Advertisement

Inter-organizational Integration in the AEC/FM Industry

Exploring the “Addressed” and “Unaddressed” Information Exchange Needs Between Stakeholders
  • José Carlos CamposanoEmail author
  • Kari Smolander
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11483)

Abstract

This paper explores how the needs to exchange information across organizational boundaries in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction, and Facilities Management industry in Finland have been satisfied by means of stakeholder integration at the technical, business and socio-organizational levels. We interviewed practitioners about their motivations and goals for inter-organizational integration and observed different discourses. The information exchange needs in the context of individual building projects were often described as “addressed”. These needs focused mainly on managing complex stakeholder relations or handling the variable conditions with other building projects. In the scope of the whole built environment lifecycle, the needs were rather portrayed as ongoing problems still “unaddressed”. Existing information sources remained inadequate when the benefits of inter-organizational integration had not yet been clarified. The process workflow discontinuities demanded better understanding of the value of information beyond design as well as better coordination. The uncertainty of how much data to collect and for what purposes can be mitigated by defining “useful minimum” information exchange between stakeholders.

Keywords

Inter-organizational integration Information exchange Built environment Building Lifecycle Management Information systems AEC/FM 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author thanks the Department of Computer Science at Aalto University for the office facilities and technical resources to conduct this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Azhar, S.: Building information modeling (BIM): trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the AEC industry. Leadersh. Manag. Eng. 11(3), 241–252 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barki, H., Pinsonneault, A.: A model of organizational integration, implementation effort, and performance. Organ. Sci. 16(2), 165–179 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouchlaghem, D., et al.: Visualisation in architecture, engineering and construction (AEC). Autom. Constr. 14(3), 287–295 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryde, D., et al.: The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM). Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31(7), 971–980 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, D., et al.: Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: past, present and future. Comput. Ind. 59(7), 647–659 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corbin, J.M., Strauss, A.L.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE, Los Angeles (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Creswell, J.W., Poth, C.N.: Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. SAGE, Los Angeles (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dubois, A., Gadde, L.-E.: The construction industry as a loosely coupled system: implications for productivity and innovation. Constr. Manag. Econ. 20(7), 621–631 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Easterbrook, S., et al.: Selecting empirical methods for software engineering research. In: Shull, F., et al. (eds.) Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 285–311. Springer, London, London (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 532 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gann, D.M., Salter, A.J.: Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems. Res. Policy 29(7–8), 955–972 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghaffarianhoseini, A., et al.: Building information modelling (BIM) uptake: clear benefits, understanding its implementation, risks and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 75, 1046–1053 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gidado, K.I.: Project complexity: the focal point of construction production planning. Constr. Manag. Econ. 14(3), 213–225 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Handy, S.L., et al.: How the built environment affects physical activity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 23(2), 64–73 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hietanen, J., Lehtinen, S.: The useful minimum. Tampere University of Technology (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kähkönen, T.: Understanding and managing enterprise systems integration. Lappeenranta University of Technology (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kamara, J.M., et al.: Knowledge management in the architecture, engineering and construction industry. Constr. Innov. 2(1), 53–67 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mangialardi, G., Di Biccari, C., Pascarelli, C., Lazoi, M., Corallo, A.: BIM and PLM associations in current literature. In: Ríos, J., Bernard, A., Bouras, A., Foufou, S. (eds.) PLM 2017. IAICT, vol. 517, pp. 345–357. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72905-3_31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Molina, A., Chen, D., Panetto, H., Vernadat, F., Whitman, L.: Enterprise integration and networking: issues, trends and vision. In: Bernus, P., Fox, M. (eds.) Knowledge Sharing in the Integrated Enterprise. ITIFIP, vol. 183, pp. 303–313. Springer, Boston, MA (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29766-9_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nam, C.H., Tatum, C.B.: Noncontractual methods of integration on construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 118(2), 385–398 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oh, L.-B., et al.: Service-oriented architecture and organizational integration: an empirical study of IT-enabled sustained competitive advantage. In: ICIS 2007 Proceedings, vol. 18 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Softw. Eng. 14(2), 131–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seaman, C.B.: Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25(4), 557–572 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shen, W., et al.: A loosely coupled system integration approach for decision support in facility management and maintenance. Autom. Constr. 25, 41–48 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shen, W., et al.: Systems integration and collaboration in architecture, engineering, construction, and facilities management: a review. Adv. Eng. Inform. 24(2), 196–207 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vanlande, R., et al.: IFC and building lifecycle management. Autom. Constr. 18(1), 70–78 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vernadat, F.B.: 86. Enterprise Integration and Interoperability. In: Nof, S. (ed.) Springer Handbook of Automation, pp. 1529–1538. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78831-7_86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Volk, R., et al.: Building information modeling (BIM) for existing buildings—literature review and future needs. Autom. Constr. 38, 109–127 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Los Angeles (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LUT School of Engineering ScienceLUT UniversityLappeenrantaFinland

Personalised recommendations