4.5 Article

Collaboration barriers in BIM-based construction networks: A conceptual model

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages 839-854

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.05.004

Keywords

BIM-enabled projects; Collaboration; Barriers; Team development; Virtual teams

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Building information modelling (BIM) teams, hereafter referred to as BIM-based construction networks, are teams whose possibly geographically dispersed members from various organisations and disciplines, perform project tasks on BIM-enabled projects. In recent years, BIM-based construction networks have progressively become the norm in executing BIM activities on projects. However, even though achieving BIM's full capabilities relies on effective collaboration among the team members in BIM-based construction networks, it is still a struggle for these members to collaborate. Nonetheless, only a few studies have been conducted to identify the barriers to strengthening team collaboration in BIM-based construction networks. To address this gap, the current study, by examining 73 journal articles on collaboration in BIM-based construction networks, builds upon a theoretical review of the literature. A conceptual model is presented to capture the main barriers to collaboration in BIM-based construction networks. The study benefits researchers as well as project managers. For researchers, the conceptual model provides an intermediate theory, namely, a theoretical basis to direct further knowledge creation attempts on the topic. In addition, the conceptual model supports project managers on BIM-enabled projects. That is, it simplifies the knowledge now available for practical applications enabling it to be translated into guidelines and practical instructions on real-life projects. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available