Contents

Research Objective ............................2

Case Study Method ............................2

Unit of analysis..............................3

Interview agenda...........................4

The Pilot ...........................................4

Data Collection and Analysis ................5

Research Timeline..............................5

References........................................5

Figure 1. Case Study analysis using MindJet®

This section defines the research objective and describes the method and approaches adopted to achieve it.

Building Information Modelling

Method

Case Study Protocol

The following method was implemented by RMIT University’s BIM Research Team for the BIM National Guidelines and Case Studies project sponsored by the CRC - Construction Innovation. The RMIT team would like to express its gratitude to all interviewees and those whose actions have greatly facilitated this effort. For more information about this project and project participants, please visit www.construction-innovation.info

Aranda-Mena, G., Succar, B., Chevez, A. and Crawford, J. (2009)

CRC for Construction Innovation, BIM National Guidelines and Case Studies Project (2007-02-EP)

Methodology Page| 2 of 5}

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The research objective is to explore and share the learning experiences of AEC organisations implementing and using Building Information Modelling [BIM].

This research is part of the BIM National (Australian) Guidelines project and as such needed to collect experiences and information of Australian companies using multidisciplinary BIM. The research here presented covers a broad range of BIM implementation and use scenarios based on a Case Study research method. Individual Case Studies can be read as independent documents.

CASE STUDY METHOD

The case-study method was preferred over other research methods (Yin 1994) especially as this project was set to investigate and share knowledge and experiences of BIM implementation across six case studies.

The specific case study method is based on a framework for building knowledge in information systems research known as Structured-case (Carroll and Swatman 2000). The approach is summarised as having three main elements: the conceptual framework, the research cycle, and the scrutiny of knowledge built.

Plan: concepts and relationships are used to select a research design;

Collect Data: during data collection, researcher examines and analyses the data, record’s interpretations and may adjust data collection to respond to opportunities, unexpected outcomes and emergent themes;

Analyse: using concepts in the conceptual framework as initial codes to guide the analysis which may be an iterative or on-going task to better ensure understanding of the data and underlying themes; and

Reflect: reviewing the research process, evaluating outcomes, reviewing the case structures, building knowledge by looking beyond the data, through to changing conceptual framework to incorporate the knowledge accumulated.

Structured-case builds knowledge from multiple cases that are used to sequentially enrich and revise the conceptual framework. Therefore, it is particularly suited to building knowledge of the middle range, as iterations of the research cycle lead to increasingly abstract concepts that have broader applicability than lower level, concrete hypotheses. This iterative theory building process can also be described as moving from substantive theory (applicable to the particular case) to formal theory (may be applied to a variety of situations) (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). It is not only inductive (moving from the data to theory) but also tightly interrelated with practice: field work leads to theory building which leads to further research into practice.

In the time-frame of this particular case-studies project data was revisited through meetings and review sessions. Eliciting lessons learned was the prime objective of this project including operational and business aspects of BIM implementation, and to a lesser extent theory building. However the scrutiny of the practical outcomes could

Aranda-Mena, G., Succar, B., Chevez, A. and Crawford, J. (2009)

CRC for Construction Innovation, BIM National Guidelines and Case Studies Project (2007-02-EP)

Methodology Page| 3 of 5}

enable theory building for future publications including future critical reassessment of findings or re-examination of the data with new insights.

Structured-case not only helps in performing the research, but also documents the links between the research themes (in the conceptual framework), data (observations and interpretations in the field), the data analysis (coding using the concepts in the conceptual framework, and emergent themes) and the theory and knowledge accumulated through the research process (the series of conceptual frameworks). This documentation captures the dynamics of knowledge building.

Unit of analysis The unit of analysis in this research were the six building projects selected as Case Studies for investigation. All projects were selected by RMIT University research team within and occasionally outside the pool of projects involving CRC for Construction industry partners. The projects were selected based on the expectation of satisfying minimum requirements of multidiscipline BIM collaboration.

Finding suitable projects with multidisciplinary collaboration was both a condition and a challenge in the Case Study selection process. The following Figure 2 illustrates the selection criteria. .

Figure 2. ‘The project’ is the unit of analysis and the purpose of BIM implementation. The information obtained from the project was its scope, stakeholders and BIM features. The companies provided the context of the implementation. Each case study participant was interviewed, depending on their profile, on different aspects of the company’s BIM implementation and method. The focus of the research was the collaboration between companies.

Aranda-Mena, G., Succar, B., Chevez, A. and Crawford, J. (2009)

CRC for Construction Innovation, BIM National Guidelines and Case Studies Project (2007-02-EP)

Methodology Page| 4 of 5}

The following list describes likely profiles of targeted participants:

Senior Manager: Person in a position of leadership and decision making– not necessarily a Director, or not even having a full-time management role, but a person with a “strategic role” and vision for the organisation, and ideally with some level of financial knowledge of their organisation.

Project Leader: Likely to have the most experience in the case-study project team. Considered essentially as the project director – i.e. responsible for the project, for example the Project Architect (in Architecture), or Line Manager (in Manufacturing), or Project Manager (in Construction), or Maintenance Specialist (in Facilities Management).

BIM Coordinator: Likely to develop or oversee implementation of company Guidelines & Policies regarding BIM. Responsible for data exchange policies, for support, and for industry feedback to suppliers. However not necessarily the BIM ‘technical specialist’. For example an IT Manager, or CAD Manager.

Team member/Modeller: Normally a “hands-on user” of the BIM system. For example a documenter in design, or a detailer in structural engineering.

In order to satisfy RMIT University’s research ethics requirements1 all participants were given a letter (‘Plain Language Statement’) in advance explaining the research, and inviting their participation. Before the interview commenced, research participants were asked to sign the prescribed Consent Form.

Interview agenda An interview agenda was developed in order to standardise the type of information collected across the various case studies. The interview agenda (see Appendix A) covers four different areas of BIM that are of interest to this research: Technology, Process, Human Resources and Policy. The agenda is composed of over 70 questions, however the questions were grouped according to the four respondent profiles, as defined above, and only those applicable to a particular participant were applied. No respondent was interviewed on all the questions.

THE PILOT

A pilot case study was undertaken in early April 2008. The objective of this pilot was to test the design of the interview agenda. A Senior Manager (see above classification) of a structural engineering consultancy with BIM experience was invited for the pilot. The participant was aware of the test nature of the interview.

The duration of the interview was 40 minutes. Minor amendments in the nature and structure of the questions were made to the interview agenda as a consequence of the pilot. The pilot was recorded, but the interview was not documented as part of any case studies. The pilot was however used as a benchmark to estimate future research efforts such as coverage of questions, transcription time and quality of the content.

1 The Design and Social Context Portfolio, Human Research Ethics Sub-Committee at RMIT University granted the research Risk Level 2 Ethics approval on the 16th of May 2008.Register number HRESC-A-028-03/08.

Aranda-Mena, G., Succar, B., Chevez, A. and Crawford, J. (2009)

CRC for Construction Innovation, BIM National Guidelines and Case Studies Project (2007-02-EP)

Methodology Page| 5 of 5}

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Interviews commenced in May and finished in early September 2008. Interviews were conducted at the offices of various participants in Brisbane (Queensland), Sydney (NSW) and Melbourne (Victoria).

The sequence of questions was determined by the flow of each interview rather than by the order shown in Appendix A. However, at the end of each interview the interview agenda was used as a checklist to ensure that all data was collected at some point during the interview.

Interviews were voice-recorded for reference with the approval of the interviewees, and following the interviews the recordings were then transcribed. Using different analysis techniques, like the one shown in Figure 1 (cover), transcriptions were analysed and the findings reported in the individual case study reports. In order to minimise any bias during the analysis two researchers were present at the time of the interview.

RESEARCH TIMELINE

REFERENCES

Carroll, JM. and Swatman, PA. (2000) Structured-case: a methodological framework for building theory in information system research, European Journal of Information Systems, pp. 235-242.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative Research. Wiedenfeld & Nicholson, London.

Yin, RK (1984) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Aranda-Mena, G., Succar, B., Chevez, A. and Crawford, J. (2009)