Industrialised, Integrated, Intelligent sustainable Construction - I3con

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK 2 Figure 5. Gaming logic for Hawk-dove model 104 Player B Cooperate Defect ± ‐ + ‐ ± ‐ Player A Cooperate Defect ‐ + ‐ + ± + BIM and industrial applications of gaming Product development systems in construction are delimited by risks. These risks are not only stochastic; the industry currently has very limited options to definitively ameliorate all forms of risks. According to (Liu et al. 2003), construction has a poor record in coping with risks, as there has never a part of construction stakeholders that has ever been vindicated in the spate of public concern on the image of the industry. The industry therefore has few options but to devise workable tools and models that facilitate process improvement and restore public confidence or to expect to endure the predictable consequences of poor product performance. Having established the roles played by collaboration and system integration in servicing project performance through BIM, the adoption of platforms and allied innovation in this technology has been slow and unimpressive. While many adherents of BIM continue to drive market advantage through the creation and dissemination of digital data, others have either no idea of how BIM works or how best to implement it. However, in contrast to industry disincentives, there are many indications that the BIM revolution has truly begun (Ballesty et al. 2007; Fusell et al. 2007; Khemlani 2007; Luciani 2008). The Game theory models described above can be used to predict possible outcomes under different collaboration scenarios. During perfect collaboration, all stakeholders use tools that generate and standardize digital data within BIM integrated systems. In partial collaboration, some players do have the choice to maintain their old non-BIM compliant tools while rendering modern day professional services, while in non collaboration there is no framework for generating and managing data in forms that support process de-fragmentation - a challenge that has plagued the industry for centuries. In gaming models, each stakeholder (also referred to as player) represents a node of information transmission and feedback between his point of action in BIM and the rest of the system. Using the Prisoner’s Dilemma lenses, although players do not have conclusive powers to indemnify all life cycle variables of all forms of risks and uncertainties, there are still possibilities of outstanding benefits as much as players cooperate in collaboration. When all players adopt BIM, they are bound to be better off, with the least benefits being far more than what the best fragmented processes could offer (Aranda-Mena et al 2008a). Even when each player is motivated by customized business drivers, the economic gain triggered in BIM collaborative platforms is plausible. However, if all players in the industry do not adopt BIM integrated technologies, the party that implements it may be discouraged as there will not be sufficient motivation to drive absolute product performance. The party that refuses to cooperate benefits more in the short run than the party that defects because no extra marked commitment has been made. The Pareto Optima model suggests that all parties in cooperation (in integrated systems) benefit evenly. However, all the potentials of BIM will only be realized when it is not used as a design tool + ‐ + ± Legends ± Both parties benefit + The party benefits ‐ The party losses
HANDBOOK 2 SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION alone, but rather as a platform where all stakeholders are equal. (Peter and Dan 1999) have argued how egotism could impact on the usual course in integrated relationships. Arguably, BIM seems to be making slow progress in recent years because many non-design professionals see it as mainly a design tool. There are also misconceptions that threaten the relevance of other professionals. Gu et al (2008) concluded that the rate of BIM adoption will only improve when other professionals discover their roles in BIM and what is in it for them. Even though designers benefit more from BIM at the moment, unless other professionals are integrated into BIM initiatives, all parties will be worse off in the long run. The Hawk Dove gaming model typifies fragmented processes. Some wealth of evidence has shown that fragmented processes never helped product performance in the industry. This model suggests that if stakeholders continue to extol self interest at the expense of collaboration, the industry will be worse off. However, when individual parties adopt BIM, these parties will enjoy the benefits of early entrant advantage in market competition. The party that refuses to adopt BIM continues to risk the potential for competition and improvement in professional service delivery, such party also has a lot to lose in terms of survival and the ability to keep up with the pace of future developments in the industry. Conclusions The industry has been observed to reflect certain difficult challenges under fragmented processes. Interestingly, better alternatives have been established in BIM potentials. In BIM, stakeholders can collaborate, share data and values, communicate and integrate intelligent technologies and techniques to drive digital information management systems. This study has used three gaming models - Prisoner’s dilemma, Pareto-optima and Hawk-dove - to demonstrate the possible implications of current developments in BIM adoption and associated challenges. It had been proved from these models that the best solution is for the industry to devise proactive ways that will encourage all stakeholders to participate in BIM adoption. This is because the industry has a better chance of rebranding its image only when all parties adopt BIM. However, in all cases of partial or lack of adoption, both the industry and its stakeholders (professionals and clients) are worse off in the long run. References Acharya, N. K., Lee, Y. D., and Im, H. M. (2006). "Design Errors: Tragic for Clients." Journal of Construction Research, 7(1&2), 117 - 190 Ahmad, H. S., An, M., and Gaterell, M. (2007). "Development of KM model to simplify knowledge management implementation in construction projects." 23rd Annual ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Belfast, UK, 515-524 Al-Momani, A. H. (2000). "Examining service quality within construction processes." Technovation, 20(11), 643-651 Ankrah, N. A., and Proverbs, D. (2005). "A framework for measuring construction project performance: overcoming key challenges of performance measurement " 21st Annual Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) SOAS, University of London, UK, 959-969 Aranda-Mena, G., Chevez, A., Crawford, J. R., Wakefield, R., Froese, T., Frazer, J. H., Nielsen, D., and Gard, S. (2008a). "Business drivers for building information modelling." Co-opeative Research Centre - Construction Innovation, Australia, Brisbane Aranda-Mena, G., Crawford, J., Chevez, A., and Froese, T. (2009). "Building Information Modelling demystified: Does it make business sense to adopt BIM? ." International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(16), 419-434 Aranda-Mena, G., Succar, B., Chevez, A., and John, C. (2008b). "BIM National guidelines and case studies." Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) for Construction Innovation (2007-02-EP), Melbourne, Australia, 1- 122 Aranda, M. G., John, C., and Chevez, A. (2008c). "Building Information Modelling demystified: Does it make business sense to adopt BIM? ." CIB-W78 25th International Conference on Information Technology in Construction - Improving the management of Construction Projects through IT adoption, Santiago de Chile 105
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:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67: SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK 2
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?