buildings

Article
Comparing Team Interactions in Traditional and BIM-Lean
Design Management
Rodrigo F. Herrera 1,2,3, * , Claudio Mourgues 2 , Luis F. Alarcón 2 and Eugenio Pellicer 3

1 School of Civil Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Av. Brasil 2147,
Valparaíso 2340000, Chile
2 Department of Construction and Engineering Management, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile,
Vicuña Mackena 4860, Casilla 306 Correo 2, Santiago 8320000, Chile; cmourgue@ing.puc.cl (C.M.);
lalarcon@ing.puc.cl (L.F.A.)
3 School of Civil Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain;
pellicer@upv.es
* Correspondence: rodrigo.herrera@pucv.cl

Abstract: There is qualitative evidence showing that design teams that use BIM-lean management
have a higher level of interaction than design teams that do not use this management approach.
However, there is no quantitative empirical evidence of this higher level of interaction. Therefore,
the objective of this paper is to present quantitative empirical evidence of the differences among
the various types of interactions of a design team. Two case studies were analyzed, and their
design management was assessed from a lean BIM perspective while their team interactions were
assessed using social network analysis (SNA). To achieve the aim of this paper, four steps were
performed: (1) case study selection; (2) description of the design management of the projects from





 the lean design management and BIM perspectives; (3) assessment of design team interaction; and
(4) comparison using SNA. The results show that the project that applied BIM-lean management
Citation: Herrera, R.F.; Mourgues, C.;
exhibited higher levels of interactions among its design team members than the traditional team;
Alarcón, L.F.; Pellicer, E. Comparing
transparent, orderly, and standardized information flows; a collaborative, trusting, and learning
Team Interactions in Traditional and
BIM-Lean Design Management.
environment; and commitment management. None of these interaction elements were visible in the
Buildings 2021, 11, 447. project that did not apply BIM-lean management. It is suggested that an analysis be performed on a
https://doi.org/10.3390/ representative sample of projects in the future so that conclusive statistical inferences could be made.
buildings11100447
Keywords: lean design; management practices; BIM uses; building projects; interaction;
Academic Editor: Patrick Dallasega social network analysis

Received: 30 August 2021

Accepted: 28 September 2021
Published: 30 September 2021 1. Introduction
The architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry has been criticized
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
for its fragmented approach to project delivery and its failure to form effective teams [1].
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Additionally, the AEC industry has an adversarial nature, which has resulted in poor project
published maps and institutional affil-
performance and a lack of innovation [2]. This fragmentation, caused by the isolation of
iations.
professionals and a lack of coordination between the individuals involved in design and
those involved in building, has impacted construction performance, leading to a lack of
integration, waste, low productivity, and low efficiency [3]. Additionally, certain barriers
to improved integration seem to stem from the historical fragmentation of project delivery
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
systems and the contractual and adversarial nature of construction project relationships [4].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Addressing this high degree of fragmentation requires better interaction between
This article is an open access article
the specialties of the industry [5]; the interaction of a work team is generated through
distributed under the terms and
communication, coordination, and collaboration among the participants [6]. According
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
to Webster’s dictionary, interaction means the action on each other, “mutual or reciprocal
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
action or influence” [7]; in sociology, interaction is a dynamic sequence of social actions
4.0/). between people (or groups) who modify their actions and reactions due to actions by their

Buildings 2021, 11, 447. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11100447 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2021, 11, 447 2 of 25

interaction partner(s); therefore, an interaction is a social exchange between two or more

individuals [8]. This interaction can be represented as the information flow between the
right people at the right time [9,10]. Integration occurs best when individual team members
view themselves as equals in the process and when the initial collaboration among them is
focused on exploring and defining the problem [11]. Hence, the building process cannot
be optimized without full collaboration and, ultimately, integration among all its project
members [11]. Therefore, team integration is critical to developing projects and achieving
value for the clients and stakeholders involved in these projects [12]. There are many ways
to understand interaction in design teams; the key dimensions of interaction can be divided
into traditional interaction and commitment management. Traditional interaction includes
social interaction, role knowledge, collaboration, and learning, among others [13]; while
commitment management is associated with each of the speech acts (i.e., requirements,
negotiation, declaration of completion, and declaration of acceptance) [14].
Poor interaction among specialists, clients, and other team members can have negative
consequences such as an inappropriate synthesis of the needs analysis of the project, which
results in a lack of value generation for the client and the end-users [12]. Consequently,
poor interactions among work teams can lead to poor performance, both in the implemen-
tation of each phase (namely, the phases of design, construction, maintenance, operation,
and deconstruction) and in the overall life cycle of the infrastructure [1]. Within the in-
frastructure life cycle, the design phase allows the client, engineers, architects, and other
specialists to establish the layout and definition of the overall project as well as its different
parts. Therefore, the design phase is particularly important because decisions made during
this phase can significantly affect the following phases, and the cost of making changes
during this phase is insignificant compared with the cost of implementing changes during
future phases [15].
As the interdependence and complexity of design tasks increase, the need for syn-
chronous communication becomes vital; therefore, the efficacy and challenge of design
management is rooted in the appropriate management of its workflow [16]. It is critical
to consider the interactions within design teams and those between the design teams of
different disciplines due to the interdependent nature of the design phase [10]. Therefore,
managing the design workflow includes managing the people involved in the design
process as well as the flow of information between them to enable the progression of design
solutions [16]. The interactions among the professionals involved in the design team of
a construction project is fundamental to the performance of the project [17]. To analyze
the interactions of work teams, different tools can be used such as a survey, a frequency
analysis [18], an n × n matrix [19], a social network analysis (SNA) [20], and a design
structure matrix [21]. SNA has attracted attention in the AEC industry because it can be
used to examine the role of informal structures in their coexistence with formal structures;
an interaction can be formal information exchange such as approvals and monthly reports,
or informal exchange of opinions, request for information, report of a problem, sharing of
an improvement idea, etc. [22].
One of the challenges faced in this study is the determination of the methodologies
used to achieve this higher level of interaction. Many studies have recommended building
information modeling (BIM) as a workable option to address this issue [1], and lean
has also been applied to the design phase [23]. Additionally, lean practices and BIM
functionalities can enable a better design workflow through their focus on teamwork and
information integration and sharing [16]. One of the theoretical benefits of BIM and lean is
that errors in design can be better addressed in a way that reduces both their incidence and
their dissemination [10]. Additionally, BIM and lean principles improve the exchange of
information and create a more cohesive social network with increased collaboration and
connections within teams and between different teams [10].
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 3 of 25

There is qualitative evidence showing that design teams that use BIM and lean have
higher levels of interaction than design teams that do not use these management and
technology support methodologies [11,24]; for instance, the application of BIM and lean
could improve the commitment management, team communication, the solution of inter-
operability issues [11], trust between design team members, creativity though the adoption
of more perspective and new solution suggestion [25], make better decisions and make
reliable commitments [26], among others. Therefore, these studies show the increase in
interaction from the global perception of the members of the design teams. However, there
does not seem to be any quantitative empirical evidence of this higher level of interaction;
thus, it is interesting to use SNA to have quantitative evidence of the different levels of
interaction of the design teams. Quantitative evidence of an increase in interaction when
applying BIM and lean methodologies, evaluated through SNA, would allow consultants
and design teams to analyze the organizational performance of their projects through inter-
action metrics and sociograms that would provide concrete evidence that could be used as
input to apply continuous improvement actions and evaluate the impact of these actions
on the design team interactions. A recent study used SNA and simulation to compare
traditional and BIM-lean practices for design error management [10]; however, this study
provided theoretical and not empirical evidence of design team interaction, in addition, it
only measured the information flows. Additionally, the interaction has not been studied in
depth to examine the dimensions of interaction in which this theoretical increase exists,
since there are multiple types of interaction within the design process such as work informa-
tion flows, planning and solving problems, collaboration, and learning [13]. Therefore, the
aim of this paper is to present quantitative empirical evidence of the differences that exist
among the various types of interactions of a design team through a comparative analysis
of two case studies involving high-rise building construction projects in Chile. To assess
the interactions among the design teams of these projects, the researchers involved in this
study used social network analysis (SNA), since it allows for the extraction of qualitative
and quantitative information from each type of interaction through sociograms and graph
theory metrics that explain the behavior of the design team [27].

2. Background
2.1. Design Management
The design phase of any construction project involves several designers who exchange
information with each other, most often in an unstructured manner, throughout the design
phase [28]. Like any project, the design management process involves planning, organizing,
and managing people, knowledge, and flows of information to achieve specific project
goals and objectives [16]. Additionally, design management is fundamentally concerned
with value generation for the customer or client, which involves the integration of various
specialist knowledge and the accurate timing of critical decisions. These objectives are
achieved through an integrated team approach to the design, construction, implementation,
and management of a project [29].
Traditionally, the design phase of a project is characterized by a high level of uncer-
tainty due to the ill-defined nature of its requirements, solutions, or outputs. The design
requirements of a project can be well understood, whereas the solutions and resulting out-
puts cannot be defined in advance and are generally vague at the beginning of a project [30].
Recent research has proposed that the design process should be studied through an evalua-
tion of its performance [31,32], an implementation of integrated management systems and
visual management tools [33], and its optimization [16]. Nevertheless, there are still several
challenges in the design management of construction projects, for instance, the challenges
posed by the collaborative methodologies of various specialties and the use of technol-
ogy [34]. Thus, it is important to facilitate the application of collaborative technologies
and methodologies to design management, considering that the extensive interdependence
of design information and the tasks of many trades that are involved in design increases
the complexity of this process. Furthermore, the design environment is built upon inter-
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 4 of 25

action and communication among various multidisciplinary teams whose processes and
information are constantly dependent on one another [30].

2.2. Lean Design Management

Two decades ago, lean philosophy was proposed as a solution to improve the design
process by applying each of the principles of this philosophy in the design of construction
projects [35,36]. Lean design introduces several elements of the lean philosophy that are
fundamental to the design phase, for example, the active and systematic involvement of
clients during the early stages of a project, the maximization of the value generated, the
identification of the needs and objectives of all interested parties, the simultaneous design
of the product and the process, and the postponement of the decision-making step until
the last responsible moment to reduce reworks and unnecessary tasks [37]. The principles
of lean management and some of its tools have been applied in the design process. For
example, Fosse and Ballard [38] presented a case study that showed the change between
traditional planning and planning using the Last Planner® System (LPS) in a design phase.
Lean could be applied though lean tools and/or lean practices. A lean tool can be defined
as a structured technique or instrument that facilitates the implementation of the lean
principles [39] such as, the last planner system, 5S, big rooms, and collaborative process
mapping, among others. On the other hand, a management practice refers to concrete
actions associated with increasing productivity [40].
Herrera et al. [41] summarized 19 lean design management (LDM) practices for the
design phase of construction projects, namely, the early involvement of specialist design-
ers and builders [42,43], the exhaustive definition of all the requirements of stakeholders
and systematic client participation [44,45], the simultaneous design of the product and
the process [46,47], the implementation of design planning activities [38,48], the collec-
tion of data for planning [49], collaborative and systematic planning, gradual planning,
constraint management [21,50], coordination among specialist designers [42,51], collab-
orative problem-solving, the causal analysis of problems, monitoring problem solving
processes [38,46], multiple option decision making, the examination of all available infor-
mation for decision making, the collection of data for decision making [47,48], collaborative
decision making [52], and monitoring decision-making processes [53,54]. Problem solving
always requires decision making to solve the challenge, so in these cases, decision making
is reactive; however, there may be instances of proactive design decision-making in the
management requirements, programming, and design development process [55]. The sum-
mary developed by Herrera et al. [41] proposed a questionnaire that assessed the degree of
the implementation of each of these practices and defined a taxonomy of LDM practices. In
this way, the authors carried out an evaluation of the 19 lean design management practices
to 64 construction projects at the design phase where a high variability in the levels of
lean implementations could be observed. The most developed practices were requirement
management and active participation of the client, and the least developed were “builders
in early stages”, “decision-making until the last responsible moment”, and “multicriteria
decision-making” [41]. Table 1 presents a definition of these 19 LDM practices.
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 5 of 25

Table 1. Lean design management (LDM) practices. Adapted from [41].

Category Id Definition
SM1 Specialist designers are involved during early stages of the project.
SM2 Builders are involved during early stages of the project.
The identification of requirements of the stakeholders is exhaustive, where requirements,
SM3
Stakeholder management constraints, technical specifications and special requirements are defined.
The participation of clients in the design phase involves the systematic participation and
SM4
support during meetings concerning decision making and resolution of problems.
SM5 The design of the product and the construction process are carried out simultaneously.
Project planning considers delivery dates, phases, milestones, task subdivision programs
PC1 and control instances. All of the above, immersed in a scheme in which gaps, buffers and
points are clarified, can be used to perform pull/push actions within the program.
With regard to project planning, this is considered information of internal and/or external
PC2
projects of the organization, generated through a benchmarking exercise.
PC3 Project planning is conducted collaboratively among various stakeholders.
Planning and control PC4 Project planning is carried out at different levels (global, phase, intermediate and weekly).
The constraints in the design process are identified and registered collaboratively and
PC5
released by a responsible person. Then, the constraints are followed.
The coordination of project information between the different stakeholders is performed
PC6 through a single platform, which allows systematic updates and continuous communication
between stakeholders.
DM1 There exists a protocol to solve problems collaboratively.
The last planner identifies the problem and performs a causal analysis (e.g., the 5
DM2
why’s method).
The solution to the problem is implemented, monitored and documented, to verify that the
DM3
problem was solved.
In the decision-making process, options are evaluated, designed, and tested, and the results
DM4
validated and applied.
Decision making The moment to make decisions is the last responsible moment, and all the information that
DM5
could be gathered at that moment is used.
To make decisions, information of internal and/or external projects of the organization is
DM6
used, generated through a benchmarking exercise.
The decision-making mechanism is a meeting with all stakeholders involved, where a
DM7
specific technique is used, for example, Choosing By Advantages (CBA) or others.
After making the decision, specific actions are taken to verify whether satisfactory results
DM8
were obtained. In addition, the lessons learned are identified and documented.

2.3. BIM Uses in the Design and Plan Phases

BIM has positioned itself as a technology-supported methodology that promotes
the integration of and collaboration among work teams through its multiple uses [56].
Building information modeling is a project life cycle process using the provided model
and parametric building information to simulate virtually the physical, functional, and
task-related attributes of a project; it helps stakeholders make educated decisions and
execute the project with reduced costs, schedules, rework, and better quality [10]. The
use of a BIM is defined as a method of applying building information modeling during
a facility’s life cycle to achieve one or more specific objectives. Some examples of BIM
uses that are relevant for the planning and design phases of construction projects include
cost phase planning, site analysis, design review and authoring, and 3D coordination [57].
Rojas et al. [58] designed a BIM use assessment (BUA) tool to diagnose the application
of BIM uses; this tool allows companies and clients to identify the status of the BIM uses
of the project (i.e., the ways in which BIM uses are being implemented), and the design
team’s opportunities for improvement. The BUA tool has been used to evaluate the level of
BIM implementation in building projects in pre-construction phases (design and planning)
in countries such as Chile, Colombia, Spain [59], and Ecuador [60]. Thus, the high level
of execution of these BIM uses is aligned with the first BIM implementation efforts in the
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 6 of 25

AEC industry [61]. Table 2 presents a definition of the ten BIM uses for the planning and
design of construction projects considered in this study.

Table 2. BIM uses for the planning and design of construction project. Adapted from [58].

Id Use Definition
U1 Cost Estimation A BIM model is used to generate accurate quantity take-offs and cost estimates.
A 4D BIM model is utilized to effectively plan, especially spatial planning, including
U2 4D Planning
spatial clashes and paths.
BIM/GIS is used to select and evaluate a site location and to select a building position
U3 Site Analysis
on the site.
A BIM model is used to design and analyze the project spaces and rooms and to assign
U4 Space Programming
to each space a use and its measurements.
A process in which stakeholders interact with a BIM model and provide their feedback
U5 Design Review
to validate multiple design aspects
A process in which code validation software is utilized to check the model parameters
U6 Code Validation
against project-specific design or construction codes or norms.
Sustainability A process in which the sustainability of a facility is evaluated and tracked using a
U7
Evaluation sustainability metric system.
A BIM model and specialized software are used to conduct an engineering analysis to
U8 Engineering Analysis
identify the most efficient method or design.
A process in which 3D software is used to develop a building information model. A
U9 Design Authoring project is designed in a BIM model, where the typical iterations of a project are made,
and everything is built directly in the BIM software.
A process in which 3D coordination software is used to identify 3D geometric conflicts
U10 3D Coordination
by comparing 3D models of building systems.

2.4. Dimensions of Design Team Interaction

The interactions among work teams have been studied from the perspectives of several
dimensions such as information flows, planning, coordination, collaboration, innovative
ideas, and learning. For instance, Herrera et al. [13] identified two perspectives of interac-
tion dimensions: traditional interaction and commitment management. On one hand, the
traditional interaction perspective includes the concepts of social interaction, information
flow, problem-solving interaction, planning interaction, collaboration, innovative idea in-
teraction, trust, and learning. On the other hand, the commitment management perspective
is critical to the design phase because this approach facilitates shared understanding in
multidisciplinary teams, thus supporting the discussion and negotiation that are common
during the design process [62] (Table 3).
Measuring the interaction of work teams is a challenge that has no single solution [65].
Valentine et al. [67] presented a literature review from 2012, where they found 39 in-
struments for assessing teamwork through surveys. Most of these instruments include
dimensions such as communication, coordination, and mutual respect. To analyze the
interactions of work teams, different tools can be used such as surveys frequency analysis,
n × n matrix, a social network analysis (SNA) [20], and a design structure matrix [21].
SNA has attracted attention in the AEC industry because it can be used to examine the
role of nonformal structures in their coexistence with formal structures [22]. The types of
interactions presented in Table 1 can be measured and evaluated through social network
analysis (SNA) [13].
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 7 of 25

Table 3. Description of type of interaction.

Type Metrics
When person A knows the role and responsibility of person B, a one-way link is
Knowledge of roles and responsibilities created between the two people. This network is fundamental, since if the link
does not exist, it is difficult to make another type of interaction [13]
Refers to any type of interaction between two people, these include telephone
Global interaction
conversations, mail exchanges, conversations or business meetings [22]
Relevant work information is that flow where person A sends necessary
Relevant work information information to person B that adds value to the project but is not
openly available [63]
Collaboration refers to the act of joint work between two or more people. It is
Collaboration considered that working together implies working with another person on the
same task and at the same time, either in person or virtually [13]
Collaborative planning and problem solving refer to the joint act of two or more
Planning and problem solving
people to define and redefine tasks, schedules, resources, costs, risks, etc. [63]
When a person A trusts the work of a person B, a one-way bond of trust between
Trust
A-B is created [64]
When a person A learns something new from a person B, a learning link between
Learning A-B is created. What is learned can be something technical related to knowledge,
some skill or competence, or even an attitude at work [65]
The speaker (customer) is asking a potential performer for action around
Request for requirement
a requirement [14]
The customer and the performer clarify the requirement and define conditions of
Requirement negotiation
satisfaction, based on time, cost and performance [66]
The performer reports facts and is prepared to offer evidence about the compliance
Declaration of compliance
of the requirement [14].
The customer reports a level of satisfaction and feedback about the compliance of
Declaration of satisfaction
the requirement [14]

SNA is the product of collaboration between mathematicians, anthropologists, and

sociologists. This tool involves the representation of organizational relationships as a
system of nodes or actors linked by precisely defined connections (networks) [27]. Each
network can be represented graphically with a sociogram and mathematical metrics such as
density, length, and diameter [19]. There are directed and undirected networks. In directed
networks, the relationship between two actors can be unidirectional or bidirectional. In
contrast, the relationships in an undirected network must be bidirectional [27]. Some of the
types of interaction that can be evaluated through SNA are explained below.
Global interaction refers to any type of interaction between two people, for example,
telephone conversations, mail exchanges, social conversations, or business meetings [22];
therefore, the use of a bidirectional link (i.e., an undirected network) is necessary. Relevant
work information flows from person A to person B. This information is necessary to the
project and adds value to it, but is not freely available [63]; therefore, it is not necessarily a
reciprocal link (i.e., a directed network). Collaboration refers to work jointly accomplished
by two or more people [13]; therefore, it is a necessary reciprocal link (i.e., an undirected
network). In the same way, planning and problem-solving is an undirected network
that refers to two or more people jointly defining and redefining tasks, schedules, and
resources, among other tasks [63]. Additionally, when a person trusts in the work of
another person, a one-way link of trust is created [64] (i.e., a directed network). In the
same way, when a person learns something new from another person, a one-way link is
created [65]. Originally the trust network, it was intended to measure the trust in personal
relationships within the organization [22]; however, in this research, it was adapted to
measure the trust in work relationships in terms of quality and schedule requirements [68].
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 8 of 25

The commitment network approach emphasizes the actions that people take while
communicating, how language is used to create a common reality, and how activities are
coordinated through language [66]. The basic elements of this perspective are speech
acts, which comprise a set of rules for systematizing commitment management [69]. The
commitment cycle has four phases: (1) the request and proposal; (2) the negotiation and
agreement; (3) the declaration of compliance and performance; and (4) the declaration of
acceptance and satisfaction [70] (last four rows in Table 3). The request for requirements,
the declaration of compliance and performance, and the declaration of acceptance and
satisfaction can be depicted as directed networks, as they do not represent obligatory links
between two people. However, the negotiation and agreement phase should be considered
as a undirected network since at least two people must always be included [13].

2.5. Impact of BIM and Lean on the Performance

There is a strong synergy between lean construction and BIM [71], which has been
documented in many case studies where it is possible to visualize the interaction between
both methodologies [72]. BIM with its technology capability and lean with its theoretical
foundation can complement each other for better project efficiency [10]. Sacks et al. [72]
presented 56 distinct interactions between lean construction principles and BIM functional-
ities, which were grouped in a lean/BIM matrix. BIM will become increasingly essential
and an inextricably linked component to a lean construction process, especially within
the context of abundant geometric and semantic project information [73]. For example,
Schimanski et al. [73] described three practical case studies through BIM-based objectives
and outcomes and mapped these outcomes to the taxonomy of interactions described by
Sacks et al. [72]. Based on the synergies of BIM and lean, specific tool applications have
been developed such as the Digital Obeya Room framework [74]; “VisiLean”, which uses
BIM as the visual platform and enables pull flow scheduling on the construction site [75];
“BeaM!”, which allows a joint application of BIM and the Last Planner® System (LPS) [73];
and “KanBIM”, which mixes Kanban and BIM [76].
Based on data from 64 projects, Herrera et al. [59] performed an association analysis
between each pair of variables (i.e., 10 BIM uses and 19 LDM practices). The analysis of
the relationship between LDM practices and BIM uses allows for empirical evidence of the
LDM practices that are present in each BIM use in the design phase of construction projects
to be obtained. Additionally, if a project applies a higher proportion of BIM uses, it will
tend to apply a higher proportion of LDM practices; however, this relationship is not as
clear the other way around [59]. By understanding the benefits of BIM and lean interactions,
the design errors can be handled better in an attempt to reduce both their incidence and
their dissemination [77]. Some of the benefits of using an integrated BIM and lean approach
in the design stage of construction were summarized by Dave et al. [78] and included
reducing the design development life cycle, reducing rework, increasing the number of
iterations for value improvement, improving the predictability of investment and life cycle
costs (4D scheduling), and enhancing the ability to engage with stakeholders. To realize
the full potential benefit of BIM and lean methods, both need to be used collaboratively
in a project [11]. Theoretically, it has been demonstrated that the use of BIM and lean
management would allow a reduction in design errors through more effective interaction
between design team members [10]

3. Materials and Methods

To achieve the main aim of this research, a comparative analysis of two case studies
was conducted involving high-rise building construction projects in Chile. In this research,
we analyzed how the application of a methodology based on BIM and lean impacts on
several interactions that can be generated in a design team. The case study research method
was used in this paper, following the recommendations of Yin [79]. Two case studies were
analyzed, and their design management was assessed from a lean BIM perspective while
their team interactions were assessed using SNA. To achieve the objective of this paper, four
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 9 of 25

steps were performed: (1) case study selection; (2) description of the design management of
the projects from the LDM and BIM perspectives; (3) assessment of design team interaction;
and (4) comparison of design team interaction using SNA.

3.1. Case Study Selection

The selection of projects was intentional and aimed to facilitate literal and theoretical
replication. The authors defined a list of 10 comparative criteria to select the two case
studies (Table 4). To facilitate literal replication, cases were selected to predict similar
results [80], therefore, two projects with similar features in relation to the first nine criteria
in Table 4 were chosen. To facilitate theoretical replication, cases were selected to predict
contrasting results, but for theoretical replication [80], the research team ensured that
the two selected projects exhibited opposing characteristics in relation to at least one
characteristic criterion [79]. First, according to the project coordinator, the use of BIM was
the opposite characteristic between both projects (see criterion 10 in Table 4). Additionally,
according to the project coordinators, neither applied lean tools, but they did not know if
they applied any LDM practices. Nevertheless, the project that uses a higher proportion of
BIM uses at the same time is likely to be applying a higher proportion of LDM practices [59].
Therefore, during the research process, the researchers characterized the actual application
of LDM practices and BIM uses in both projects to validate the project manager’s reporting
regarding lean BIM management. Project A was chosen due to its use of traditional,
informal design management without the methodological and technological support of
BIM, while project B was chosen because of its use of BIM methodology. Both projects
had the following design team members: client representative (CR), project manager (PM),
architect (A), geotechnical engineer (GE), structural designer (SD), electrical specialist (E),
plumbing specialist (P), gas specialist (G), irrigation designer (ID), and landscape designer
(LD). Additionally, project B included a BIM manager (BM) and a construction company
representative (CO); therefore, there are ten and twelve design team members in projects A
and B, respectively.
The number of projects studied is related to the complexity of the expected results [79].
Yin’s approach shows that for a descriptive theory such as the theory used in this research,
two cases can suffice [79]. Based on the projects studied, the domains to which the research
results could be generalized are: (1) the design phase of the infrastructure life-cycle;
(2) building construction; (3) large and medium-sized companies; (4) small temporary
organization of less than 50 people [81]; and (5) varying degrees of application of LDM
practices and BIM uses.

3.2. Description of Design Management

To describe the design management of each project, the researchers conducted two
interviews with the client representative (CR) and the project manager (PM) in each project,
and a third interview with the BIM manager, but only in project B. The instruments used for
these interviews were the LDM practices questionnaire [41] and the BIM uses assessment
(BUA) tool for design and planning [58]. Both instruments were subjected to a construct
validation, a reliability validation, and a concordance analysis of the responses [41,58].
These tools were applied using recorded interviews (audio was recorded with the
consent of the interviewee) with the CR, PM, and BIM manager, covering all the topics
addressed in each questionnaire and following the criteria established by Woodside [82].
Then, the researchers listened to these recorded interviews and rated each item on each
questionnaire for both projects using a 5-point Likert scale. Each LDM practice and BIM
use was qualified with a five-level assessment rubric. The qualification could have a certain
degree of subjectivity by the evaluator; therefore, to mitigate this subjectivity, the following
procedure was conducted: (1) two researchers listened to the recorded interviews and
individually qualified; and (2) in a collaborative session, the two researchers discussed the
final qualification of each LDM practice and BIM use.
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 10 of 25

Table 4. Characteristics of projects A and B according to the selection criteria.

Selection Criteria Project A Project B

1. Type of project: high-rise building X X
2. Delivery method: design-bid-build X X
3. Client and constructor are the same corporative group X X
4. Size of client: large [81] X X
5. All specialists and designers are from different organizations X X
6. All design team members are located in Santiago, Chile X X
7. Project location: Santiago, Chile X X
8. Project size: numbers of floors (m2 ) 22 (14,200) 24 (15,000)
9. Explicit Lean tool application (as reported by the client company) x x
10. Explicit BIM application (as reported by the client company) x X

The LDM practices questionnaire uses a five-point scale to measure the 19 practices
(Table 1) [41]. Each LDM practice followed the method of Bloom and Van Reenen [83];
namely, a description is provided for scores 1, 3, and 5, while scores 2 and 4 are defined
as intermediate points between scores 1 and 3 and 3 and 5, respectively. The general
descriptions for each score are (1) traditional management practice; (3) initial lean design
management practice; and (5) developed lean design management practice [41]. The BUA
questionnaire also rates each use on a scale from one to five, where the first level (1) denotes
a traditional method with a 2D model (i.e., no use of BIM); the second level (2) denotes
a low use of BIM and includes little BIM-related information in the model; and the third
level (3) denotes a medium use of BIM and sufficient information for its implementation;
the fourth level (4) denotes a high use of BIM; and the fifth level (5) denotes a full use of
BIM (i.e., the best methods and tools are utilized). The above is a general description of
each BUA level; however, different features and levels of automation were evaluated for
each BIM use in the planning and design of the projects [58]. Finally, a benchmark was
established for projects A and B using other projects evaluated with the same instruments.
The projects used for the benchmark in this study were derived from the studies of
Rojas et al. (2019) (who assessed the BIM uses in 25 projects) and Herrera et al. (2020b) (who
assessed the LDM practices in 64 projects). The benchmark will allow a relative assessment
of the case studies in comparison to projects with similar characteristics, allowing us to
identify whether the LDM practices and BIM uses of the two case studies were in the lower
or higher percentiles of application with respect to the studied sample; in this way, it will
also be possible to visualize some BIM uses and LDM practices that could not apply at the
highest level according to the theory. However, the case studies could be in the highest
percentile of application with respect to similar projects

3.3. Interaction Assessment and Case Study Comparison

An interaction assessment was conducted, although the method for understanding the
interaction of the members of design teams on construction projects proposed by Herrera
et al. [13]. This method recommends the use of SNA to analyze the data obtained via sur-
veys conducted with all the members of the design team. The perceptions of interactions
evaluated in this study were knowledge of the roles and responsibilities, global interaction,
flow of relevant information, planning and problem solving, collaboration, trust, learning,
and commitment management (request for requirement, requirement negotiation, declara-
tion of compliance, and declaration of satisfaction). The method consisted of four main
stages: (1) definition of the initial conditions; (2) information capture, (3) data processing;
and (4) information analysis. The survey used in this study was subjected to a construct
validation and coherence analysis before being applied in the two projects studied [13].
Additionally, SNA has been carried out in design teams with participants from different
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 11 of 25

companies using information obtained from BIM log files that are registered in collabo-
rative design software and emails [84]; however, this methodology can only be used in
BIM design environments, and can only measure the information flow type of interactions,
hence it cannot assess other dimensions of the interactions such as collaboration, learning,
planning, among others.
During the stage involving the definition of the initial conditions, the researchers
detailed the assessment procedure. First, a 12-week interaction evaluation period was
defined including representatives from both projects; this period was consistent with
the detailed design stages of both projects, in other words, all questions asked about
interactions during the last 12 weeks (information was captured only once per project,
and the question asked for interaction during the last 12 weeks). The evaluation of both
projects was prior to the coronavirus pandemic outbreak. Then, for both projects, the
use of online surveys was chosen as the method to be used for collecting data, given the
non-collocated nature of the various members of the design team. Third, the participants of
the study were defined; as previously mentioned, projects A and B had 10 and 12 members
in their design teams, respectively. Fourth, because data capture was conducted through a
survey of project team members, there will always be some amount of subjectivity of the
input data; therefore, an analysis of the coherence of the input data must be performed
before the SNA [68]. This coherence analysis can be performed in undirected networks
in which, theoretically, there is a correspondence between the responses of the people
involved, so that if person A wishes to interact with person B, then person B must indicate
the same [68]. Therefore, it is possible to calculate a percentage of valid connections
(PVC) as the proportion between the valid connections and the total connections (valid
and invalid) [13]. In these cases, the minimum percentage of valid connections (PVC) to
consider the responses valid was set at 80%, given that this is a typical confidence level
used in risk analyses involving the construction industry [85,86]. Finally, it is necessary to
select a software to process the data, graph the sociograms, and calculate the SNA metrics.
In this study, Gephi was selected as the software to be used for the calculation of metrics
and the realization of sociograms, given the precedence set by prior researchers regarding
the use of this tool. Gephi is an open-source software for graph and network analysis. With
this software, traditional SNA metrics can be computed such as input and output degree,
closeness and betweenness of each node, mean degree, number of connected components,
density, and diameter of the network, among others [87]. Table 5 shows the definition of
some traditional SNA metrics.

Table 5. SNA metrics.

Type Metric Definition

Degree How many other nodes a node is connected to [22].
How many pairs of individuals are connected through a node with the least
Node Betweenness
number of steps: brokerage role [88].
Closeness How close a node is to other nodes; depends on the shortest average length [10].
How many actual links exist between nodes divided by the number of total
Density
possible links in the network [22].
Mean degree How many other nodes a node is connected to, on average [22].
How clustered groups of people are compared with the rest of the network; the
Clustering
Network existence of closed triads and small communities [88].
Average path length How many steps on average nodes require to reach each other [10].
Diameter How many steps nodes require to reach each other (maximum) [10].
How dense are the connections between nodes within groups compared with
Modularity
nodes with another group [88].
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 12 of 25

The second stage (information capture) consisted of two activities: the design of the
survey and the actual data collection. Certain types of interactions, namely, knowledge of
roles and responsibilities, global interaction, trust, learning, and request for requirements
allowed for yes or no responses. Other types of interaction, namely, relevant information
flow, planning and problem-solving, and collaboration were answered using the following
frequencies: never, monthly, weekly, and daily. The remaining types of interaction, namely,
requirements negotiation, declaration of compliance and performance, and declaration
of acceptance and satisfaction were answered using the following frequencies: never,
sometimes, frequently, and always. Each participant in the study responded according
to the type of interaction they had experienced with all the other design team members.
Finally, the survey was required to have a 100% response rate to be used for the analysis.
In the third stage of data processing, the first step is to verify that the PVC exceeds
the minimum of 80% and the response rate is 100%. Then, the metrics are calculated
(Table 6), and the sociograms for each type of network are created. Some metrics are
directly extracted after processing in Gephi software, whereas others are calculated from
the metrics obtained from this software. Table 6 indicates which network is directed or
undirected. A directed network could be unidirectional or bidirectional links; in contrast
undirected networks must be bidirectional interactions; therefore, the number of input and
output links will always be equal in an undirected network (degree), while in a directed
network they could be different, hence there is a difference between the input degree (in-
degree) and the output degree (out-degree) [89]. Finally, in the fourth stage, a comparative
analysis of both projects is carried out.
In summary, Table 7 presents the overall structure of the research, where it presents
the sources of information, the data collection instruments, the number of responses for
each instrument, and the analysis tools.

Table 6. Metrics for each network. Adapted from [13].

Type Metrics
In-degree of each node (total number of other nodes that have links directed
Knowledge of roles and responsibilities (directed)
towards it); mean in-degree of the network
Degree of each node (total number of other nodes that are incident to the node);
Global interaction (undirected)
mean and range degree of the network; # of connected components
Relevant work information (directed) Percentage of bidirectional links; in-degree and out-degree of each node (total
number of other nodes to which it directs links); mean and range degree of the
Learning (directed) network; # of weakly connected and of strongly connected components
Planning and problem solving (undirected)
Percentage of bidirectional links; degree of each node; mean and range degree of
Collaboration (undirected) the network; # of connected components
Trust (directed) # of links in the trust network/# of links in the knowledge of roles network
Request for requirement (directed) Requirement links
Requirement negotiation (undirected) Negotiated links/requirement links
Declaration of compliance (directed) Compliance declaration links/requirement links
Declaration of satisfaction (directed) Satisfaction declaration links/requirement links
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 13 of 25

Table 7. Overall research design.

Activity Tool Source of Information

Project A: 1 interview with project manager and
client representative
Assessment of 10 BIM uses (Table 2) and
BUA tool Project B: 2 interviews with project manager, client
Benchmark with 25 projects.
representative and BIM manager
Data from [58].
Project A: 1 interview with project manager and
client representative
Assessment of 19 LDM practices (Table 1) and
LDM practices questionnaire Project B: 1 interview with project manager and
benchmark with 64 projects
client representative
Data from [41].
SNA: information capture of 11 types of Project A: 10 responses (all design team members)
Survey of types of interactions [13]
interactions (Table 3) Project B: 12 responses (all design team members)
SNA: data processing. Calculate of PVC,
Gephi Project A: 10 responses (all design team members)
software processing, create sociograms and
Recommendations from [13] Project B: 12 responses (all design team members)
calculate metrics (Table 6)
BUA tool responses
Interactions’ assessment and comparative Gephi
LDM practices questionnaire responses
analysis of two case studies Comparative analysis
SNA metrics and sociograms

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. BIM Uses Assessment
Figure 1 shows the results of the BUA application in both projects. The evaluation
of project A shows that BIM uses were not applied in this project, as mentioned by the
project manager during the project description. The unique application of BIM at the initial
level corresponds to a 3D coordination between the architecture and the structural model.
Therefore, project A was entirely designed using traditional methodologies (i.e., the use of
CAD and non-BIM technologies). On the other hand, project B showed some level of BIM
application for each of the BIM uses considered in this study, as mentioned by the project
manager and the client representative during the project description. All the BIM uses in
the planning and design phases were applied at the initial level, five out of 10 were applied
at an intermediate level, two out of 10 were applied at a high level, and one was applied at
a comprehensive level.
Projects A and B can be contrasted with the results of a study regarding 25 projects
in Chile, Colombia, and Spain [58]. Project A consistently corresponded to the minimum
application of BIM exhibited by the projects in the aforementioned study. However,
project B in the maximum values of application in the BIM uses: “4D planning” and “3D
coordination”; it was in the 75th percentile in the uses of “cost estimation”, “site analysis”,
“space programming”, “design review”, and “engineering analysis”; and it was in the
50th percentile in the uses of “code validation”, “sustainability evaluation”, and “design
authoring”. Therefore, the results of the BIM use assessment demonstrate that project A
did not use BIM methodology in its planning and design; however, project B used BIM
methodology and stood out in its use of these methods even among similar projects.
Buildings 2021,
Buildings 11,11,
2021, 447x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 26 14 of 25
Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 26

Figure BIMuses
Figure 1.1.BIM uses assessment:
assessment: Project
Project A project
A and and project
B. B.
Figure 1. BIM uses assessment: Project A and project B.
4.2. LDM
LDMPractices
Practices Assessment
Assessment
4.2. LDM Practices Assessment
Neither
Neitherproject
project explicitly
explicitlyapplied
appliedleanlean
design tools tools
design to manage the project
to manage the during
projectthe during the
designNeither
design stage. project explicitly
stage.However,
However, thethe applied assessed
researchers
researchers
lean design thetools
assessed LDM topractices
manage in
the LDM
theboth
practices
project during
projects
in
the
since
both projects since
design
BIM stage. However,
methodology the researchers
indirectly involves the assessed
applicationthe LDM
of practices
certain lean in both projects
principles [11]; since
thus,
BIM methodology
BIM methodology indirectly
indirectly involves
involves the application
the application of certain lean principles thus, thus,
[11];
projects that apply BIM methods could also be expectedoftocertain lean principles
apply some [11];[59].
lean practices
projects
projects that applyBIM
that apply BIMmethods
methods could
could alsoalsoexpected
be expected to apply some lean practices [59].
Figure 2 presents the results obtained from thebeassessment to
ofapply
the LDM some lean
practicespractices [59].
in projects
Figure
Figure 22 presents
presents theresults
the resultsobtained
obtained fromfromthe the assessment
assessment of theofLDM
the practices
LDM practices
in in projects
projects
A and B. Project B had a higher level of implementation of all the LDM practices than
AAand B.
andA,
project B. Project
Project BB had
confirming,
had ahigher
in athis
higher level
level
project, of of
that
implementation
implementation
the application ofofBIMallof
theallLDM
the LDM
methodology practicespractices
also than
en-
than
project
project A,A, confirming,
confirming, in this project,
project,
tailed the application of some lean principles. that
that the
the application
application of
of BIM
BIM methodology
methodology also
also en- entailed
tailed
the the application
application of someof some
lean lean principles.
principles.

Figure 2. LDM practices assessment: Project A and project B.

Figure 2. LDM
Figure2. practicesassessment:
LDM practices assessment: Project
Project A and
A and project
project B. B.
Project A did not apply the practices of the early involvement of builders and the
Project
simultaneous
A
Project A didnot
did
design
not
of the
apply
apply the
the
product
practices
practices of the
ofand
(building) the early
early
the
involvement
involvement
production
of builders
of builders
(construction) and theand the
process.
simultaneous
Considering that the client's company and the construction company belonged to the process.
simultaneous design
design ofof the
the product
product (building)
(building) and and
the the production
production (construction)
(construction) process.
Considering
Considering
same corporate that
that the client’s
the
group client's
and werecompany
company and
and the construction
thelocated
even physically construction company
company
in the same belonged
place, belongedtoto
the
both of thesethe same
same corporate
corporate groupgroup and were
and were eveneven physically
physically locatedin
located inthe
the same
same place,
place,both ofof
both these
these lean
practices could have been applied to project A without significant complications. The LDM
practices of the exhaustive collection of requirements from all stakeholders and the client’s
systematic participation were implemented at the initial level of lean application; given
the company’s experience with this type of project and their closeness to the client, they
could have used both of these conditions to improve the design process in addition to
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 15 of 25

implementing other LDM practices. Project A did not exhibit any LDM practices at the
4th and 5th application levels, and only seven of the 19 LDM practices were implemented
at the initial level of lean application. The project manager and the client representative
responded that their company did not have standardized practices that facilitated the
management of their projects in the design phases, and each project manager managed
according to their level of experience. In addition, they were not familiar with the concept
of lean design, although they were familiar with lean construction due to their application
of the Last Planner System during the construction phase of other projects.
The project manager of project B did not know if he was applying lean practices
in his management; however, this project applied several lean practices at a high level
of implementation. Six out of the 19 LDM practices were fully implemented including
exhaustive management requirements, systematic client participation, gradual planning,
coordination of specialists, and monitoring problem solving and decision-making processes.
At the beginning of project B, the design team, which was led by the project manager and
the BIM manager, defined the workflow using the participation times of each designer
and/or specialist, and they scheduled weekly meetings for planning and problem solving.
Additionally, a BIM common virtual data environment was used in project B, in which all
the team members could make notes and propose changes to the project. All of these factors
allowed the team to exhibit high levels of implementation of lean practices. However, two
LDM practices were implemented at low levels: the simultaneous design of the product and
the construction process and the use of a database to record the lessons learned regarding
planning and decision making. This project was the first in the company to have involved
the builders in the early stages of the project. According to the client and construction
company representatives, this project provided a useful experience that they planned
to standardize for use in other projects. In addition, they stated that the next project
would implement the simultaneous design of the product and the construction process
as a pilot test. However, the company did not have an organized database of lessons
learned regarding project planning and decision making yet, so both of these practices
were assessed at the initial levels of implementation.
Projects A and B can be compared with the results of a study regarding 64 projects
in Chile, Colombia, and Spain [41]. The levels of LDM practice application in project A
were all practice applications in the 25th percentile or lower when compared to the projects
in the aforementioned study. Additionally, nine of the 19 LDM practices in project B
exhibited the best performance among the aforementioned projects, another five were
ranked in the 75th percentile, three were ranked in the 50th percentile, and only two were
ranked in the 25th percentile among these 64 projects. The practices in the last category
mentioned consisted of practices related to the simultaneous design of the product and the
construction process and the use of databases for decision making. Therefore, the results of
the LDM practices assessment demonstrate that project A did not apply LDM practices,
while project B applied LDM practices and stood out in its use of these methods even
among similar projects. The above exemplifies that a project that has a high percentage of
BIM uses, will at the same time be applying a high percentage of LDM practices [59], even
if it is not applying any lean tool explicitly.

4.3. Interaction’s Assessment and Comparative Analysis of Two Case Studies

An interaction analysis was conducted with the survey responses from all the members
of the project design teams of projects A and B (10 and 12 members, respectively); thus, the
degree of the node metrics is proportional to the total number of the members of each team.
The consistency analysis of the responses using the global interaction network showed
that 90.32% of the interaction in project A was valid, as was 91.18% of the interaction in
project B; therefore, the input data were reliable for performing SNA according to the 80%
limit proposed in this research. This percentage was even higher than the 85% obtained
in the pilot study where the evaluation methodology is explained [13]. To analyze the
global interaction network, the collaboration network, the planning and problem-solving
 Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 26

Buildings 2021, 11, 447 16 of 25

showed that 90.32% of the interaction in project A was valid, as was 91.18% of the inter-
action in project B; therefore, the input data were reliable for performing SNA according
to the 80% limit proposed in this research. This percentage was even higher than the 85%
network, and the requirement negotiation network, all the nonreciprocal links must first
obtained in the pilot study where the evaluation methodology is explained [13]. To ana-
be eliminated because these interactions are undirected networks. Additionally, all links
lyze the global interaction network, the collaboration network, the planning and problem-
solvingmaintained
were network, and in the
the relevant
requirementinformation
negotiation flow network,
network, the nonreciprocal
all the learning network, links the trust
network, and requirement networks because these interactions
must first be eliminated because these interactions are undirected networks. Additionally, could occur in only one
direction (i.e., directed networks) (Table 6).
all links were maintained in the relevant information flow network, the learning network,
the trustThenetwork,
global interaction networks
and requirement in both
networks projects
because theseexhibited connected
interactions teamsin(Figure 3)
could occur
(i.e., one
only no person
directionor(i.e.,
team was isolated
directed networks) from the6).
(Table others). However, this network showed that
The global
the project interaction
manager networks
of project A wasin both projects exhibited
a bottleneck (i.e., if theconnected
projectteams (Figure
manager was absent
3)
or(i.e.,
did nonotperson
engage or in
teaman was isolated from
interaction, four the others). However,
specialists of the projectthis network showed
team would be isolated
that the project
(namely, 40% ofmanager
the design of project
team)).A Additionally,
was a bottleneck (i.e., Bif was
project the project
a rounded manager was in which
network
absent or did not engage
the interactions amonginthe an design
interaction,
team four specialists
members of the
were project team would
homogeneous; be
therefore, if any
isolated (namely, 40% of the design team)). Additionally, project B was a rounded net-
team member failed to engage in any interaction, other bridges existed that allowed the
work in which the interactions among the design team members were homogeneous;
team to remain cohesive. Figure 3 also shows the distribution of the degree of connection
therefore, if any team member failed to engage in any interaction, other bridges existed
among the team members in proportion to the total number of team members. The boxplots
that allowed the team to remain cohesive. Figure 3 also shows the distribution of the de-
illustrate
gree that project
of connection among B had a higher
the team memberslevelinofproportion
global interaction
to the total than project
number A. Although
of team
the median number of connections of both projects was not
members. The boxplots illustrate that project B had a higher level of global interaction very different, the minimum
values
than of connection
project A. Although in the
project
medianB were
number higher, and there of
of connections was also
both a more
projects significant
was not very number
of members
different, with high
the minimum levels
values of interaction
of connection in project
in project B were B than and
higher, in project
there wasA.also
This higher
ainteraction level number
more significant exhibited by project
of members withB was
highinitially
levels ofdue to the weekly
interaction in projectwork
B thansessions
in and
project A. This higher
the permanent interaction
involvement level
of the exhibited by
construction project Brepresentative
company was initially due andtothethespecialists
weekly
required work
forsessions
each part andofthethepermanent
project. The involvement of the construction
above reinforces what is company
stated in rep-
the study of
resentative and the specialists required for each part of the
Priven and Sacks [64], where it is mentioned that the weekly work planning project. The above reinforcesmeetings
what
appear is stated
to be inthethemain
studycatalyst
of Privenforand Sacks [64], where
strengthening it is mentioned that the weekly
the networks.
work planning meetings appear to be the main catalyst for strengthening the networks.

Figure Global
Figure3.3.Global interaction
interaction network
network and degree:
and degree: ProjectProject
A and A and B.
project project B.

Similar
Similar to to
thethe global
global interaction
interaction network,
network, theinformation
the relevant relevant information
flow networkflow
(Fig- network
ure 4) presents
(Figure the connections
4) presents among the
the connections teams the
among of both projects;
teams however,
of both in both
projects; cases, in both
however,
cases, the management of information remains centralized in the hands of certain stake-
holders (PM in project A; and PM, CR, and A in project B). Nevertheless, the number of
connections among the teams of project B was higher than those in project A; this phe-
nomenon is mainly caused by the coordination of specialists via an advanced BIM common
data environment where all team members can visualize the building model; add com-
ments, annotations, and improvement proposals; and record each information exchange.
Additionally, project A used emails and phone calls as a means of transferring information
to resolve questions or to make comments, leaving no evidence of these communications
 the management of information remains centralized in the hands of certain stakeholders
(PM in project A; and PM, CR, and A in project B). Nevertheless, the number of connec-
tions among the teams of project B was higher than those in project A; this phenomenon
is mainly caused by the coordination of specialists via an advanced BIM common data
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 environment where all team members can visualize the building model; add comments, 17 of 25
annotations, and improvement proposals; and record each information exchange. Addi-
tionally, project A used emails and phone calls as a means of transferring information to
resolve questions or to make comments, leaving no evidence of these communications
and failing
and failing to
to clearly
clearly manage
manage thethe supporting
supporting documentation.
documentation.The Thein-degree
in-degreeofofboth bothpro-
projects
was similar; however, the out-degree exhibited major differences.
jects was similar; however, the out-degree exhibited major differences. In project A, In project A, a small
a
small number of participants did not provide any relevant information during the 12 of
number of participants did not provide any relevant information during the 12 weeks
the study,
weeks demonstrating
of the that the participation
study, demonstrating of specialists
that the participation and designers
of specialists in this project
and designers in
was occasional and not sustained over time. However, in project B, each
this project was occasional and not sustained over time. However, in project B, each mem- member provided
information
ber provided to another team
information member
to another teamduring
member these 12 weeks,
during these 12whether it was to
weeks, whether support
it was
their
to work,their
support to comment
work, toon an aspect
comment onofanthe project,
aspect or to
of the communicate
project, some revision
or to communicate some of the
coordinated
revision of themodel. This phenomenon
coordinated is mainly caused
model. This phenomenon by thecaused
is mainly coordination of specialists
by the coordina-
via an
tion of advanced
specialistsBIM common
via an advanced data environment
BIM common data where all team members
environment where allcan visualize
team mem- the
building
bers model; add
can visualize comments,
the building annotations,
model; and improvement
add comments, annotations,proposals;
and improvement and record
pro-each
information
posals; exchange,
and record as also mentioned
each information exchange, in the study
as also by Shafiq
mentioned inettheal.study
[90]. byAdditionally,
Shafiq
project A Additionally,
et al. [90]. used emails and phone
project A usedcallsemails
as a means
and phoneof transferring
calls as a meansinformation to resolve
of transferring
information to resolve questions or to make comments, leaving
questions or to make comments, leaving no evidence of these communications and no evidence of these com-failing
munications and failing to manage
to manage the supporting documentation. the supporting documentation.

Figure
Figure 4.
4.Relevant
Relevantinformation
informationflow network
flow and
network degrees:
and Project
degrees: A and
Project project
A and B. B.
project

The collaboration
The collaborationnetwork
networkis issimilar
similarto to
thethe planning
planning andand problem-solving
problem-solving network
network
of aadesign
designteam;
team; hence,
hence, only
only collaborative
collaborative networks
networks will bewill be presented
presented (Figure (Figure 5). In
5). In con-
trast to the
contrast to previous networks,
the previous this network
networks, showedshowed
this network that 40% of the
that 40%project
of theAproject
team was A team
disconnected,
was meaning
disconnected, that this
meaning that isolated portion
this isolated of theofteam
portion did not
the team did participate in any
not participate in any
collaborative or work-planning spaces. However, the network showed
collaborative or work-planning spaces. However, the network showed that the team that the team of of
project BB was
project wasconnected;
connected;ininother
otherwords,
words,allall
of of
itsits
stakeholders
stakeholderscollaborated withwith
collaborated its team
its team
members.
members. Project
ProjectAAperformed
performedaasingle,
single,centralized
centralizedstagestageofof
initial planning
initial planningwhile
whileproject
project B
B engaged
engaged in gradual
in gradual andand systematic
systematic planning.
planning. The project
The project manager manager of project
of project B
B conducted
a kick-off meeting for the team to become acquainted, and the use of the BIM common
data environment was explained during this meeting; thus, this event became the first
instance of interactions among the design team. The kick-off meeting generated additional
role-knowledge links for this project (not shown in the paper); project B had twice as many
role-knowledge links as project A. This is a major difference, considering that project A only
had two fewer members than project B. Additionally, in project B, weekly collaborative
meetings were organized with a permanent team (namely, PM, CR, CO, and BM), and
certain designers were invited depending on the topics to be addressed in the meeting.
During these meetings, the attendants reviewed the progress of the project, monitored
 common data environment was explained during this meeting; thus, this event became
the first instance of interactions among the design team. The kick-off meeting generated
additional role-knowledge links for this project (not shown in the paper); project B had
twice as many role-knowledge links as project A. This is a major difference, considering
that project A only had two fewer members than project B. Additionally, in project B,
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 weekly collaborative meetings were organized with a permanent team (namely, PM, CR, 18 of 25
CO, and BM), and certain designers were invited depending on the topics to be addressed
in the meeting. During these meetings, the attendants reviewed the progress of the project,
monitored the changes that had been previously made, solved the conflicts between spe-
the changes that had been previously made, solved the conflicts between specialties, and
cialties, and replanned the project (not necessarily all in one meeting).
replanned the project (not necessarily all in one meeting).
The boxplot in Figure 5 shows that project B, which was the project that applied LDM
The boxplot in Figure 5 shows that project B, which was the project that applied LDM
practices and BIM uses, had more collaboration links among its design team members
practices
than projectand BIM uses,
A. Project had more
B showed morecollaboration linkslower
collaboration and among its design
variability thanteam members
project A;
therefore, project B had a less centralized and denser collaboration network (this analysis A;
than project A. Project B showed more collaboration and lower variability than project
therefore,
also appliesproject B had a less
to the planning andcentralized and denser
problem-solving collaboration
network). network
In conclusion, project(this analysis
B had a
also applies to the planning and problem-solving network).
greater number of all types of interactions than project A. In conclusion, project B had a
greater number of all types of interactions than project A.

Figure Collaboration
Figure5.5.Collaboration network
network and
and degree:
degree: Project
Project A and
A and project
project B. B.

Moreover,in
Moreover, in addition
addition toto the number of interactions,
interactions, itit is
isinteresting
interestingto tostudy
studyhowhowthese
interactions
these are distributed
interactions with respect
are distributed to their
with respect to frequencies. FigureFigure
their frequencies. 6 presents the frequency
6 presents the
of the interactions
frequency that occurred
of the interactions in each in
that occurred design team including
each design the relevant
team including information
the relevant in-
formation flows, collaboration,
flows, collaboration, and the and the planning
planning and problem-solving
and problem-solving networks. networks. Alt- the
Although
hough the differences
differences were project
were not large, not large, project A exhibited
A exhibited a greater frequency
a greater frequency of daily in- than
of daily interactions
teractions
project B.than
Thisproject B. This high
high frequency frequency
was limitedwasto alimited
closedtogroup
a closed groupmembers
of three of three mem-(namely,
bers (namely,
the PM, the PM,
CR, and, to aCR, and,degree,
minor to a minor A),degree, A), demonstrating
demonstrating the level the level
of the of the cen- of
centralization
tralization of the information
the information flow in this flow
project;in this
thisproject; this phenomenon
phenomenon led to an intensely
led to an intensely concentrated
concentrated
interaction due interaction due to
to the lack of the lack ofamong
bridges bridgesthe among
otherthe
teamother team members
members to de- the
to decongest
congest the interaction. On the other hand, project B exhibited a low
interaction. On the other hand, project B exhibited a low frequency of daily interactionsfrequency of daily
interactions since the project team forced these interactions to occur during
since the project team forced these interactions to occur during the weekly meetings with the weekly
meetings with thespecialists.
the appropriate appropriateThespecialists. The Last
Last Planner Planner
® System ® System advises that projects
advises that projects should apply
daily huddles as part of the planning process; however, in project teams that are not
co-located, daily practice could be complex to implement. Project A had daily informal
meetings involving a limited number of design team members, while project B had a
smaller percentage of daily interactions, forcing interactions to occur weekly when the
design team was co-located.
 should apply daily huddles as part of the planning process; however, in project teams that
are not co-located, daily practice could be complex to implement. Project A had daily in-
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 formal meetings involving a limited number of design team members, while project B had 19 of 25
a smaller percentage of daily interactions, forcing interactions to occur weekly when the
design team was co-located.

Figure
Figure6.6.Density
Densityaccording to interaction
according frequency:
to interaction ProjectProject
frequency: A and project
A and B.
project B.

Another
Another important
important result of thisofteam
result thisanalysis was the confidence
team analysis indicator [91]indicator
was the confidence (net- [91]
work not shown). The trust network indicator (i.e., the number of trust
(network not shown). The trust network indicator (i.e., the number of trust links/the links/the number
of role-knowledge links) of project B was 76.74% and project A was 69.05%. Because pro-
number of role-knowledge links) of project B was 76.74% and project A was 69.05%.
ject B exhibited twice the role-knowledge links of project A, the trust level of project B was
Because project B exhibited twice the role-knowledge links of project A, the trust level
more than double that of project A. In other words, the effort that this team put toward
of project
knowing theB work
was more than double
team, organizing andthat of projectinformation
standardizing A. In otherflows words, the effort
through a BIM that this
team putdata
common toward knowing and
environment, the work team, organizing
collaborating with the team andinstandardizing
a formal workinformation
environ- flows
through
ment a BIM
(weekly common
meetings) data environment,
generated and collaborating
greater trust among the team members.with the team in a formal
Establishing
workamong
trust environment (weekly
team members is a meetings) generated to
necessary prerequisite greater trust
learning fromamong
others the
in a team
designmembers.
Establishing
team trust among
[13]. Additionally, theteam members
application is a necessary
of lean practices canprerequisite to learning
facilitate learning from others
among
team members
in a design [92].[13].
team Figure 7 shows the learning
Additionally, network of projects
the application A and B.can
lean practices Thefacilitate
learning learning
network
among teamof project B was[92].
members significantly
Figure 7moreshows compact and denser
the learning than that
network of project
of projects A A.
and B. The
This can be
learning seen byofsimply
network projectcomparing the sociograms
B was significantly moreand quantitatively
compact and denser examining
than thattheof project
boxplots and the
A. This can in- and
be seen byout-degrees of both projects.
simply comparing The fact that and
the sociograms the minimum in-degree
quantitatively examining
value of project B was similar to the maximum value of project A is an indication of this
the boxplots and the in- and out-degrees of both projects. The fact that the minimum
important difference. In addition, in contrast to the previous networks, the nodes that ex-
in-degree value of project B was similar to the maximum value of project A is an indication
hibited the greatest interaction were not those representing the administrative roles but
of this important difference. In addition, in contrast to the previous networks, the nodes
rather the technical roles, especially those of the architect, the structural engineer, the BIM
that exhibited
manager, and the theconstruction
greatest interaction
company’swere not those Therefore,
representative. representing thisthe administrative
comparison be- roles
but rather the technical roles, especially those of the architect, the
tween both projects shows that the application of LDM practices and the implementation structural engineer, the
BIM manager, and the construction company’s representative.
of BIM uses promotes organizational learning in design teams, even when they are non-Therefore, this comparison
between both projects shows that the application of LDM practices and the implementation
of BIM uses promotes organizational learning in design teams, even when they are non-
collocated. This is particularly important, given that there are studies that associate the
lean philosophy with organizational learning, since the lean culture can have a positive
impact on the transfer and categorization of information among specialists [92], which can
be strengthened when the BIM methodology is applied complementarily [93].
 Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 26

collocated. This is particularly important, given that there are studies that associate the
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 lean philosophy with organizational learning, since the lean culture can have a positive 20 of 25
impact on the transfer and categorization of information among specialists [92], which can
be strengthened when the BIM methodology is applied complementarily [93].

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Learning
Learning network
networkand
anddegrees:
degrees:Project
ProjectAA
and project
and B. B.
project

Project
Project B had
had better
betterindicators
indicatorsthan thanproject
project AA in in
allall
thethe traditional
traditional interaction
interaction dimen-
dimen-
sions. This effect
sions. effect was
wassimilar
similartotothe theeffects
effectsobserved
observed in in
thethetypes
typesof interactions
of interactions related to to
related
commitment management.
commitment management.During Duringthe the12-week
12-week evaluation
evaluation period, project
period, B had
project 40 links
B had 40 links
regarding requests
regarding requestsfor forrequirements,
requirements, while
while project A had
project A had 22. This couldcould
22. This be attributed to
be attributed
thethe
to centralization
centralization of these
of theserequests
requestsfor requirements
for requirements and theandinformation available
the information to all to
available
stakeholders.
all stakeholders. TheThecentralization
centralization of requirements
of requirements produces
produces congestion
congestion amongamongthe the
key key
members of an organization, making them indispensable (i.e., project
members of an organization, making them indispensable (i.e., project A), while the creation A), while the crea-
tion
of of additional
additional linkslinks
among among otherother
teamteam members
members producesa amore
produces morecollaborative,
collaborative, effective,
effec-
and unmediated flow of information (project B). The information available to all thethe
tive, and unmediated flow of information (project B). The information available to all partic-
participants
ipants of a BIM of acommon
BIM common data environment
data environment allowsallows
problems problems to be visualized,
to be visualized, detected,de-and
tected, during
solved and solved during
the early the early
phases of aphases
project. of a project.
The indicators of the requirements
The indicators of the requirements of negotiation,of negotiation,declaration
declaration of ofcompliance,
compliance,and anddec-
declaration of satisfaction were calculated by considering the frequencies
laration of satisfaction were calculated by considering the frequencies of these interactions of these interac-
tions (Figure 8). The requirements of negotiation interaction (i.e., the scope, quality, sched-
(Figure 8). The requirements of negotiation interaction (i.e., the scope, quality, schedule,
ule, and resources of a project) occurred least frequently in both projects, confirming that
and resources of a project) occurred least frequently in both projects, confirming that this
this was the least-executed interaction in the commitment management cycle of the AEC
was the least-executed interaction in the commitment management cycle of the AEC indus-
industry [94]; this behavior is not recommended for the development of a network of re-
try [94]; this behavior is not recommended for the development of a network of reliable
liable commitments among the members of the project team. The declaration of compli-
commitments among the members of the project team. The declaration of compliance with
ance with requirements exhibited the most significant difference between the projects;
requirements exhibited the most significant difference between the projects; specifically,
specifically, this difference occurred between the never and always options of the ques-
this difference occurred between the never and always options of the questionnaire, since
tionnaire, since the results indicated that more than half of the requirements of project A
the results indicated
were not complied thatInmore
with. projectthan halfpercentage
B, this of the requirements
was only 10%. of project
The weeklyA were not com-
planning
plied
meetingswith.
and Inthe
project B, this percentage
BIM common data environment was only 10%.spaces
are both The weekly
in whichplanning meetings
the compliance
and
with requirements is reported and evidence of this compliance is generated. The interac-with
the BIM common data environment are both spaces in which the compliance
requirements is reported
tion of declarations and evidence
of acceptance of this compliance
and satisfaction was also higher is generated.
in project The interaction
B; however,
of
a quarter of the requirements did not exhibit this action, even though it is fundamental to a
declarations of acceptance and satisfaction was also higher in project B; however,
quarter
completingof thetherequirements
commitment cycle. did not exhibit this
Therefore, action, even
by applying LDMthoughpracticesit is
andfundamental
using BIM to
completing the commitment cycle. Therefore, by applying LDM practices and using BIM
methodology, project B achieved many interactions among the members of its design team;
transparent, orderly, and standardized information flows; a collaborative, trusting, and
learning environment; and commitment management. None of these interaction elements
were visible in project A, where BIM-lean methodologies for design management were
not applied.
 methodology, project B achieved many interactions among the members of its design
team; transparent, orderly, and standardized information flows; a collaborative, trusting,
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 and learning environment; and commitment management. None of these interaction ele- 21 of 25
ments were visible in project A, where BIM-lean methodologies for design management
were not applied.

Figure
Figure8.8.Commitment
Commitmentmanagement metrics
management according
metrics to their
according tointeraction frequencies:
their interaction Project AProject A and
frequencies:
and project B.
project B.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
This study presented quantitative evidence of increased team interaction by applying
This study presented quantitative evidence of increased team interaction by applying
BIM-lean design management. To achieve this, the authors first evaluated the level of im-
BIM-lean design management. To achieve this, the authors first evaluated the level of
plementation of BIM and lean principles in two high-rise building projects using the BUA
implementation of BIM questionnaire,
tool and the LDM practices and lean principles in two
respectively. high-rise
Then, building
the different typesprojects
of inter-using the
action produced in both projects were evaluated using social network analysis (SNA) (so- types of
BUA tool and the LDM practices questionnaire, respectively. Then, the different
interaction
ciograms andproduced in both
metrics). The projects
results were evaluated
of the BIM-lean managementusingevaluation
social network
showed analysis
that (SNA)
(sociograms
one and had
of the projects metrics).
a low The results of the
implementation BIM-lean
level of lean management evaluation
practices and had showed that
no applica-
oneof
tion ofBIM
the projects hadits
uses during a low implementation
design level of(project
and planning phases lean practices
A). The and
second hadproject
no application
had
of BIM uses during its design and planning phases (project A). The second uses
a high implementation level of lean practices, and a high application of BIM project had a
during its design and planning
high implementation level ofphases (project B).and
lean practices, Project B mainly
a high appliedof
application theBIM
following
uses during its
practices
design and related to BIM-Lean
planning phases management:
(project B).early andBsystematic
Project involvement
mainly applied of the de- practices
the following
signers and the representatives of the client and the construction company; gradual, sys-
related to BIM-Lean management: early and systematic involvement of the designers and
tematic, and collaborative planning during weekly meetings; collaborative and continu-
the representatives of the client and the construction company; gradual, systematic, and
ously monitored problem-solving and decision making; design reviews and development
collaborative planning during weekly meetings; collaborative and continuously monitored
in a BIM common data environment; and coordination of specialties with the participation
problem-solving andfederated
of designers in a single decision model.
making; design reviews and development in a BIM common
dataThis
environment;
study showed and
thatcoordination of specialties
clients, designers, and builderswith the participation
of infrastructure of designers
projects with in a
asingle
BIM-leanfederated model.approach generated higher interaction among the members of
management
This study showed that clients, designers, and builders of infrastructure projects with
a BIM-lean management approach generated higher interaction among the members of the
design teams. Therefore, the different tools presented in this study can be used for the self-
analysis of the projects of these professionals and for the assessment of the organizational
impact of the management practices, methodologies, and technologies applied in their
projects. These concepts apply to any team involved in a construction project; specifically,
it applies to project teams that are temporary organizations and not necessarily collocated
(although it could also be used in the context of collocated projects).
The first limitation of this research is that a comparative study of two projects was
conducted; thus, for future research, it is recommended that a similar analysis is performed
on a representative sample of projects so that conclusive statistical inferences can be drawn
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 22 of 25

about the impact of BIM-lean management on the interaction of design teams. The second
limitation of this research is that project performance and productivity indicators were not
measured; therefore, it is not possible to empirically analyze the impact of a higher level
of interaction on a project’s productivity throughout its life cycle. This type of analysis is
particularly complex for two reasons: there is no precedent of measuring indicators during
the design phase, and a long period of time is required to evaluate a project’s performance
throughout its life cycle. However, for future research, it is recommended that performance
indicators are evaluated during the design and construction phases so these indicators can
be contrasted with the organizational performance of the project during its early phases.
Additionally, the interactions’ assessment only included the number and the frequency
of the interactions; however, the metrics do not measure the quality of the interactions;
therefore, for future research, we recommend studying the metrics of quality of small
social networks.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.F.H., C.M., L.F.A. and E.P.; methodology, R.F.H.; soft-
ware, R.F.H.; validation, C.M., L.F.A. and E.P.; formal analysis, R.F.H.; writing—original draft prepa-
ration, R.F.H.; writing—review and editing, C.M., L.F.A. and E.P.; visualization, R.F.H.; supervision,
C.M., L.F.A. and E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Fondecyt Regular, grant number 1210769 and ANID, grant
number CONICYT-PCHA/National Doctorate/2018-21180884. The APC was paid by the Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Valparaíso.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of
Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile (Project ID 180130002).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The writers would like to acknowledge the help and support provided by
GEPUC, which provided access to data collection for this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Baiden, B.; Price, A.; Dainty, A. The extent of team integration within construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 13–23.
[CrossRef]
2. Love, P.E.; Irani, Z.; Cheng, E.; Li, H. A model for supporting inter-organizational relations in the supply chain. Eng. Constr. Arch.
Manag. 2002, 9, 2–15. [CrossRef]
3. Othman, M.Z.; Nawi, M.N.M.; Nifa, F.A.A.; Yaakob, M.; Rofie, K.; Zan, Z.M.; Pozin, M.A.A. Atrategy Towards Team Integration
Practice for Improving the Design and Construction Process in the Malaysian Industrialized Building Projects. Int. Rev. Manag.
Mark. 2016, 6, 226–229.
4. Dainty, A.R.J.; Briscoe, G.H.; Millett, S.J. Subcontractor perspectives on supply chain alliances. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2001, 19,
841–848. [CrossRef]
5. Ng, S.T.; Tang, Z. Labour-intensive construction sub-contractors: Their critical success factors. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28,
732–740. [CrossRef]
6. Schöttle, A.; Haghsheno, S.; Gehbauer, F. Defining Cooperation and Collaboration in the Context of Lean Construction. In
Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Oslo, Norway, 25–27 June 2014;
Volume 49, pp. 1269–1280.
7. Merriam-Webster Interaction. Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interactions#other-words
(accessed on 16 June 2021).
8. Socialsci Understanding Social Interactions. Available online: https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/8023 (accessed on 10
June 2021).
9. Dave, B.; Kubler, S.; Främling, K.; Koskela, L. Addressing Information Flow in Lean Production Management and Control in
Construction. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Oslo, Norway,
25–27 June 2014; pp. 581–592.
10. Al Hattab, M.; Hamzeh, F.R. Using social network theory and simulation to compare traditional versus BIM–lean practice for
design error management. Autom. Constr. 2015, 52, 59–69. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 23 of 25

11. Fakhimi, A.H.; Majrouhi Sardroud, J.; Azhar, S. How Can Lean, IPD and BIM Work Together? In Proceedings of the 33rd
International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Auburn, AL, USA, 18–21 July 2016; pp. 1–8.
12. Kestle, L.; London, K. Towards the Development of a Conceptual Design Management Model for Remote Sites. In Proceedings of
the 10th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2002, IGLC 2002, Gramado, Brazil, 6–8 August
2002; pp. 1–14.
13. Herrera, R.F.; Mourgues, C.; Alarcon, L.; Pellicer, E. Understanding Interactions between Design Team Members of Construction
Projects Using Social Network Analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04020053. [CrossRef]
14. Long, D.; Arroyo, P. Language, Moods, and Improving Project Performance. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction 2018, IGLC 2018, Chennai, India, 16–22 July 2018; pp. 495–504.
15. AIA. Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide; The American Institute of Architects: California, CA, USA, 2007; Volume 1.
16. Knotten, V.; Lædre, O.; Hansen, G.K. Building design management—Key success factors. Arch. Eng. Des. Manag. 2017, 13,
479–493. [CrossRef]
17. Svalestuen, F.; Frøystad, K.; Drevland, F.; Ahmad, S.; Lohne, J.; Lædre, O. Key Elements to an Effective Building Design Team.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Project Management, Vilamoura, Portugal, 7–9 October 2015; Elsevier Masson SAS:
Sapporo, Japan, 2015; Volume 64, pp. 838–843.
18. Scott, J. Social Network Analysis, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-1446209042.
19. Marin, A.; Wellman, B. Social Network Analysis: An Introduction. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis; Scott, J.,
Carrington, P.J., Eds.; SAGE research methods; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 11–25.
20. Yang, H.-L.; Tang, J.-H. Team structure and team performance in IS development: A social network perspective. Inf. Manag. 2004,
41, 335–349. [CrossRef]
21. Rosas, E. Integrating the Design Structure Matrix and the Last Planner System into Building Design. In Proceedings of the 21st
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, 29 July–2 August 2013; pp. 389–398.
22. Alarcón, D.M.; Alarcón, I.M.; Alarcón, L.F. Social Network Analysis: A Diagnostic Tool for Information Flow in the Aec Industry.
In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, 29 July–2
August 2013; pp. 947–956.
23. Ko, C.-H.; Chung, N.-F. Making Design Process Lean. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group
for Lean Construction, Oslo, Norway, 25–27 June 2014; Volume 886, pp. 463–474.
24. Becerik-Gerber, A.B.; Ku, K.; Jazizadeh, F. BIM-Enabled Virtual and Collaborative Construction Engineering and Management. J.
Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pr. 2012, 138, 234–245. [CrossRef]
25. Savolainen, J.M.; Saari, A.; Männistö, A.; Kähkonen, K. Indicators of collaborative design management in construction projects. J.
Eng. Des. Technol. 2018, 16, 674–691. [CrossRef]
26. Khan, S.; Tzortzopoulos, P. Effects of the Interactions Between LPS and BIM on Workflow in Two Building Design Projects. In
Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Oslo, Norway, 25–27 June 2014; pp.
933–944.
27. Pryke, S. Social Network Analysis in Construction; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 1118343913.
28. Mujumdar, P.; Maheswari, J.U. Design iteration in construction projects—Review and directions. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 321–329.
[CrossRef]
29. Kestle, L.; Potangaroa, R.; Storey, B. Integration of Lean Design and Design Management and its Influence on the Development of
a Multidisciplinary Design Management Model for Remote Site Projects. Arch. Eng. Des. Manag. 2011, 7, 139–153. [CrossRef]
30. Al Hattab, M.; Hamzeh, F. A Process-Social Perspective for Understanding Design Information Flow. Lean Constr. J. 2017, 11, 1–11.
31. Herrera, R.F.; Mourgues, C.; Alarcon, L.F.; Pellicer, E. Assessing Design Process Performance of Construction Projects. In
Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress 2019, Hong Kong, China, 17–21 June 2019; pp. 1–10.
32. Salvatierra, J.L.; Gálvez, M.A.; Bastías, F.; Castillo, T.; Herrera, R.F.; Alarcon, L. Developing a benchmarking system for architecture
design firms. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 26, 139–152. [CrossRef]
33. Abou-Ibrahim, H.; Hamze, F. Design Management: Metrics and Visual Tools. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction, Heraklion, Greece, 2–12 July 2017; pp. 465–473.
34. Whyte, J.; Tombesi, P. Challenges of Design Management in Construction. In The Handbook of Design Management; Cooper, R.,
Junginger, S., Lockwood, T., Eds.; Bloomsbury Academic: London, UK, 2013; pp. 202–2013.
35. Formoso, C.T.; Tzotzopoulos, P.; Jobim, M.S.; Liedtke, R. Developing a Protocol for Managing the Design Process in the Building
Industry. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 1998, Guarujá, Brazil,
13–15 August 1998.
36. Koskela, L.; Ballard, G.; Tanhuanpää, V.-P. Towards Lean Design Management. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction 1997, Gold Coast, Australia, 16–17 July 1997; pp. 1–13.
37. Gambatese, M.J.A.; Pestana, C.; Lee, M.H.W. Alignment between Lean Principles and Practices and Worker Safety Behavior. J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04016083. [CrossRef]
38. Fosse, R.; Ballard, G. Lean Design Management in Practice. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction 2016, Boston, MA, USA, 20–22 July 2016; pp. 33–42.
39. O’Connor, R.; Swain, B. Implementing Lean in Construction: Lean Tools and Techniques—An Introduction; CIRIA: London, UK, 2013.
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 24 of 25

40. Bloom, N.; Van Reenen, J. Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries. Q. J. Econ. 2006, 122,
1351–1408. [CrossRef]
41. Herrera, R.F.; Mourgues, C.; Alarcón, L.F.; Pellicer, E. An Assessment of Lean Design Management Practices in Construction
Projects. Sustainability 2019, 12, 19. [CrossRef]
42. Reifi, M.H.E.; Emmitt, S. Perceptions of lean design management. Arch. Eng. Des. Manag. 2013, 9, 195–208. [CrossRef]
43. Knotten, V.; Svalestuen, F.; Hansen, G. Improving Design Management. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction 2016, Boston, MA, USA, 20–22 July 2016; pp. 173–182.
44. Alves, T.D.C.L.; Lichtig, W.; Rybkowski, Z.K. Implementing target value design: Tools and techniques to manage the process.
Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2017, 10, 18–29. [CrossRef]
45. Ko, C.; Chung, N. Lean Design Process. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 04014011. [CrossRef]
46. Ballard, G.; Tommelein, I.D.; Koskela, L.; Howell, G. Lean Construction Tools and Techniques. In Design and Construction: Bulding
in Value; Best, R., de Valence, G., Eds.; Butterworth-Heinemann; Elsevier Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2002; pp. 227–255.
47. Franco, V.; Picchi, A. Lean Design in Building Projects: Guiding Principles and Exploratoyry. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2016, Boston, MA, USA, 20–22 July 2016; pp. 113–122.
48. Ballard, G.; Howell, G. Lean project management. Build. Res. Inf. 2003, 31, 119–133. [CrossRef]
49. UUsitalo, P.; Olivieri, H.; Seppänen, O.; Pikas, E.; Peltokorpi, A. Review of Lean Design Management: Processes, Methods and
Technologies. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2017, Heraklion,
Gerrce, 9–12 July 2017; pp. 571–578.
50. Hamzeh, F.R.; Ballard, G.; Tommelein, I.D. Is the Last Planner System applicable to design? A case study. In Proceedings of the
17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2009, Taipei, Taiwan, 15–17 July 2009; pp. 407–416.
51. Tilley, P.A. Lean design management—A New Paradigm for Managing the Design and Documentation Process to Improve
Quality? In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2005, Sydney, Australia,
19–21 July 2005; pp. 283–295.
52. Arroyo, P.; Fuenzalida, C.; Albert, A.; Hallowell, M.R. Collaborating in decision making of sustainable building design: An
experimental study comparing CBA and WRC methods. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 132–142. [CrossRef]
53. Salgin, B.; Arroyo, P.; Ballard, G. Exploring the Relationship between Lean Design Methods and C&D Waste Reduction: Three
Case Studies of Hospital Projects in California. Rev. Ing. Constr. 2016, 31, 191–200. [CrossRef]
54. Munthe-kaas, T.S.; Hjelmbrekke, H.; Lohne, J. Lean Design versus Traditional Design Approach. In Proceedings of the 23rd
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2015, IGLC 2015, Perth, Australia, 29–31 July 2015; pp.
578–588.
55. Taylor, D.W. Decision Making and Problem Solving. In Handbook of Organizations; March, J.G., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY,
USA, 2013; pp. 48–86.
56. Kapogiannis, G.; Sherratt, F. Impact of integrated collaborative technologies to form a collaborative culture in construction
projects. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2018, 8, 24–38. [CrossRef]
57. Kreider, R.G.; Messner, J.I. The Uses of BIM: Classifying and Selecting BIM Uses; The Pennsylvania State University: Centre County,
PA, USA, 2013.
58. Rojas, M.J.; Herrera, R.F.; Mourgues, C.; Ponz-Tienda, J.L.; Alarcon, L.; Pellicer, E. BIM Use Assessment (BUA) Tool for
Characterizing the Application Levels of BIM Uses for the Planning and Design of Construction Projects. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019,
2019, 9094254. [CrossRef]
59. Herrera, R.F.; Mourgues, C.; Alarcón, L.F.; Pellicer, E. Analyzing the Association between Lean Design Management Practices and
BIM Uses in the Design of Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021010. [CrossRef]
60. Arellano, K. Assesment of the Level of Use of BIM in the Planning and Design Phases in the AEC Industry in Ecuador; National University
of Chimborazo: Riobamba, Ecuador, 2020.
61. Gu, N.; London, K. Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 988–999.
[CrossRef]
62. Kleinsmann, M.; Deken, F.; Dong, A.; Lauche, K. Development of design collaboration skills. J. Eng. Des. 2012, 23, 485–506.
[CrossRef]
63. Castillo, T.; Alarcón, L.F.; Salvatierra, J.L. Effects of Last Planner System Practices on Social Networks and the Performance of
Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04017120. [CrossRef]
64. Priven, V.; Sacks, R. Social Network Development in Last Planner System Implementations. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, 29 July–2 August 2013; pp. 474–485.
65. Herrera, R.F.; Mourgues, C.; Alarcón, L.F. Assessment of Lean Practices, Performance and Social Networks in Chilean Airport
Projects. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2018, IGLC 2018,
Chennai, India, 16–22 July 2018; pp. 603–613.
66. Viana, D.D.; Formoso, C.T.; Isatto, E.L. Modelling the Network of Commitments in the Last Planner System. Lean Constr. J. 2011,
7, 55–67.
67. Valentine, M.A.; Nembhard, I.M.; Edmondson, A.C. Measuring Teamwork in Health Care Settings: A Review of Survey
Instruments. Med. Care 2015, 53, e16–e30. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Cisterna, D.A. Application of Social Network Analysis in Lean Infraestructure Projects; Universität Stuttgart: Stuttgart, Germany, 2017.
Buildings 2021, 11, 447 25 of 25

69. Searle, J.R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1969; ISBN
978-0521096263.
70. Medina-Mora, R.; Winograd, T.; Flores, R.; Flores, F. The action workflow approach to workflow management technology. In
Proceedings of the CSCW 92, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1–4 November 1992; pp. 281–288. [CrossRef]
71. Eastman, C.M.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, K. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers,
Designers, Engineers and Contractors, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2011.
72. Sacks, R.; Koskela, L.; Dave, B.A.; Owen, R. Interaction of Lean and Building Information Modeling in Construction. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 968–980. [CrossRef]
73. Schimanski, C.P.; Monizza, G.P.; Marcher, C.; Matt, D.T. Conceptual Foundations for a New Lean BIM-Based Production System
in Construction. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Dublin, Ireland,
3–5 July 2019; pp. 877–888.
74. Nascimento, D.L.D.M.; Caiado, R.; Tortorella, G.; Ivson, P.; Meiriño, M. Digital Obeya Room: Exploring the synergies between
BIM and lean for visual construction management. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2018, 3, 19. [CrossRef]
75. Dave, B.A. Developing a Construction Management System Based on Lean Construction and Building Information Modelling; University
of Salford: Salford, UK, 2013.
76. Sacks, R.; Barak, R.; Belaciano, B.; Gurevich, U. Field Tests of the KanbimTM Lean Production Management System. In
Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Lima, Perú, 13–15 July 2011; pp.
1–12.
77. Mahalingam, A.; Yadav, A.K.; Varaprasad, J. Investigating the Role of Lean Practices in Enabling BIM Adoption: Evidence from
Two Indian Cases. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 05015006. [CrossRef]
78. Dave, B.; Koskela, L.; Kiviniemi, A.; Owen, R.; Tzortzopoulos, P. Implementing Lean in Construction; CIRIA: London, UK, 2013;
ISBN 9780860177272.
79. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; SAGE Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
80. Ridder, H.-G. The theory contribution of case study research designs. Bus. Res. 2017, 10, 281–305. [CrossRef]
81. European Comission. Commission recommendation concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Off.
J. Eur. Union 2003, 361, 1–6. [CrossRef]
82. Woodside, A.G. Case Study Research. Theory, Methods and Practice; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2010.
83. Bloom, N.; Van Reenen, J. New Approaches to Surveying Organizations. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100, 105–109. [CrossRef]
84. Zhang, L.; Ashuri, B. BIM log mining: Discovering social networks. Autom. Constr. 2018, 91, 31–43. [CrossRef]
85. Craft, R.C.; Leake, C. The Pareto principle in organizational decision making. Manag. Decis. 2002, 40, 729–733. [CrossRef]
86. Alarcón, L.F.; Ashley, D.B.; De Hanily, A.S.; Molenaar, K.R.; Ungo, R. Risk Planning and Management for the Panama Canal
Expansion Program. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 762–771. [CrossRef]
87. Bastian, M.; Heymann, S.; Jacomy, M. Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks. In Proceedings
of the Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, San Jose, CA, USA, 17–20 May 2009.
88. Hickethier, G.; Tommelein, I.D.; Lostuvali, B. Social Network Analysis of Information Flow in an IPD-Project Design Orga-
nization. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil,
29 July–2 August 2013; pp. 319–328.
89. Hoppe, B.; Reinelt, C. Social network analysis and the evaluation of leadership networks. Leadersh. Q. 2010, 21, 600–619.
[CrossRef]
90. Shafiq, M.T.; Matthews, J.; Lockley, S. A study of BIM collaboration requirements and available features in existing model
collaboration systems. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2013, 18, 148–161.
91. Anvuur, A.M.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. Effects of Teamwork Climate on Cooperation in Crossfunctional Temporary Multi-
Organization Workgroups. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04015054. [CrossRef]
92. Hu, Q.; Found, P.; Williams, S.; Mason, R. Lean Thinking and Organisational Learning: How Can They Facilitate Each Other?
In Understanding the Lean Enterprise. Measuring Operations Performance; Chiriani, A., Found, P., Rich, N., Eds.; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2016; pp. 61–77. ISBN 978-3319199955.
93. Oraee, M.; Hosseini, M.R.; Papadonikolaki, E.; Palliyaguru, R.; Arashpour, M. Collaboration in BIM-based construction networks:
A bibliometric-qualitative literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1288–1301. [CrossRef]
94. Salazar, L.A.; Retamal, F.; Ballard, G.; Arroyo, P.; Alarcón, L.F. Results of Indicators from the Linguistic Action Perspective in the
Last Planner® System. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Dublin,
Ireland, 1–7 July 2019; pp. 1241–1250.