The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Communication

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries in Building Integrated Design Using Collective Objects


Affiliations
1 Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Canada
2 Universite de Montreal, Canada
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Integrated design in construction is considered as the best approach to solve problems related to the linear and fragmented design process such as poor quality and solutions that are sub-optimal. The main challenge, however, is to break fragmented mindsets and knowledge boundaries around which professional practices are built. Professionals perform poorly in an interdisciplinary setting. Each discipline is using its own tools and related technical language and is reluctant to give away their specialized knowledge. Another problem is the resistance of design professionals to involve client and future users into the design process. Therefore, these teams are often dysfunctional and ineffective. One approach proposed in activity theory is to introduce new collective objects to the team, forcing them to rethink the way they work in a new context. This research is using a constructive research approach to explore the impact of new Building Information Model (BIM) collective tools as boundary objects to facilitate boundary crossing across disciplines. The expected contribution is to provide new practice knowledge for integrating design practices in construction using BIM as collective tools.

Keywords

Integrated Design, Fragmented Mindsets, Collective Object, Building Information Modeling, Activity Theory.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Blackler, F., Crump, N., and McDonald, S. 1999. Managing experts and competing through innovation: an activity theoretical analysis. Organization 6 (1):5-31.

  • Bowker, G. C., and Star, S. L.. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences: MIT Press.

  • Bucciarelli, L. 1996. Designing Engineers New York: MIT Press.

  • Carlile, P. R. 2004. Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: an Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science 15 (5):555-568.

  • Deforge, Y. 1986. Technologie et genetique de l'objet industriel. Paris: Maloine.

  • Druskat, U., and Kayes, D. C.. 2000. Learning Versus Performance in Short-Term Project Teams. Small Group Research 31 (3):328-353.

  • Dupagne, A. 1991. Computer Integrated Building. Strategic final Report. In Exploratory action NO 5604: ESPRIT II.

  • Egan, J. 1998. Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force. London: HMSO.

  • Engestrom, Y., Engeström, R., and Karkkainen T. 1995. Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and instruction 5: 319-136.

  • Forgues, D. 2008. Using boundary objects to generate better value in the construction industry, School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, Salford.

  • Fruchter, R. and K. Emery (1999). Teamwork: assessing cross-disciplinary learning. Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning. Palo Alto, California, International Society of the Learning Sciences: 19.

  • Kagioglou, M., R. Cooper, Aouad, G., and Sexton, M. 2000. Rethinking construction: the generic design and construction process protocol. Engineering construction and architectural management 7 (2):141-153.

  • Kasanen, E. , Lukka K., and Siitonen, A. 1993. The Constructive Approach in Management Accounting Research. Journal of Management Accounting Research 5:243-264.

  • Kuhn, T.S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions: University of Chicago press.

  • Larsson, N. 2002. The Integrated Design Process. Report on a National Workshop. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada.

  • Liston, K., Fischer, M., and Kunz, J. 2000. Designing and evaluating visualization techniques for construction planning. Computing in Civil and Building Engineering:1293-1300.

  • Prasad, B. 1996. Concurrent engineering fundamentals-Integrated product and process organization, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR, 1996.

  • Simon, H. A. 1996. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Stasser, G., and Titus, W. 1987. Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of personality and social psychology 53 (1):81-93.

  • Van Aken, J. E. 2004. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies 41 (2):219-246.

  • Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged Scholarship: Creating Knowledge for Science and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Vinck, D., and Laureillard, P. 1996. Coordination par les objets dans les processus de conception. Representer, Attribuer, Coordonner:289-295.

  • Zager, D. 2002. Collaboration as an Activity Coordinating with Pseudo-Collective Objects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11 (1):181-204.

  • Zimmerman, A. 2006. Guide sur le processus de conception integree. Ottawa: SCHL.


Abstract Views: 203

PDF Views: 2




  • Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries in Building Integrated Design Using Collective Objects

Abstract Views: 203  |  PDF Views: 2

Authors

Daniel Forgues
Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Canada
Francios Chiocchio
Universite de Montreal, Canada

Abstract


Integrated design in construction is considered as the best approach to solve problems related to the linear and fragmented design process such as poor quality and solutions that are sub-optimal. The main challenge, however, is to break fragmented mindsets and knowledge boundaries around which professional practices are built. Professionals perform poorly in an interdisciplinary setting. Each discipline is using its own tools and related technical language and is reluctant to give away their specialized knowledge. Another problem is the resistance of design professionals to involve client and future users into the design process. Therefore, these teams are often dysfunctional and ineffective. One approach proposed in activity theory is to introduce new collective objects to the team, forcing them to rethink the way they work in a new context. This research is using a constructive research approach to explore the impact of new Building Information Model (BIM) collective tools as boundary objects to facilitate boundary crossing across disciplines. The expected contribution is to provide new practice knowledge for integrating design practices in construction using BIM as collective tools.

Keywords


Integrated Design, Fragmented Mindsets, Collective Object, Building Information Modeling, Activity Theory.

References