An Analysis of the Value Propositions for Integrated 4D BIM-GIS Adoption for Construction supply Chain Management: Assessing Digital Transformation in the Swedish AEC Industry

IN

DEGREE PROJECT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2021,

An Analysis of the Value

Propositions for Integrated 4D BIM- GIS Adoption for Construction

Supply Chain Management:

Assessing Digital Transformation in the Swedish AEC Industry

ROBERT ANTOH

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Master of Science Thesis Title:

Author:

Department:

Master Thesis Number:

Supervisor:

Key words:

An Analysis of the Value Propositions for Integrated 4D BIM- GIS Adoption for Construction Supply Chain Management:

Assessing Digital Transformation in the Swedish AEC Industry Robert Antoh

Real Estate and Construction Management TRITA-ABE-MBT- 21367

Kent Eriksson

Building Information Modelling, 4D BIM-GIS users, Geo- Information Science, 4D BIM-GIS future adopters, 4D BIM- GIS adoption value propositions

Abstract

Logistics and supply chain in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry can be seen as coordinated collaboration that is subject to managerial risks. The managerial risks are mitigated by Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Geo-Information Science (GIS), the two distinctive digital transformative tools which are revolutionizing and accelerating the AEC industry in recent years. Many gains have been achieved concerning the capacity of BIM and GIS to enable collaborative workflows that minimize data loss and reduce inefficiencies in construction. In the past decade, most scholarly literature on BIM and GIS integration for supply chain management have focused on coordination and visualization to improve supply chain operational efficiency. While BIM optimizes visualization and manages the data related to specific projects, GIS coordinates and manages the data related to the outside environment of the project. An integrated BIM-GIS adoption for Construction Supply Chain Management (CSCM) offers value propositions for client and contracting organizations as information/data is seamlessly shared among them to guide decision making at every phase of the construction project.

However, no detailed study has been conducted so far on assessments of the value creation 4D

BIM-GIS brings to the AEC industry when espoused for CSCM. To fill this gap, this paper

aims to identify and prioritize the value propositions to 4D BIM-GIS adoption for CSCM in

the Swedish AEC industry. Based on the reflective perceptions and evaluations of the AEC

industry, the paper demonstrated the varied opinions from current active users and those who

are yet to adopt 4D BIM-GIS for CSCM. ‘Time savings, ‘Increased efficiency and productivity

and ‘Improved communication and information sharing’ were ranked as topmost drivers for

4D BIM-GIS adoption. The paper recommends corporate level training as pivotal in

familiarizing workers with the new techniques that combine BIM and GIS in AEC practice.

Acknowledgement

It is the unknown, but the most known God, the One to Whom all Power belongs, whose infinite grace and divine providence Has brought me this far through this 2-year master’s Educational Journey in Real Estate and Construction Management in KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

I owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Kent Erikson - Google scholar, Lecturer and Director of the Centre for Construction Efficiency, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, whose constructive critiques enriched the content of this research paper. His resourcefulness, expert guidance, tact, insight, and encouragement are unsurpassed.

I am grateful to all the professors and program coordinators in the Department of Real Estate and Construction Management, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, under whose individual intellectual tutelage have shaped my thinking process to appreciate the complexities of AEC industry in the Built Environment. A special mention goes to Inga-Lill Söderberg who showed interest in the research topic at its budding stage and made necessary recommendations.

Appreciation goes to my boss, Hon. Paa Kofi Ansong, Director of Argate Contractor Limited and a Member of the Council of State, Ghana, through whom I secured financial sponsorship from the Ghana Education Trust Fund for this master’s degree Program.

On a personal level, I would like to thank Jennifer Asamoah, my fiancée for providing those interludes of reassurance when everything else seemed untoward and being with me through it all.

Stockholm, 2021

Robert Antoh

Examensarbete Titel:

Författare:

Institution:

Examensarbete Master Nivå:

Handledare:

Nyckelord:

En analys av värdeskapande förslag för integrerad 4D BIM- GIS-antagande för konstruktionsledning av

försörjningskedjan: Bedömning av den digitala transformationen i den svenska ABE-sektorn Robert Antoh

Fastigheter och Byggande TRITA-ABE-MBT- 21367 Kent Eriksson

Byggnadsinformationsmodellering, 4D BIM-GIS användare, Geografiskt informationssystem, 4D BI-GIS framtida

användare, 4D BIM-GIS antagande av värdeskapande förslag Sammanfattning

Logistik och försörjningskedjan inom arkitektur, teknik och konstruktion (ABE) kan ses som ett samordnat samarbete med överhängande ledningsrisker. Riskerna som hanteras kan mildras av Byggnadsinformationsmodellering (BIM) och Geografiskt informationssystem (GIS), som är två digitalt distinkta transformativa verktyg som revolutionerat och påskyndat ABE-sektorn de senaste åren. Många vinster har uppnåtts med avseende på kapaciteten av BIM och GIS, vilket har möjliggjort ett samarbetsflöde som minimerat dataförlust och minskat ineffektiviteten i byggandet. Under det senaste decenniet har den mest vetenskapliga litteraturen om BIM- och GIS-integration för ledning av försörjningskedjan fokuserat på samordning och visualisering för att förbättra effektiviteten i försörjningskedjan. BIM optimerar visualisering och hantering av data, relaterat till specifika projekt, medan GIS samordnar och hanterar data relaterat till projektets omgivning. En integrerad BIM-GIS- antagande för konstruktionsledningen av försörjningskedjan (CSCM) erbjuder värdeförslag för klient- och beställarorganisationer, eftersom information / data sömlöst delas mellan dem för att kunna guida beslutsfattandet i varje fas av byggprojektet.

Emellertid har ingen detaljerad studie hittills genomförts om bedömningar av värdeskapandet som 4D BIM-GIS ger till ABE-sektorn när de används för CSCM. För att fylla denna kunskapslucka syftar denna studie till att identifiera och prioritera värdeförslag till 4D BIM- GIS-antagande för CSCM i den svenska ABE-sektorn. Baserat på de reflekterande uppfattningarna och utvärderingarna från ABE-sektorn, visar studien de olika åsikterna från de nuvarande aktiva användare och de som ännu inte har antagit 4D BIM-GIS för CSCM.

”Tidsbesparingar,” Ökad effektivitet och produktivitet” och ”Förbättrad kommunikation och informationsdelning” rankades som de främsta drivkrafterna för 4D BIM-GIS-antagande.

Studien rekommenderar utbildning på företagsnivå som en central faktor för att bekanta sig

List of Abbreviations

4D Four Dimension

IT Information Technology

BIM Building Information Modelling

GIS Geo-Information Science

SCM Supply Chain Management

CSCM Construction Supply Chain Management AEC Architectural Engineering and Construction

TPL Third-Party Logistics

ICSCL Integrated Construction Supply Chain Logistics MEP Mechanical Engineering and Plumbing

R&D Research and Development department

RII Relative Importance Index

RAF Rank Agreement Factor

PA Percentage Agreement

PD Percentage Disagreement

Table of Contents

1 Introduction --- 2

1.1 Background --- 2

1.2 Research Question --- 3

1.3 Research Hypothesis --- 3

1.4 Structure --- 4

1.5 Limitations --- 4

2 Literature review --- 5

2.1 Construction supply chain management (CSCM) --- 5

2.2 BIM-based supply chain management paradigm --- 5

2.3 GIS-based supply chain management paradigm --- 6

2.4 4D BIM-GIS based supply chain management paradigm --- 7

3 Theoretical Framework --- 8

3.1 4D BIM-GIS Model --- 8

3.2 Value-in- use and service quality --- 9

3.3 Perceived value propositions for 4D BIM-GIS as identified in the literature ---10

3.3.1 Competitive supplier selection and appropriate material quantity delivery ---10

3.3.2 Optimal allocation of consolidation centres ---10

3.3.3 Cost savings ---11

3.3.4 Time savings ---11

3.3.5 Improved relationships among participating entities ---12

3.3.6 Improved health and safety ---12

3.3.7 Improved communication and information sharing ---12

3.3.8 Improved sustainability ---13

3.3.9 Increased efficiency and productivity ---13

3.3.10 Stimulate innovations ---14

4 Methods ---15

4.1 Method approach ---15

4.2 A deductive research approach ---15

4.3 Survey design and data collection ---15

4.4 Statistical techniques ---16

5 Findings and Analysis ---19

6 Discussion and conclusions ---24

6.1 Discussion ---24

6.2 Conclusions ---26

List of References ---27

Appendix ---34

1 Introduction

This section gives a gist of the research topic, stating unambiguously the purpose and scope of the topic, and the structure of the paper.

1.1 Background

The construction industry arguably comprises myriads of different participants with complex and differing roles in various sectors of the urban economy. It is estimated that 60-80% of the overall activities involved in construction projects draw from services of suppliers and subcontractors (Dainty, Briscoe and Millett, 2001). Hence, clients of construction projects have sought innovative ways of managing the supply chains in the past decade. According to Vrijhoef and Koskela (2000), supply chain management (SCM) seeks ‘to recognize the interdependency in supply chains and improve the performance of supply chains by minimization of inventory, cost and waste’. In mega construction projects, Ekeskär and Rudberg (2020) have shared lights on current supply chain trends from the view-points of suppliers and transport providers based on third-party logistics, as ways of promoting sustainability and to minimize environmental hazard accompanied construction projects on third party and surrounding community (Sundquist, Gadde and Hulthén, 2018).

Understanding the complexity of supply chains and participating firms involved in the industry guarantees successful delivery of projects (Behera, Mohanty and Prakash, 2015). Studies further show that the complex functions of construction supply chain process span across the project life cycle; design, procurement, production, logistics and inventory, site assembly and, building operation and maintenance (Chen, Adey, et al., 2020), therefore supplier selection and material ordering should be conducted with utmost level of resilience (Torabi, Baghersad and Mansouri, 2015). Eriksson (2015) echoed that ‘integrative activities and technologies should be implemented together with the right companies (scope), at the right time (duration), and with the right people in the companies (depth)’ and that, it is believed, is the way forward to ensuring partnerships between clients and contracting suppliers create a sustainable value.

Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Geo-Information Science (GIS) integration has

been touted as an evolving phenomenon to streamline construction supply chain management

for efficiency and investment optimization. Deng et al. (2019) have argued that BIM-GIS

integration application provides comprehensive analysis and understanding of the inventory

and material deliveries for jobsites over different construction phases, and additionally, for

completed building elements and logistics. The building component information in BIM

synergized with the geospatial information in GIS creates the possibility to manage the location planning process during the design, procurement and production phases of building facilities, (Karan and Irizarry, 2015). Apart from its value creation in terms of cost management for clients, satisfying collaborations are fostered between suppliers and other participating actors (Vidalakis and Sommerville, 2013).

Although previous research has investigated BIM-GIS integration for SCM holistically, detailed analysis of all perceived drivers for BIM-GIS integration adoption in the AEC practice especially for Construction Supply Chain Management (CSCM) is not fully studied.

1.2 Research Question

To fill the research gap, this project work aims to identify and prioritize the value propositions of integrated 4D BIM-GIS to adopt for CSCM in the Swedish AEC industry practice. In addition, the study intends to create awareness among industry practitioners of these two innovative information technologies to adopt for AEC practice. This is achieved by the main question: RQ.1 How are the perceived value propositions prioritized and ranked in order of their importance by both current users and future adopters in the AEC industry? This will be assessed through empirically looking into a follow up sub-question:

RQ.2 What are the perceived value propositions to drive the clients and contractors to adopt BIM-GIS integration for CSCM?

The sub-question will be answered by a comprehensive review of the literature on BIM and GIS combinations for supply chain in recent years. This intends to expose the AEC industry practitioners to these identified value propositions for 4D BIM-GIS adoption.

1.3 Research Hypothesis

The concept of value-in-use and service quality by Medberg and Grönroos (2020) guides the design of the research hypothesis. It states that customers of a product have different experiences and perceptions from those who are yet to use the product and therefore would tend to prioritize the product services or value distinctively. Hence, the research hypothesis seeks to investigate that:

H1: Current BIM-GIS integration users will rank most value prepositions for 4D BIM-GIS

adoption differently from the future adopters based on experiential evaluation and perceptions.

1.4 Structure

To guide the reader, this study has been structured beginning with an in-depth review of the relevant previous literature, with the scope on CSCM, BIM-based SCM paradigm, GIS-based SCM paradigm and BIM-GIS based SCM paradigm. Afterwards, a theoretical framework on the 4D BIM-GIS model and Value-in-use and service quality will be discussed to serve as a lens for all analysis and discussions. The next section discusses the research method and the statistical techniques to help answer the main research objective. Based on the perspective feedback from the AEC industry about the survey, analysis and discussions will be conducted vis-à-vis inference from the relevant empirics. The study draws the curtain down on the way forward to championing the digital revolution in the Swedish AEC industry.

1.5 Limitations

The topics on integrated BIM and GIS applications for SCM are extensively discussed,

however, issues on how to measure the added cost of the application to the entire CSCM are

yet to be explored. Hence, further studies are therefore recommended for future researchers to

investigate the associated costs that the client and contractor are likely to incur to guide their

decision-making process as they explore options to maximize their investments. Besides, future

work should also consider how the 4D BIM-GIS applications can factor data on material

quality and the suppliers’ trustworthiness in the supplier-selection decision making process.

2 Literature review

Previous papers which serve as background to motivate the research topic are being reviewed in this section. This serves as a springboard to investigate the contributions made so far on the integration of BIM and GIS to find the gaps within these past studies.

2.1 Construction supply chain management (CSCM)

Supply chain is an adopted concept from the manufacturing sector (Chen, Hall, et al., 2020) and it is, traditionally, comprised of the planning and management of all activities involved in sourcing and procurement, conversion, and all logistics management activities (Mentzer et al., 2001). In the past years, series of research: Integrated construction supply chain logistics (Magill et al., 2020), Third-party logistics in construction (Ekeskär and Rudberg, 2020; Akbari, 2018), Integrating 4D BIM-GIS for construction supply chain management (Deng et al., 2019) and others conducted, give varying perspectives with the aim of providing frameworks for effective communication and information sharing, collaboration and management of participating entities involved in construction projects in order to reduce waste of resources and ultimately harness benefits of construction efficiency on both on-sites and off-sites for clients of building facilities and concessionaire of infrastructure. Tapping into today’s techno- centric data platforms is the proposed means of accelerating logistics processes, effective material deliveries and best delay avoidance tool (Omar and Ballal, 2009).

2.2 BIM-based supply chain management paradigm

BIM is the future of the AEC industry as touted. Increasingly, as the cloud system matures, BIM becomes an appealing technology application to the industry practitioners due to its boundless value creation opportunities as AEC players seamlessly access data to coordinate and expedite jobsite activities. As argued, cloud use promotes early involvement in engineering designs and constructability decisions to improve building design quality (Delavar et al., 2020).

BIM based systems support appropriate deliveries, design coordination and collaboration with improved communication (Cheng et al., 2010). In addition, the SCM and BIM approach focused on the supply chain is pivotal to increase construction performances (Papadonikolaki and Wamelink, 2017). However, to achieve the efficient workflows, barriers and enablers to BIM adoption for SCM should be explored and tackled especially the governance, supply chain issues, expertise and training, benefits and cost, and demand (Le, Chaabane and Dao, 2019).

Chaabane and Dao demonstrated that effective communication through shared information is

key to garner trustworthiness among supply chain participants. Papadonikolaki, Vrijhoef and

Wamelink (2016) proved that the BIM based SCM makes partnering thrive through physical inventories to information flows, and from short-term transactions to a lasting collaboration across projects.

Poirier, Forgues and Staub-French (2017) hold the view that the benefits of an integrated BIM and SCM applications have not been fully harnessed. Even though BIM has seamlessly sped up the workflows at each phase of projects in recent years. Ahn Yong and others established how BIM has accelerated mechanical, engineering and plumbing (MEP) performances at reduced costs through early joint decision-making and joint planning, and operations (Ahn, Kwak and Suk, 2016).

Hashemi, Karimi and Tavana (2015) argued that supplier selection process is an important piece in operation management, however, risks and disruptions associated with supply chain (Wang et al., 2017), and temporal nature of projects demand efficient mechanisms in order to propel a resilient supply management. Chen, Adey, et al. (2020) proved that the gap between design team and suppliers’ interface can pose risks. Therefore, adopting different technology applications will facilitate information flows and supply visualization to bridge the gap (Alsafouri and Ayer, 2018). For instance, blockchain technology and smart contracts are proven to build trust as supply chain actors maximize usefulness of managing secured data and financial transactions (Hunhevicz and Hall, 2020).

2.3 GIS-based supply chain management paradigm

GIS is one of the sophisticated modern data driven technologies used for capturing, storing,

displaying, analyzing and manipulating spatial data (Chalkias and Lasaridi, 2011). Studies have

explored its ability to combine spatial datasets with non-spatial quantitative and qualitative data

to contribute to the built environment (Charis, Danha and Muzenda, 2019), especially, its data

integration and quantitative analysis for smart sustainable city and urban management (Song

et al., 2017). For AEC industry practice, Wang et al.(2017) exemplified how the GIS network

analysis can provide optimal solutions for supplier selection particularly from the project

design to the operation phase. They further explained that distribution of different elements in

different layers of the GIS creates the possibility for the project manager or engineer to

determine the right suppliers’ selection to fulfil schedule requirements. Besides, Irizarry, Karan

and Jalaei (2013) also explored how the network analysis and attribute analysis function

provide appropriate solutions to manage costs while at the same time adding value to the supply

chain logistics. This, they demonstrated, helps to meet material or equipment schedule

constraints for projects. In fact, a GIS model does not only act as a digital data bank for spatial analysis but more importantly it manipulates the data at reduced time and cost to give the best location and alternatives (Charis, Danha and Muzenda, 2019).

2.4 4D BIM-GIS based supply chain management paradigm

Although data-driven analysis of real time and dynamic progress is increasingly becoming

critical in complex projects and for smart sustainable city practice, Song et al. (2017) contended

that the AEC industry still clings to primitive construction methods. The conservative practices

which stifle information flows among consultants, partner organizations and project partners

impede technology transformations in the AEC industry (Čuš-Babič et al., 2014). In particular,

CSCM processes and operations are data/information driven and makes the situation even

worse. Deng et al.(2019) explored how an integrated 4D BIM-GIS framework can coordinate

construction supply chains between the construction project sites and other project related

locations; suppliers’ sites and material consolidation centres. Others have demonstrated how

GIS can provide wealth of decision-making support information in the supplier process,

especially, the supplier selection criteria evaluation (shortest path analysis) (Song et al., 2017)

while a detailed take-off in the early phase of procurement of the project is managed in BIM

afterwards. To summarize, Irizarry, Karan and Jalaei (2013) proved GIS is an efficient logistics

management tool that provides accurate and up-to-date information on the status of the material

and resources.

3 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework serves as a conceptual lens for constructive and perspective analysis of the research topic, and to erase all theoretical ambiguities and thereby fostering understanding and enlightenments about the phenomena. This section discusses the two theoretical concepts: 4D BIM-GIS Model and Value-in-use and service quality. This will guide the analysis and discussion of the paper on how the value propositions for an integrated 4D BIM-GIS adoption are prioritized in the AEC industry practice.

3.1 4D BIM-GIS Model

CSCM works with diverse information from different data sources inclusively the project information, material/logistic information and user inputs. Deng et al. (2019) developed a 4D BIM-GIS framework which consists of three (3) layers: Data storage and retrieval layer, Analysis layer and Application as depicted pictorially in Figure 1. According to the model, the Data storage and retrieval layer extracts important information such as the project information and material/logistic information to augment the Analysis layer and the Application layer. The 4D BIM, on one hand, provides information on construction schedule, material quantity and on-site inventory which pertain to the project while the GIS, on another breadth, provides information on location, transportation distance, and traffic network, seen as logistic/material information. The project and the logistic data which are retrieved via project files and geodatabase respectively, coupled with user input, feed into the analysis layer for a detailed analysis on cost or route network which intend to support CSCM tasks in the application layer.

They further added that 4D BIM-GIS use makes the manual data input less cumbersome as relevant data are stored in GIS via geodatabases with tailored analytical functions (Deng et al., 2019). The manual data input is often involved with the various suppliers’ material quotations and the likely variations in the project plans. The extracted data from BIM project files are linked to GIS to support analysis.

The analysis layer has four analysis tools: construction sequence analysis, cost analysis,

mathematical solution generator, and network analysis. These fundamental analysis tools help

in computation of inventory cost, delivery cost, ordering cost and material price for each

supplier site. The model, therefore, helps in decision making at the application layer on optimal

selections in terms of supplier, delivery quantity and allocation of consolidation centres.

Figure 1: Based on the original 4D BIM-GIS Framework (Deng et al., 2019)

The model improves supply chain network visibility and simultaneously gives accurate information concerning the state of material/logistics at different phases of the construction projects (Young et al., 2011). As a computer-aid visualization platform, decision making involving participating entities becomes easier as data is seamlessly shared among them: for instance, quick access to route selection options for speedy project delivery.

3.2 Value-in- use and service quality

In addition, an important question will be: what value propositions does the 4D BIM-GIS

model offer clients and contractors for adopting it for CSCM? Medberg and Grönroos (2020)

argue that a value creation is in the use and the quality services that a product renders to its

customers (adopters of 4D BIM-GIS). That is, the experiences and consequential desires that

AEC practitioners will derive from implementing the 4D BIM-GIS to solve the challenges that

accompany the existing CSCM solutions in terms of decision making and workflows. Earlier

research on the value-in-use by Ranjan and Read (2016) demonstrated that the customer’s

(adopter) valuation of experience of product or service propositions depend largely on

individual motivation, specialized competences, processes and performances. This affirms the

supposition that current adopters and future adopters of the 4D BIM-GIS model may have

distinct perceptions and priorities of the drivers for BIM and GIS combination adoption in the

AEC practice. Thus value-in-use will help guard adopters’ experiential evaluation of the BIM-

GIS benefits such as the optimal trade-offs between transportation cost, lead-time, and logistics/material quantity as well as the high-quality construction projects.

Figure 2: Perceived Value-in-use for 4D BIM-GIS

3.3 Perceived value propositions for 4D BIM-GIS as identified in the literature 3.3.1 Competitive supplier selection and appropriate material quantity delivery

Competitive supplier selection and material quantity delivery decision making process is a critical success factor for not only construction of quality building products, but also to ensure cost maximization. It is important to consider how the supplier meets the demands of the client in terms of quantity, quality, and deliveries. This requires a great deal of information and evaluations. Irizarry, Karan and Jalaei, (2013) recognize the effectiveness of BIM and GIS to monitor the interaction of information to better the efficiency and transparency of the supplier selection process. Song et al.(2017) also add that such integration provides efficient, sufficient, and instant information for productive resilient supplier selection. GIS can provide reliable information on location and status of material and resources to help project managers respond appropriately on arrival and correctness of the materials.

3.3.2 Optimal allocation of consolidation centres

Deng et al.(2019) explain consolidation centres as ‘the regional stocking points where

construction materials can be stored before distribution to the sites in order to avoid congestion

of materials at the site loading area. These scholars developed an integrated model where 4D

BIM provides a range of construction information (construction schedule, material quantity,

and on-site inventory), while GIS provides information on logistics (location, transportation distance and traffic network). The model helps the manager to use network analysis and cost analysis tools to determine the optimal locations of the consolidation centres with respect to the project sites, supplier sites and the traffic network. It becomes even beneficial when the consolidation centres serve multiple construction projects.

3.3.3 Cost savings

Cost is one of the important project objectives for every client/developer, especially the public client. Although no quantitative studies have been conducted on the exact economic premium derived from an integrated BIM-GIS model for CSCM yet, the qualitative analysis on cost savings demands its adoption. Transportation costs are estimated to account for 10-20% of construction costs (Shakantu, Tookey and Bowen, 2003). Comparison can be made with the planned data and real-time transportation information generated by GIS to guard the choice of supply delivery. GIS network analysis function will enable the project manager to assess the options in terms of shortest route, travel distance and travel time in order to optimize the associated costs of transportation (Irizarry, Karan and Jalaei, 2013). For instance, ArcGIS Network Analyst or GIS router analyses and optimizes the optimum route (Charis, Danha and Muzenda, 2019) which is mostly employed to estimate delivery costs.

3.3.4 Time savings

In construction, time is value, and a pivotal performance indicator for all successful projects.

Changes at construction sites are inevitable. It can be due to alteration of designs, clash detections, health and safety issues, delays, and many others. This has rippling effects on supply chains with regards to quantities of materials and resources, and deliveries. Irizarry, Karan and Jalaei, (2013) state that BIM-GIS model with its embedded scheduling functionality together with the sequential monitoring of building construction provides a platform to visually report current location of resources and estimate the arrival time to the project site. This equips the project manager to heed to warning signals and to responsively take actions to prevent or alleviate any delays and to increase delivery reliability (Irizarry, Karan and Jalaei, 2013).

According to Mason et al. (2003), efficient management of the warehouse and transportation

system will minimize the overall costs and lead-time along the supply chain. Wang et al. (2014)

exemplified how BIM-GIS can be deployed to stimulate localized traffic flow around the

construction project for planning and design optimization.

3.3.5 Improved relationships among participating entities

Chen and others argue that one of the areas which often breaks down in the construction network of actors is the designer-supplier link (Chen, Adey, et al., 2020). It is believed, the main cause is the lack of coordination of information and interdependent workflows that usually occur between designers and suppliers. It is often reported that both parties do not receive on-time feedback on design decisions, production status and reliable material delivery timelines. Thankfully, BIM and GIS integrations can optimize the choice of building materials and logistics to further enhance information sharing and knowledge synergism among engineers and contracting authority (Chen, Adey, et al., 2020).

3.3.6 Improved health and safety

The complexity of the network of workers involved in many activities on the construction project sites inevitably leads to accidents on jobsites, if innovative health and safety protocols are not observed. Fewings, Peter; Henjewele (2019) asserted that technology is the smart means to monitor, to an appreciable level, the overlapping design and construction activities to minimize site clashes. Moreover, BIM-GIS applications do not only visibly monitor supply chain processes (Irizarry, Karan and Jalaei, 2013), sequence deliveries and just-in-time installation works programming (Huttu and Martinsuo, 2015), but also avoid the stress of having to stockpile material on construction sites. This saves time, cost, and mental stress if the materials become unimportant and are to be done away with. This serves to control and promote health and safety conditions on sites, especially giving warning signals to avoid delivery accidents. Getuli et al. (2016) demonstrated that with the computer-aided platforms, the site safety coordinators can optimize the working environment, giving clearly defined space demarcation for contractors and suppliers at each phase of the construction.

3.3.7 Improved communication and information sharing

Appropriate information on material and logistics availability and delivery time helps improve

the coordination of supply chain flows to increase responsiveness on project sites. The

integration of supply chain and site activities readily on mobile devices fosters information

exchange management and also helps the decision making process among project participants

(Son et al., 2012). The suppliers’ primary goal is profitability while the clients seek

collaboration for operational efficiency, however, both objectives become only feasible when

there are shared information and communication on the material/logistics availability to

achieve economies of scale in ordering as Papadonikolaki, Vrijhoef and Wamelink (2016)

proved such interdependencies regulate information and material management. They further observed that the collaboration and shared information create value for the participating stakeholders involved in the transaction. Information on traffic flow, material/logistics availability, lead-time deliveries etc are communicated among concerned actors.

3.3.8 Improved sustainability

Estimates show that the supply chain contributes 90% of global carbon footprint (Dubey et al., 2017) and that the building construction sector, in particular, accounts for about one-third of the use and carbon emissions (Asensio and Delmas, 2017). Mitigating measures such as energy efficient certificates (Zhang et al., 2018), and supply chain sustainability performance measurements (Qorri, Mujkić and Kraslawski, 2018;Dubey et al., 2017) have been studied as the frameworks for improving sustainability parameters in the built environment as various pressure groups and social activists have raised environmental concerns about supply chain operations. Zou et al. (2019) argue that technology plays an impactful role in creating environmental awareness as their invented game theory model looked into sustainability issues involving supplier, manufacturer, and third-party remanufacturer relations. BIM and GIS functionalities such visualization, scheduling and mapping (Irizarry, Karan and Jalaei, 2013) provide accurate information on both suppliers’ sites and project sites, and transport networks which allow for optimal planning and decision making on material and logistics. This does not ensure only an improvement of risk management but also the continuity of client business as participating actors become resilient.

3.3.9 Increased efficiency and productivity

Traditionally, time, cost and quality are the benchmarking performance indicators viewed as

clients’ values (Aliakbarlou, Wilkinson and Costello, 2018), nonetheless, in achieving these

client’s core values lies the concepts of response efficiency especially in supply chain activities

(Gong, 2010). Innovative systems such as BIM and GIS applications do not only map up

information and visibly monitor supply chain activities but also improve material tracking

efficiency (Moon et al., 2018). It has been observed that delays in material and logistics

delivery and disruptions on jobsites are the major causes of construction unproductiveness,

however, BIM and GIS integrations are proven to accelerate CSCM operations for efficiency

(Magill et al., 2020). It’s estimated that these disruptions account for 25% loss of productivity

on construction project sites (Hamza et al., 2019).

3.3.10 Stimulate innovations

The client is seen as the initiator and driver of innovations in the AEC industry through its engagements with the industry practitioners. Kao, Nawata and Huang (2019) proved that technological innovations are means to propel economic growth and importantly, to advance more novelty ideas in the industry. Studies into construction renewal by Havenvid et al. (2016) demonstrated that clients hold power in the form of client specification or requirements in the procurement documents to demand and stimulate innovations in the industry. To meet client’s value expectations requires implementing specifications as stipulated in the contract; policies and new solutions, which Lindblad and Karrbom Gustavsson (2021) demonstrated to have propelled the needed changes for sustainable and efficient industry.

4 Methods

This section gives a detailing about the research design. This incorporates the research approach and its accompanying statistical techniques and measurements to give in-depth understanding and relevance of the topic.

4.1 Method approach

After developing the research questions which are underpinned in two theoretical frameworks;

4D BIM-GIS model and Value-in- use concept and service quality, a quantitative method became the ideal research method to understand the construct. Creswell (2007) defined quantitative studies as means of testing theories by investigating relationships and correlations among variables or factors. Survey responses from the reputable international construction companies were statistically analysed, to seek their perspectives on the drivers for 4D BIM- GIS adoption for SCM.

4.2 A deductive research approach

Deductive research is a form of discovery where inference is based on established fact (Saunders and Lewis, 2012). That is, such research is conducted from an ideology to an observation. To answer the research questions RQ1 and RQ2, the author did background studies of a known theory (4D BIM-GIS model and the proposed values it offers when adopted for SCM, and the value-in-use and service quality concept). The author then developed a research hypothesis, and then tested it with the collected data vis-a-vis the literature for the validity of the hypothesis.

Afterwards, the research question (RQ1) which seeks to assess how the identified value propositions are prioritized and ranked in order of their importance by current users and future adopters for 4D BIM-GIS adoption in the AEC industry practice, and the research question (RQ2) which seeks to identify the value propositions for BIM-GIS adoption, a systematic documents study was conducted. Finally, A research design was therefore developed to test the supposition.

4.3 Survey design and data collection

For this study to produce certainty in the conclusions based on the available empirics and to

also make it possible to provide specific results, a web-based survey questionnaire was used to

gather the data. The questionnaire was administered to selected companies to seek industrial

perspectives towards the adoption of an integrated 4D BIM-GIS for construction supply chain management in Swedish AEC industry. These perceived benefits for 4D BIM-GIS adoption were measured on a five-point Likert scale. That is, respondents were exposed to ten (10) value propositions for 4D BIM-GIS adoption and were asked to rate them based on their experience and the perceptions from the AEC industry practice. The google form software package was deployed to collect the responses from sample construction organizations via a web-based interface and data was recorded. A target population of 100 construction companies comprising large sub-contracting organizations with international reputation in Swedish AEC industry, and others was sampled. The sample frame included organizations who have high annual turnovers, Research and Development (R&D) departments and more importantly have at least in-house BIM or IT departments. 50 companies were Swedish based, and10 construction organizations each from the UK, Germany, China, USA, and Netherlands. The sample was purposively randomised. 89 of these companies were reached by the survey questionnaire and contacted via emails. Out of this, 31 organizations responded to the survey questionnaire. Therefore, the sample size is 31. Bartlett, Kotrlik and Higgins (2001) proposed an acceptable minimum sample size to be 46 for a target population size of 100 whose data is continuous in nature, in order to provide an alpha of 0.1 and a t of 1.65 with an assumed maximum margin of error expected to be 3%. However, Saunders and Lewis (2012) argue that a probability sample of at least 30 respondents from a data collection is enough to minimize biases.

Table 1: Survey responses from selected countries

Country Number of AEC company Response Rate

Sweden 50

United Kingdom 10

Germany 10

China 10

USA 10

Netherlands 10

4.4 Statistical techniques

The Relative Importance Index (RII) Method was employed to help prioritize the respondent’s order of importance of the value propositions for 4D BIM-GIS adoption. Furthermore, the Rank

34.8%

Agreement Factor (RAF) was used to carry out comparison between current users of 4D BIM- GIS and those who want to adopt it for their CSCM.

Relative Importance Index (RII) is derived by the formulae:

𝑅𝐼𝐼 = ∑ 𝑊

𝐴 × 𝑁 (0 ≤ 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 ≤ 1)

Where:

W is the given weight of each value proposition by the respondent; the weight ranges from 1 as least significant impact to 5 as most significant impact.

A is the highest weight; and

N is the total number of respondents.

Rank Agreement Factor (RAF) is derived by the formulae:

𝑅𝐴𝐹 = 1

𝑁 [∑|𝑅

− 𝑅

|

𝑁

𝑖=1

]

The maximum RAF(RAF

) is computed as:

𝑅𝐴𝐹

= 1

𝑁 [∑|𝑅

− 𝑅

|

𝑁

𝑖=1

]

Where:

Ri, 1 is the ith rank of an item in first group, Ri,2 is the ith rank of an item in second group,

N is the total number of items, which is the same for each group, Rj,2 is the jth rank for each item in second group, and

j = N – i + 1.

Percentage Disagreement (PD) between the current users and future adopters is the ratio RAF

to RAFmax. And the Percentage Agreement (PA) between these two distinct groups can be

computed using the equations as proposed by Chan and Kumaraswamy (1997) below.

𝑃𝐷 = 𝑅𝐴𝐹

𝑅𝐴𝐹

× 100

PA = 100 – PD

A RAF value of zero signals a total agreement while a higher RAF value indicates a weaker

agreement between the two groups. Again, the closer RII value to 1, the more recognised the

value propositions. The RII and RAF are used to answer the research question (RQ1).

5 Findings and Analysis

To investigate the research hypothesis on whether the current users of 4D BIM-GIS for CSCM tend to prioritize these perceived value propositions differently from the future adopters, an independent samples test was conducted. The results obtained are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Independent samples test for 31 observations

4D BIM-GIS Value Propositions

t-test for Equality of Means

t df

sig.

(2- tailed)

Mean Diff.

Std.

Error diff.

Competitive supplier selection and appropriate material quantity delivery

Equal variances assumed

1.187 29 0.245 0.523 0.440

Optimal allocation of consolidation centres

Equal variances assumed

2.450 29 0.021 0.950 0.388

Cost savings

Equal variances assumed

2.359 29 0.025 1.182 0.501

Time savings

Equal variances assumed

2.316 29 0.028 1.305 0.563 Improved coordination among

participating entities

Equal variances assumed

2.238 29 0.033 1.091 0.487 Improved communication and

information sharing

Equal variances assumed

2.335 29 0.027 1.032 0.442

Improved health and safety

Equal variances assumed

0.276 29 0.785 0.123 0.445

Improved sustainability

Equal variances assumed

0.456 29 0.652 0.223 0.489 Increased efficiency and

productivity

Equal variances assumed

2.389 29 0.024 1.214 0.508

Stimulate innovations

Equal variances assumed

1.546 29 0.133 0.818 0.529

T-test was used to determine if there was a significant difference between the means of the

current users and the future adopters in relation to how these value propositions are perceived

and prioritized by the respondents. The lesser the magnitude of critical value compared with t,

the greater the evidence against the null hypothesis. Hence, by comparing the t-test with the critical value, it can be concluded that there exists a significant difference between how current users of 4D BIM-GIS perceived these value propositions compared to future adopters, especially, the ‘Optimal allocation of consolidation centres’, ‘Cost savings’, ‘Time savings’,

‘Improved coordination among participating entities’, ‘Improved communication and information sharing’, and ‘Increased efficiency and productivity’. This is because their t-values are greater than the critical value of 2.045 at 95% confidence interval. Therefore, there is statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis as again their probability values (p-values) are less than the alpha (α) value. However, on the value propositions such as ‘Improved sustainability’, ‘Stimulate innovations’, and ‘Competitive supplier selection and appropriate material quantity delivery’, the two groups seem to agree on the same ranking as their t-values are lesser than the critical value. Hence, therefore is no significance difference in their perceptions and rankings (p = 1.133, 0.652, 0.245 > 0.05).

Table 3: Summarized value propositions for 4D BIM-GIS

Key: (*=jointly ranked) 4D BIM-GIS Value

Propositions

Current users of 4D BIM-GIS Future Adopters of 4D BIM- GIS

Mean RII Rank Mean RII Rank

Competitive supplier selection and appropriate material quantity delivery

3.27 0.65 8* 2.75 0.55 10

Optimal allocation of

consolidation centres 4.00 0.80 6 3.05 0.61 5*

Cost savings 4.18 0.84 3* 3.00 0.60 7*

Time savings 4.45 0.89 1 3.15 0.63 1*

Improved coordination among

participating entities 4.09 0.82 5 3.00 0.60 7*

Improved communication and

information sharing 4.18 0.84 3* 3.15 0.63 1*

Improved health and safety 3.27 0.65 8* 3.15 0.63 1*

Improved sustainability 3.27 0.65 8* 3.05 0.61 5*

Increased efficiency and

productivity 4.36 0.87 2 3.15 0.63 1*

Stimulate innovations 3.82 0.76 7 3.00 0.60 7*

TOTAL 38.89 30.45

In Table 3, the mean values for current users are higher, with an aggregate mean value of 38.89 which is greater than the future adopters’ mean value of 30.45. The high mean is an indication of more positive views of the current users towards 4D BIM-GIS adoption for CSCM. It is further indication of their experiential evaluation of how 4D BIM-GIS has transformed their construction workflows. The paper has proved that there are indeed huge benefits that client and contractor can derive from BIM and GIS integration especially for CSCM.

Moreover, both current users and future adopters ranked ‘Time savings’, ‘Increased efficiency and productivity’, and ‘Improved communication and information sharing’ as their 3 topmost value propositions for 4D BIM-GIS adoption, together with ‘Improved health and safety’

which were jointly ranked by future adopters (1

place). It is important to stress that ‘Time savings’ and ‘Improved communication and information sharing’ are primarily related to the project progress while ‘Increased efficiency and productivity’ is vital to project outcomes. On other hand, the current users ranked ‘competitive supplier selection and material quantity delivery’, ‘Improved health and safety’, ‘Improved sustainability’ and ‘Stimulate innovations’

(joint 8

and 7

places respectively) as the least drivers of 4D BIM-GIS adoption. This can be attributed to probable lack of long-term experience and required skill sets of employees to work with new techniques. This is evidently collaborated in the survey responses as about 63.63%

had only (1-3) year experience in using 4D BIM-GIS for CSCM. Moreover, lack of comprehensive corporate level training deprives workers from becoming acquainted with the new techniques and this may cause high rates of injuries among workers (Pearce and Kleiner, 2013). This may as a result, lead employees to revert to their normal work processes, hence low adoption rates. Again, the paper has proved that the ‘competitive supplier selection and appropriate material quantity delivery’ and ‘stimulate innovations’ were seen as the two least drivers for 4D BIM-GIS adoption. It is not surprising to observe those who are yet to implement ranked ‘Stimulate innovations’ as one of the least drivers for this new technology.

This is because innovation adoptions are not ‘straight forward’, hence, adopters more often than not prefer methods that fit in the existing solutions’ (Matthews et al., 2016, Havenvid, 2015).

In Table 4, the computations show 2.20 and 3.00 for RAF and RAFmax respectively for both

current users and those who are yet to adopt 4D BIM-GIS for their CSCM. The figures give a

Percentage Agreement of 26.67% and a Percentage Disagreement of 73.33%. This collaborates

with the research hypothesis that current 4D BIM-GIS users are likely to prioritize these

perceived value propositions differently from the future adopters. The awareness generated by

the paper will create interests in these drivers for 4D BIM-GIS adoption and as the light is shed about the values BIM and GIS integration presents for the AEC industry practice, there is possibility for those who have not yet adopted it to change their perceptions.

Table 4: RAF, RAFmax, PA and PD figures for Value Propositions

4D BIM-GIS Value Propositions Users Rank

Non- users

Rank Ri1-Ri2 Abs J Ri1-Rj2 Abs Competitive supplier selection

and appropriate material

quantity delivery 8 10 -2 2 7 1 1

Optimal allocation of

consolidation centres 6 5 1 1 1 5 5

Cost savings

3 7 -4 4 5 -2 2

Time savings

1 1 0 0 1 0 0

Improved coordination among

participating entities 5 7 -2 2 1 4 4

Improved communication and

information sharing 3 1 2 2 7 -4 4

Improved health and safety

8 1 7 7 1 7 7

Improved sustainability

8 5 3 3 7 1 1

Increased efficiency and

productivity 2 1 1 1 5 -3 3

Stimulate innovations

7 7 0 0 10 -3 3

Abs Sum 22 Abs Sum 30

RAF 2.20 RAFmax 3.00

PD 73.33

PA 26.67

Figures in the Table 5 depict the aggregate ranking of the current users and future adopters of

4D BIM-GIS. Overall, time savings proved to be the most competitive demand of a project as

it is ranked foremost driver for 4D BIM-GIS adoption. This is followed by ‘increased efficiency

and productivity’, and ‘improved communication and information sharing’ as the second and third ranked drivers, respectively. The study has demonstrated BIM and GIS combinations are the right mechanism for communication and information sharing to increase efficiency and productivity especially among the design team and suppliers.

Table 5: Aggregate Ranking of Value Propositions for 4D BIM-GIS

4D BIM-GIS Value Propositions Agg. RII Rank

Time savings 0.723 1

Increased efficiency and productivity 0.716 2

Improved communication and information sharing 0.690 3

Cost savings 0.684 4

Optimal allocation of consolidation centres 0.677 5

Improved coordination among participating entities 0.677 5

Stimulate innovations 0.658 7

Improved health and safety 0.639 8

Improved sustainability 0.594 9

Competitive supplier selection and appropriate material quantity

delivery 0.587 10

6 Discussion and conclusions

This section gives an in-depth description of the results by giving a detailed explanation of the findings and making inferences from the literature to put them in context. Finally, the section talks about the author’s reflections on the research and the recommendations to further explore the research topic.

6.1 Discussion

Digital transformation is accelerating the AEC industry by creating innovative ways to operate efficiently in the built environment. The combination of BIM and GIS is revolutionizing the construction workflows, making it possible for the concessionaires of infrastructure, clients of building facilities and contractors to optimize their businesses and investments. This research identified ten value propositions of 4D BIM-GIS to drive its adoption for CSCM from literature and ranked these propositions in order of importance. It was observed that adopters’

experiential evaluation differs from perceptions of those who are yet to implement 4D BIM- GIS for CSCM. However, the mean values of the groups indicated the respondents’ positive outlooks about 4D BIM-GIS to transform the current supply chain workflows into value for investments.

The study revealed that those who have already adopted 4D BIM-GIS for CSCM ranked ‘Time savings’, ‘Increased efficiency and productivity’, ‘Improved communication and information sharing’ and ‘Cost savings’ (1

, 2

, and joint 3

respectively) as most valued drivers. This shows the premium placed on just-in-time delivery of materials and logistics on project sites as information on materials and traffic situation is communicated among participating entities.

This further accelerates efficiency in workflows to reduce costs. As projects are completed within schedules budget overruns are avoided. The research also revealed that ‘Time saving’,

‘Increased efficiency and productivity’, ‘Improved communication and information sharing’

and ‘Improved health and safety’ were most prioritized value propositions from the

respondents who are yet to implement (1st jointly ranked). This means, however, that 4D BIM-

GIS as an information platform is seen by those who have yet to implement 4D BIM-GIS

adoption for CSCM as a viable alternative solution to coordinate among designers and

suppliers. It further indicates that the appreciable design overlaps and jobsite activities clashes

can be monitored as inefficiencies are minimized. It is plausible this will incentivize these

future adopters to adopt this technology to revolutionize supply chain activities on and off

project sites. With client’s active participation in demanding this technology as a requirement

in procurement in order to reap these value propositions for CSCM decisions and processes, it can serve as a driver for its adoption.

On the aggregate ranking, the study further revealed that ‘Competitive supplier selection and appropriate material quantity delivery’, ‘Improved sustainability’, and ‘Improved health and safety’ (10

, 9

, and 8

rankings respectfully) were deemed as the least impactful value propositions to drive 4D BIM-GIS adoption. This observation may be the result of lack of experience and overall organizational level of BIM-GIS maturity. Again, when the required level of skills and techniques acquired are not mastered and familiarized with, workers may find it difficult and unfriendly operating it. Consequently, this may encourage them to capitalize on the techniques unfriendliness to revert to normal working processes.

The Percentage Agreement (PA) and Percentage Disagreement (PD) values collaborate with the research hypothesis which states current users of 4D BIM-GIS will rank most value propositions differently from those who are yet to implement it based on experiential evaluation and perceptions. This finding contributes to and demonstrates the reliability and validity of the research on value-in-use and quality service by Medberg and Grönroos.

The disagreement on the rankings of these identified value propositions for 4D BIM-GIS

adoption between the two groups is a testament of the diverse perceptions within client

organizations and contracting companies, and also the fragmented nature of construction

projects in the AEC industry. That notwithstanding, with an in-depth dialogue among

concerned stakeholders within the Swedish AEC industry, large construction companies who

are yet to implement this innovative technology can at least take the initiative to pilot 4D BIM-

GIS for their CSCM. Empirics prove that late technology adopters often accept these

technology applications out of necessity as opposed to the early adopters who place much

premium on innovations (Andrus and Moore, 1997).

6.2 Conclusions

This research has generated curiosity and created awareness of the benefits 4D BIM-GIS adoption presents for clients and contractors. This should incentivize the client to invest in research and development of new technology applications in its quest to revolutionize and accelerate construction processes to meet its growing demands. While the paper has highlighted the value propositions for 4D BIM-GIS adoption, it recommends as a matter of urgency the need for the Government to enact policy documentation as part of public procurement for clients and contractors to have in-house BIM and GIS as a prerequisite in order to win public contracts. However, public dialogues and education among government representatives, the major industry players and construction efficiency campaigners should precede before such a policy document is enforced. If such policy is pursued, the Swedish AEC industry can be seen as a strong driver of digital transformation.

The paper recommends a high corporate level of training to familiarize workers with the new techniques. Clients and contractors should endeavour to invest in a comprehension in-service training and education on the BIM and GIS applications to help employees acquire and update their knowledge and skill set on these new techniques. It is highly tempting and possible for workers to return to normal work processes if they are not familiar with the new methods. The lack of the required skills to operate these new technology applications or unfamiliarity with the new methods will inevitably lead to low adoption rates.

The paper recommends that further study should investigate associated costs regarding the BIM and GIS integration applications for CSCM, and the corporate level training programs for employees’ skill acquisitions and techniques familiarization when the technology is espoused for AEC industry practice. Again, as it is suggested by Deng et al.(2019) the 4D BIM-GIS framework fails to incorporate logistics/material quality and suppliers’ trustworthiness into data applications for CSCM decisions and processes and that becomes an important area for future scholars to explore.

In a nutshell, technology is the future for the AEC industry. As these digital transformations of

construction continue to evolve, revolutionize, and accelerate AEC industry practices, clients

and contractors ought to invest in these technologies not only to speed up workflows and create

values but also to meet their growing customers’ demands.

List of References

Ahn, Y. H., Kwak, Y. H. and Suk, S. J. (2016) ‘Contractors’ Transformation Strategies for Adopting Building Information Modeling’, Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(1).

doi: 10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000390.

Akbari, M. (2018) ‘Logistics outsourcing: a structured literature review’, Benchmarking, 25(5), pp. 1548–1580. doi: 10.1108/BIJ-04-2017-0066.

Aliakbarlou, S., Wilkinson, S. and Costello, S. B. (2018) ‘Rethinking client value within construction contracting services’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(4), pp. 1007–1025. doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-07-2017-0076.

Alsafouri, S. and Ayer, S. K. (2018) ‘Review of ICT Implementations for Facilitating Information Flow between Virtual Models and Construction Project Sites’, Automation in Construction, 86, pp. 176–189. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.005.

Andrus, D. L. and Moore, G. A. (1997) ‘Inside the Tornado: Marketing Strategies from Silicon Valley’s Cutting Edge’, Journal of Marketing, 61(2), pp. 97–99. doi:

10.2307/1251835.

Asensio, O. I. and Delmas, M. A. (2017) ‘The effectiveness of US energy efficiency building labels’, Nature Energy, 2(4), p. 17033. doi: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.33.

Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W. K. J. W. and Higgins, C. (2001) ‘Organizational research:

Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research’, Information technology, learning, and performance journal.

Behera, P., Mohanty, R. P. and Prakash, A. (2015) ‘Understanding Construction Supply Chain Management’, Production Planning and Control, 26(16), pp. 1–19. doi:

10.1080/09537287.2015.1045953.

Chalkias, C. and Lasaridi, K. (2011) ‘Benefits from GIS Based Modelling for Municipal Solid Waste Management’, in Integrated Waste Management - Volume I. doi: 10.5772/17087.

Chan, D. W. M. and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (1997) ‘A comparative study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), pp. 55–63. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00039-7.

Charis, G., Danha, G. and Muzenda, E. (2019) ‘A review of the application of gis in biomass

and solid waste supply chain optimization: Gaps and opportunities for developing nations’, Detritus, pp. 42–52. doi: 10.31025/2611-4135/2019.13819.

Chen, Q., Hall, D. M., et al. (2020) ‘Identifying enablers for coordination across construction supply chain processes: a systematic literature review’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(4), pp. 1083–1113. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-05-2020-0299.

Chen, Q., Adey, B. T., et al. (2020) ‘Using look-ahead plans to improve material flow processes on construction projects when using BIM and RFID technologies’, Construction Innovation, 20(3), pp. 471–508. doi: 10.1108/CI-11-2019-0133.

Cheng, J. C. P. et al. (2010) ‘A service oriented framework for construction supply chain integration’, Automation in Construction, 19(2), pp. 245–260. doi:

10.1016/j.autcon.2009.10.003.

Creswell, J. W. (2007) ‘Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Aproaches (3rd ed.)’, SAGE Publications, pp. 203–224.

Čuš-Babič, N. et al. (2014) ‘Supply-chain transparency within industrialized construction projects’, Computers in Industry, 65(2), pp. 345–353. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2013.12.003.

Dainty, A. R. J., Briscoe, G. H. and Millett, S. J. (2001) ‘Subcontractor perspectives on supply chain alliances’, Construction Management and Economics, 19(8), pp. 841–848. doi:

10.1080/01446190110089727.

Delavar, M. et al. (2020) ‘Automated BIM-based process for wind engineering design collaboration’, Building Simulation, 13(2), pp. 457–474. doi: 10.1007/s12273-019-0589-2.

Deng, Y. et al. (2019) ‘Integrating 4D BIM and GIS for Construction Supply Chain Management’, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(4). doi:

10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001633.

Dubey, R. et al. (2017) ‘Sustainable supply chain management: framework and further research directions’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, pp. 1119–1130. doi:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.117.

Ekeskär, A. and Rudberg, M. (2020) ‘Third-party logistics in construction: perspectives from suppliers and transport service providers’, Production Planning and Control, 0(0), pp. 1–16.

doi: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1837932.