Delft University of Technology A comparative case study of coordination mechanisms in Design and Build BIM- based projects in the Netherlands

BIM implementation can affect the project coordination mechanisms in unexpected ways, even in widely-applied project procurement structures. Apart from the chosen procurement approach, the BIM technology and the distribution of roles in the project team influence and shape the project coordination. This paper aims to explore the emerging coordination structures and processes from BIM implementation in design-build procurement. An exploratory comparative case study has been undertaken. The findings included two main coordination mechanisms: a centralized and decentralized structure and a hierarchical ver-sus participative decision-making processes. These two patterns subsequently open a debate about the rela-tions between BIM implementation and business models in AEC and particularly the emergence of specialized all-around BIM firms versus BIM-knowledgeable engineering firms. and the various actor’s roles. It will also attempt to shed light on the impact that these mechanisms had and the challenges and the outcomes of the cases. Thereafter, the findings would attempt to inform and assist AEC practitioners to improve their BIM adoption processes and reap its acclaimed benefits. 2 BACKGROUND, RELATED PREVIOUS WORK AND GAP 2.1 The interactions of project procurement and project coordination with BIM Building Information Modelling (BIM) has been defined as tools, processes, and technologies that are facilitated by digital, machine-readable, documentation about a building, its performance, its planning, its construction, and later its operation’ (Eastman et al., 2008). BIM entails the use of many tools, processes and technologies to produce a building information model. In a BIM-based project delivery process, input from the various design disciplines, contractor, suppliers and subcontractors can be sought early in the design process, be visualized and the potential disciplinary coordination problems could be detected and resolved. This process requires close and ongoing collaboration among the project team members. Eastman et al. (2008) advice that DB procurement “may provide an excellent opportunity to exploit BIM technology, because a single entity is responsible for design and construction”, as it is more cost-efficient and shorter than the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) approach. In general, the procurement methods, BIM technology and the distribution of responsibilities have a major impact on the coordination process and project success. Whilst the procurement governs ‘design, construction and commissioning of projects’ (Holzer, 2015), the coordination is the underlying abstract pattern of decision-making and communication among the project team. The coordination plays a crucial role in every project procurement method and is needed for managing the tasks interdependences (Malone and Smith, 1988). Thus, the project procurement method would interact with project coordination structure and thereafter influence the success of BIM implementation. The DB procurement approach could support BIM coordination, by creating an environment that fosters concurrent interactions among team members, and especially in the interface of design and construction. 2.2 Project procurement and BIM Procurement can be defined as ‘the organizational structure adopted by the client for the management of the design and construction of a building project” (Masterman, 1992). Uher and Davenport (2009) describe it as ‘the process by which the client seeks to satisfy his [or her] building requirement, characterized by a particular organizational form, distribution of responsibility, tasks and risk allocation’. Turner (1997) identified two essential decisions in procurement (a) the organization for the overall project management, and (b) the organization for design and construction. The organization for the overall management of project involves client’s decisions for either using an in-house project manager or an external project management or a combination of the two. In the AEC industry, various procurement methods have been used before BIM. Turner (1997) classify them into (a) design-led (b) designer-led, and (c) management-led. Others include Public Private Partnerships (PPP), alliancing, and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). There is agreement in the literature that the Design-led procurement is not an arena for realizing the full benefit of BIM (Loke, 2012, Sebastian, 2011a). Holzer (2015) conducted an analysis of the opportunities and challenges of BIM under the contract procurement methods as applied in Australia and deduced that IPD is the closest fit, contractually speaking, for full BIM implementation, although it is not applicable to all local markets (Sebastian, 2011b, Holzer, 2015). In DB procurement, some potential opportunities for BIM use and issues identified by Holzer’s (2015) analysis are: − BIM facilitates increased transparency in setting up and pricing tender packages,  The stakeholders can set up their models up with Construction BIM requirement in mind,  BIM increases the potential for interfacing information between consultants and trade-contractors in construction documentation,  The risk lies with the contractor to maximize BIM knowledge transfer,  It requires skilled contractors who understand BIM workflows and  The input from client to help define operational requirements is not automatically guaranteed. Holzer’s (2015) work is theoretical. Sebastian (2011a) reaches to comparable conclusions as to the fit of DB for BIM when he compared various procurement approaches using a single case study. Whereas, all procurement routes could support BIM, the DBB would add to the fragmentation of information between design and construction, and on the other hand, the DB discourage a potential involvement of the client in design and construction phases (Sebastian, 2011a). Therefore, there is always a trade-off between the project scope and the extent of the client’s involvement and the coordination of the information flow from design to construction. 2.3 Project coordination structure and BIM The coordination structure is regarded as the pattern of decision-making and communication among a set of actors who complete tasks to achieve project goals (Malone and Smith, 1988). It is the underlying abstract decision-making that characterizes every project procurement method and is needed for managing the tasks dependences. The task interdependences in a construction project require that: for each party to complete their task, they must receive information needed from another party. In order to fulfil the client’s needs, there is need for coordinated teams, dynamic information flow, and efficient communication and interaction among actors and tasks. The success of coordination would depend on interactions among parties and the communication paths that could enabled by digital technologies. Thus, coordination in BIM-based projects involves technology and human interactions. Dabbish et al. (2010) distinguish between formal and informal coordination. For early organizational theorists, formal coordination is needed where uncertainties are low, e.g. where the tasks are clear and based on routine and involving ‘a priori definition of organizational structures and processes for managing dependences including supervision, rules, routines, standardization, scheduling, pre-planning, and division of labor into minimally dependent units’ (March and Simon, 1958). Informal coordination is interpersonal coordination, better suited for managing highly interdependent and complex tasks where the actors interact directly to exchange task information and negotiate the tasks’ dependences (Malone and Crowston, 1994). In the context of product development in organizations, Olson et al (1995) classified formal coordination structure into seven structures ranging from the most mechanistic, e.g. bureaucracy, to the most organic and participative structure, e.g. design centers. These are characterized by varying degrees of complexity (simple to complex), distribution of authority (centralized to decentralized), formalization (formal to less formal), autonomy (low to high). Such mechanisms are also characterized by processes that affect decision-making/conflict resolution (hierarchical to participative) and information flow (formal to informal). Figure 1 illustrates Olson et al’s (1995) types of coordination mechanisms. According to Malone (1987), the costs of coordination structures include production cost, coordination cost and vulnerability cost. Production cost include the cost of delays in finishing tasks; coordination cost are the cost of the maintaining the communication links among the parties as well as cost of exchanging ‘messages’, e.g. information, whereas the vulnerability cost is the cost of failure of parties to perform their tasks or failure to make decisions. Drawing on Williamson’s (1975) transaction cost economics concept, there are two means of coordination for tasks: (a) internal coordination for tasks using in-house capacity and (b) market coordination for the same task, based on outsourcing. According to Williamson (1975), the choice between in-house and market coordination is that of differences in transaction costs of the two means of coordination. Coordination of production in construction is often achieved by the use of the market. The overall cost of market coordination structure can vary according to two types of coordination namely – centralized and decentralized (Malone (1987). In centralized coordination, there is a centralized manager who coordinates the activities of the various actors. The manager has a communication link to each actor and is responsible for ensuring that all the tasks are performed appropriately and on time and are brought together with other tasks to fulfil the goals (client needs), whereas, in decentralized coordination, the actors interact with each other and there are communication links among all actors.