

  47. Orlikowski, Wanda J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1435-1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Peirce, Charles S. (1931-1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Volumes 1–6, C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds), Volumes 7–8, A. W. Burks (ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

  49. Puonti, Anne (2004). Tools for collaboration: Using and designing tools in interorganizational economic-crime investigation. Mind, Culture, and Activity, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 133-152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Schmidt, Kjeld; and Ina Wagner (2002). Coordinative artifacts in architectural practise. In Blay-Fornarino at al. (eds.): COOP 2002:  Cooperative Systems Design: A Challenge of the Mobility Age. [Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Saint Raphaël, France, 4–7 June 2002], IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 257–274.

  51. Schmidt, Kjeld; and Ina Wagner (2004). Ordering systems: Coordinative practices and artifacts in architectural design and planning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 349-408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Stewart, James K.; and Robin Williams (2005). The wrong trousers? Beyond the design fallacy: Social learning and the user. In H. Rohracher (ed.) User Involvement in Innovation Processes. Strategies and Limitations from a Socio-Technical Perspective. Munich: Profil-Verlag, pp. 195-221.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Subrahmanian, Eswaran; Ira Monarch; Suresh Konda; Helen Granger; Russ Milliken; and Arthur Westerberg (2003). Boundary objects and prototypes at the interfaces of engineering design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 185-203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Succar, Bilal (2009). Building information modeling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, vol. 18, pp. 357-375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tory, Melanie; Sheryl Staub-French; Barry A. Po; and Fuqu Wu (2008). Physical and digital artifact-mediated coordination in building design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 311-351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Vinck, Dominique (2011). Taking intermediary objects and equipping work into account in the study of engineering practices. Engineering Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 25-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Vinck Dominique; and Alain Jeantet (1995). Mediating and commissioning objects in the sociotechnical process of product design: a conceptual approach. In D. MacLean, P. Saviotti and D. Vinck (eds) Management and New Technology: Design, Networks and Strategies. COST Social Science series. Bruxelles. Commission of European Union, pp. 111–129.

  58. Whyte, Jennifer; and Chris Harty (2012). Socio-material practices of design coordination: Objects as plastic and partisan. In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, and J. Kallinikos (eds.) Materiality and Organizing. Social Interaction in a Technological World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 196-213.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Yoo, Youngjin; Kalle Lyytinen; Richard Boland; Berente Nicholas; James Gaskin; Doug Schutz; and Nikhil Srinivasan (2010). The next wave of digital innovation: opportunities and challenges. A Report of the Research Workshop ‘Digital Challenges in Innovation Research’ (June 8, 2010). http://ssrn.com/abstract=1622170.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article has been written through several stages and with several intermediary objects. The first draft of the paper was presented at the EGOS conference in Montreal, Canada in 2013 (in a session convened by Jannis Kallinikos, Paul Leonardi and Bonnie Nardi). Thank you to all of them, and especially to Aleksi Aaltonen, Jannis Kallinikos, Eugenia Cacciatori, Carole Groleau, Jennifer Whyte, our colleagues at CRADLE, and reviewers of the paper, for useful comments on versions of the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sami Paavola.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paavola, S., Miettinen, R. Dynamics of Design Collaboration: BIM Models as Intermediary Digital Objects. Comput Supported Coop Work 28, 1–23 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9306-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Building Information Modelling (BIM)
  • Design collaboration
  • Intermediary object
  • Indexicality
  • Digital object
  • Virtual materiality