Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Rowlinson, S
dc.contributor.author Lu, W
dc.contributor.author Yong, KT
dc.contributor.author Zhang, D
dc.contributor.editor Sandanayake, YG
dc.contributor.editor Ramachandra, T
dc.contributor.editor Gunatilake, S
dc.date.accessioned 2022-03-12T10:25:19Z
dc.date.available 2022-03-12T10:25:19Z
dc.date.issued 2017-06
dc.identifier.citation Rowlinson, S., Lu, W., Yong, K.T., & Zhang, D (2017). IPD and BIM: making sense of chaos? In Y.G. Sandanayake, T. Ramachandra & S. Gunatilake (Eds.), What’s new and what’s next in the built environment sustainability agenda? (pp. 290-295). Ceylon Institute of Builders. https://ciobwcs.com/downloads/WCS2017-Proceedings.pdf en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://dl.lib.uom.lk/handle/123/17309
dc.description.abstract Why is BIM not working? Where in the world do we really have IPD (integrated project delivery)? The U.K. has failed to achieve its Level 2 BIM goals. Hong Kong is striving to implement true collaborative contracting with pain share/gain share. Where really do the problems lie? In a recent online article Boutle (2017) stated “Not all of the UK government central departments are BIM Level 2 ready despite being almost a year into the mandate.” and followed up with “Supply chain drivers for adopting BIM are mainly to satisfy the end client, not to look at internal benefits of improved information management, smarter working and gaining efficiencies.” So, one of the BIM-leading nations that was heading the drive to implement BIM on all government projects by 2016 has missed its target by some considerable distance. It is obvious from the evidence and rhetoric that BIM is not well understood, well accepted nor of value to many in the supply chain. Therefore, it is not the panacea for increased industry efficiency and effectiveness that it was held up to be. Why not? What is really happening? We present a case study that explores current BIM implementation for MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire safety systems) coordination in Hong Kong. Data were collected by ethnographic participant observation over 4 months and one-on-one interviews from a social network perspective. We found that BIM implementation in Hong Kong is currently at a low “maturity” level with little transformation of existing procurement routines and with professionals still following their traditional roles within project teams. Collaborative contracting and IPD exist on very few projects. Plans to add highvalue professional expertise into project delivery through BIM-enabled IPD adoption are not working in Hong Kong’s construction industry. This is partly due to team members’ reluctance to change and the power conflicts (bolstered by arcane contract terms) between organisations in the teams thwarting collaboration. Professionals’ perceptions and attitudes towards BIM are embedded in the view they have of their social context. Power conflicts generated from hierarchical organizational structures and silo mentalities are a major challenge in implementing BIM-enabled IPD. en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Ceylon Institute of Builders en_US
dc.relation.uri https://ciobwcs.com/downloads/WCS2017-Proceedings.pdf en_US
dc.subject BIM en_US
dc.subject Integrated project delivery (IPD) en_US
dc.subject Process innovation en_US
dc.subject Professional silos en_US
dc.subject Sociotechnical systems en_US
dc.subject Social network analysis (SNA) en_US
dc.title IPD and BIM:making sense of chaos? en_US
dc.type Conference-Full-text en_US
dc.identifier.faculty Architecture en_US
dc.identifier.department Department of Building Economics en_US
dc.identifier.conference 6th World Construction Symposium 2017 en_US
dc.identifier.place Colombo en_US
dc.identifier.pgnos pp. 290-295 en_US
dc.identifier.proceeding What’s new and what’s next in the built environment sustainability agenda? en_US
dc.identifier.email steverowlinson@hku.hk en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record