Building information modeling and its impact on users in the lifeworld: a mediation perspective

Abstract

Building information modeling (BIM) is expected to have a large impact on users in the lifeworlds in a construction supply chain. The impact of BIM on users in their lifeworlds is explored using the concepts of Heidegger, Habermas, and Ihde from the perspective of technical mediation. This impact is explored by a case study. BIM mediates and shapes the relationship between users and their lifeworlds and can be characterized as either a hermeneutic or an alterity relationship. BIM conflicts with existing work practices in a ready-to-hand work environment. For users that cannot work with BIM, the work environment remains present-at-hand. The many heterogeneous BIM applications and systems used by the various parties involved result in interoperability problems that are a major barrier to enframing the supply chain by BIM. Although invitation and inhibition of certain actions by BIM may stimulate the rationalization of the lifeworlds, the lack of intrinsic motivation and mutual background knowledge inhibits an alignment of BIM and working practices.

Keywords

building information modeling / mediation / enframing / lifeworld / rationalization / Heidegger / Habermas / Ihde

References

[1] Adriaanse A, Voordijk H, Dewulf G (2011). Improving the use of interorganisational ICT in a project-based environment. International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management, 5(1): 36–53

[2] Bechky B A (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14(3): 312–330

[3] Broadbent J, Laughlin R, Read S (1991). Recent financial and administrative changes in the NHS: A critical theory analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 2(1): 1–29

[4] Burrell G, Morgan G (2017). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Routledge

[5] Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2005). Basic assumptions of the critical research perspectives in information systems. In Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research: Theory and Application, 19–46

[6] Cecez-Kecmanovic D, Janson M, Brown A (2002). The rationality framework for a critical study of information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 17(4): 215–227

[7] Ciborra C U, Hanseth O (1998). From tool to Gestell: Agendas for managing the information infrastructure. Information Technology & People, 11(4): 305–327

[8] Depaoli P (2012). Experiencing information systems research and phenomenology: The case of Claudio Ciborra and Martin Heidegger. In: Gianluidi V, Gian M C, Ylenia C, eds. Phenomenology, Organizational Politics, and IT Design: The Social Study of Information Systems. Hershey: IGI Global

[9] Dias W P S (2003). Heidegger’s relevance for engineering: Questioning technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(3): 389–396

[10] Dias W P S (2006). Heidegger’s resonance with engineering: The primacy of practice. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3): 523–532

[11] Dorrestijn S (2012a). The Design of Our Own Lives: Technical Mediation and Subjectivation after Foucault. Enschede: Universiteit of Twente Press

[12] Dorrestijn S (2012b). Technical mediation and subjectivation: Tracing and extending Foucault’s philosophy of technology. Philosophy & Technology, 25(2): 221–241

[13] Dorrestijn S (2012c). Theories and figures of technical mediation. Design and Anthropology: 219–230

[14] Dreyfus H L, Dreyfus S E (1996). The relationship of theory and practice in the acquisition of skill. Expertise in Nursing Practice: Caring, Clinical Judgment, and Ethics, 29–47

[15] Ellul J (1964). The Technological Society. New York: Vintage Books

[16] Feenberg A (2000). From essentialism to constructivism: Philosophy of technology at the crossroads. Technology and the Good Life, 294–315

[17] Habermas J (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1 Reason and the vationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press

[18] Habermas J, Habermas J (1985). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2: Lifeworld and system: A critigue of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press

[19] Hartmann T, Vossebeld N (2013). A semiotic framework to understand how signs in construction process simulations convey information. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 27(3): 378–385

[20] Heidegger M (1977). Sein und Zeit (GA 2). Frankfurt a. M: V. Klostermann

[21] Heidegger M (1994). Basic Questions of Philosophy: Selected“ problems” of “logic”. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

[22] Honneth A, Joas H (1991). Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s the Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press

[23] Ihde D (1990). Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

[24] Ihde D (2009). Postphenomenology and Technoscience: The Peking University Lectures. New York: Suny Press

[25] Kehily D, Underwood J (2015). Design Science: Choosing an appropriate methodology for research in BIM.

[26] Latour B (1992). Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a FewMundane Artifacts. In: Bijker W E, Law J, eds. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 225–258

[27] Li B, Lou R, Segonds F, Merienne F (2016). Multi-user interface for co-located real-time work with digital mock-up: A way to foster collaboration? International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 1–13

[28] Lockamy A III, McCormack K (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management, 9(4): 272–278

[29] Messner J, Kreider R (2013). BIM planning guide for facility owners. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA

[30] Mumford L (1970). The Myth of the Machine: Vol. II The Pentagon of Power. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

[31] Ngwenyama O K, Lee A S (1997). Communication richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 21(2): 145–167

[32] Orlikowski W J, Baroudi J J (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1): 1–28

[33] Papadonikolaki E, Vrijhoef R, Wamelink H (2016). The interdependences of BIM and supply chain partnering: Empirical explorations. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(6): 476–494

[34] Porwal A, Hewage K N (2013). Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering framework for public construction projects. Automation in Construction, 31: 204–214

[35] Riemer K, Johnston R (2011). Artifact or Equipment? Rethinking the Core of IS using Heidegger’s ways of being

[36] Rosenberger R, Verbeek P-P (2015). A field guide to postphenomenology. Postphenomenological Investigations: Essays on Human-Technology Relations, 9–42

[37] Sikka S (2001). Heidegger and Jaspers: Being, language, technicity. International Studies in Philosophy, 33(2): 105–130

[38] Silver M S, Markus M L, Beath C M (1995). The information technology interaction model: A foundation for the MBA core course. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19(3): 361–390

[39] Turk Ž (2001a). Multimedia: providing students with real world experiences. Automation in Construction, 10(2): 247–255

[40] Turk Ž (2001b). Phenomenologial foundations of conceptual product modelling in architecture, engineering and construction. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 15(2): 83–92

[41] Turk Ž (2016). Ten questions concerning building information modelling. Building and Environment, 107: 274–284

[42] Verbeek P-P (2001). Don Ihde: the technological lifeworld. American Philosophy of Technology: The Empirical Turn, 119–146

[43] Verbeek P P (2005). What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press

[44] Verbeek P P (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3): 361–380

[45] Verbeek P P (2008). Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of human–technology relations. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7(3): 387–395

[46] Verbeek P P (2012). Expanding mediation theory. Foundations of Science: 1–5

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source, and a link is provided to the Creative Commons license, indicating if changes were made.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2019 The Author(s) 2019. This article is published with open access at link.springer.com and journal.hep.com.cn