Industrialised, Integrated, Intelligent sustainable Construction - I3con

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK 2 Partial Collaboration In contrast, partial collaboration implies that some members of the project team have the choice to adopt other methods against being compliant to BIM concepts and technologies, even though the project exemplifies contemporary design systems. This is most likely when a section of the industry adopts BIM and others who are not yet compliant take part in object-oriented CAD (o-o CAD) and allied applications. While the BIM-compliant party creates and shares digital data with other team members who are not BIM-compliant, the latter will struggle with some limitations, including organizational friction, inadequacies in technical processes and software compatibility problems (Dean and McClendon 2007; Zamanian and Pittman 1999). This phenomenon cannot but have particular implications for project development processes, and this has been exemplified in case studies that have reported on partial adoption (Aranda-Mena et al. 2008b). Figure 2 shows the information transfer process in a typical partial collaboration phenomenon. Figure 2. Typical partial collaboration phenomenon Non Collaboration Some authors (Baiden et al. 2003; Cheng 2003; Egbu et al. 2001; Gameson and Sher 2002) have used different case scenarios to demonstrate poor tolerance or non collaboration as a possibility in construction systems and their impacts on project delivery. Although, the authors reported the unique role of IT in promoting team spirit, it is impossible to rule out the fact that there are team players who are either yet to understand the role of IT and how to adopt what strategic tool and when, or have major challenges in adopting the ethos of team spirit that underlie integrated systems. Therefore, viewing non collaboration in technical and sociological contexts, there are two possibilities: (1) team members use entity-based CAD applications or analogue tools that have inconsequential or no relationship with integrated systems (Gross et al. 1998). (2) there are delibrate decisions by stakeholders to reject collaboration for strategic purposes (Parker and Skitmore 2005). These situations have far-reaching implications on project delivery; information flow will be marred by inconsistency, conflict, errors and delay in service delivery as team members are fragmented with technological bias against structured digital information management systems. Depending on circumstances and contexts of use, non collaboration implies that members are more likely to take deliberate actions that defy team spirit, not just because software and other system dynamics are not compatible, but because they are commited to their actions and outputs being in constant conflict with other members of the team. According to Kolarevic et al (2000), members of a project team who engage in tools that support or dedicated to fragmented processes will have tough challenges with the ethos of collaboration in integrated systems, if not practically impossible, unless they adopt some changes that re-position the systems with which they operate. Moreover, Gruneberg and Hughes (2006) suggested that it is difficult to enforce thorough collaboration in project teams, including with clients, unless all stakehoders are committed to the dynamics of effective risk allocation that can overcome self interests. The same study underpinned the relevance of gaming in construction collaboration, in the light of team players’ actions and the consequences of such actions. 100 BIM compliant Data exchange interface Non-BIM compliant
HANDBOOK 2 SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION Game theory and collaboration construction Strategic applications of Gaming theory and industrial relevance Game theory is often used to demonstrate the philosophies of social and system dynamics in team practices (Lane 1999). This has frequently been applied mainly on issues relating to conflict management (McCain 1999). The focus of Gaming mechanisms is to predict possible outcomes of behaviours when team members, also known as actors or players, choose to behave within limited options in specific collaborative scenarios. Though commonly used in behavioural sciences, game theory philosophies have been used to define construction situations, both as in life cycle processes and intrinsic forms of cooperation in collaboration scenarios (Gruneberg and Hughes 2006; Wübbenhorst 1986). Rather than limiting the industrial application of game theory to cooperation and dispute scenarios only, (Vaaland 2004) argued that a good way to explore collaboration scenarios is to mirror its basic indices in non-dispute conventions. Therefore, as it is being popularly used in construction, it can also be used to model other scenarios where cooperation is an ultimate factor. This is not only because conflict explicates inverse relationships in cooperation, rather both concepts share identical variables (i.e. limited IF probability options in cooperation scenarios). Other empirical studies by (Auger et al. 1998; Sheehan and Kogiku 1981) have established the relevance of three forms or lenses of Gaming in construction, viz; (1) Prisoner’s Dillema (2) Pareto-Optima (3) Hawk-Dove. Some of the conditionalities that underpin the relevance Gaming philosophies, as established from literatures and considered for in this study, are: (1) members actions definitely affect the team (2) members have only two options as directions of actions – to cooperate in collaboration or not (3) only two player-positions are feasible A player cooperates with the ethos of integrated systems when such party complies with appropriate estabslished frameworks that drive collaboration within project team members. Signficant evidence which has already been reported in literatures (e.g. (Aranda et al. 2008a; Gu et al. 2008; Sher et al. 2009; Tse et al. 2005)) suggests that the drivers of collaboration include contemporary workable skills, technological hardware, software and humanware to service all major precepts of BIM. A player therefore defects when there is little or no resources and commitement to markedly service the tools of cooperation to maximise collaboration. Prisoner’s Dillema Gaming lenses In the Prisoner’s Dillema gaming scenario, players only have limited options as possible outomes in two negative options. On the one hand, the limited options are such that both players can either cooperate or refuse cooperation to reduce immediate risks and future effects that associate with those imminent and definite risks. Moreover, the actions of each player is tailored towards maximising self interest, with or without considering the implications of such actions on the other party. When both players cooperate, they are both better off. However, when only one party cooperates and the other does not, the party that defect gains more to the detriment of the party that cooperates. When both parties refuse to cooperate, they both benefit on the basis of their individual interest, and this is relative to what they have invested into their course of action. 101
Page 1:
Industrialised, Integrated, Intelli
Page 4 and 5:
SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK 2
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63: SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK 2
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260:
show all

Industrialised, Integrated, Intelligent sustainable Construction - I3con

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?