Digital Innovation for Sustainable Design: Technological and

Organizational Barriers

Runddy Ramilo1, Mohamed Rashid Embi2, Sambit Datta3

1 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, rrunddy2@live.utm.my

2 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, b-rashid@utm.my

3 School of Built Environment, Curtin University, Australia, sambit.datta@curtin.edu.au

As modern world develops and utilizes computational design technology for sustainable

architecture, different design methodologies have emerged. Current design research

have focused on computationally mediated design process in which essentially

concerned with building information modelling and building performance simulation

through the integration of physics and algorithms. Since its emergence, architectural

practices are increasingly aided by and dependent on the technology and have resulted

to major paradigm shift. It evokes digital innovation in architectural practices whereby

computer aided architectural design technologies is used not only as a tool for drafting

and design, but as an instrument for delivering sustainable buildings. However, while

technological advancement of the new technology has the potential for dramatically

improving design and productivity, related literature shows that substantial technical and

organizational barriers exist that inhibits the effective adoption of digital innovation. It

happens because digital innovation is a new design process or new way of doing

something, where architecture practices are at risk of failure. While digital innovation

typically adds value, it may also have a negative effect to architectural practices which

varies from size of organizations. To gain insights of the problem, a research study was

conducted from small and big size architectural organizations in Singapore. This

involves in-depth evaluation of technological, financial, organizational governmental,

psychological and process barriers in implementing digital innovation for sustainable

architecture. Through descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis, it

revealed relevant attributes that technological, financial, organizational governmental,

psychological and process barriers are more present in smaller architectural practices

than big architectural practices. This study is very important because research in digital

innovation in architecture is still very limited.

Keywords: Digital Innovation, Sustainable Architecture, Technological Barriers

1. Introduction

From the new shape of buildings that were recently constructed, it is evident that

digital innovation for sustainable design is happening in architectural firms but it is also

evident that some architectural firms are facing challenges (Whyte, 2010). This is

because of the increasing new technology and the current demands of topologically

non-linear building design and the issue of sustainability. Some architectural firms are

indeed experiencing the challenges triggered by digital innovation. Constant

introduction of new digital technology, increased global competition, increasing client

demands and limited costs, limited software knowledge are among the challenges.

Undeniably, the digitalization of architectural firms has not been trouble-free. Business

profit which is one of the major goals of design practice is at risk when implementing

digital innovation. According to Davila et al (2006), innovation implies to newness of

process, or new way of doing something and therefore businesses is at risk of failure.

While innovation typically adds value, innovation may also have a negative or

destructive effect as new developments clear away or change old organizational forms

and practices. The negative impact varies from the size of organization (Davila et al,

2006). In digital innovation research of Johnson and Laepple (2003), it is argued “that

there is an interrelationship between business goals, work processes, and the

adoption of new digital technology. Therefore, changes in business goals generally

require revising work processes which can be enhanced further by the introduction of

digital technology. It is also recognised that innovations in digital technology creates

possibilities for new work processes that can, in turn, alter business goals, understand

how digital technology influences architectural practice, and therefore it is important to

understand all three of these interrelated elements”. This can be explained in Figure 1

below.

Figure 1: Model to understand the role of technology in innovation

(Johnson & Laepple, 2003)

To gain insight from the problem, this research investigates the key determinants

that impede the effective adoption of digital innovation for sustainable design in

architectural practices whereby projects are computationally and digitally driven.

Specifically it seeks to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the

barriers that the architectural organizations encountered in digital innovation for

sustainable design? (2) How crucial are these barriers in digital innovation for

sustainable design? (3) Which among the barriers is the most significant in digital

innovation for sustainable design?

2. What is Digital Innovation for Sustainable Design?

Digital innovation for sustainable design can be defined as the use new digital

tools and other relevant evolutionary design process to improve of architectural

design to come up with sustainable solutions for the delivery of building projects. New

design processes refers to computationally mediated methods which differ from the

conventional paper based architecture by independently using parametric modelling

tools and building performance simulation tools that can be reinforced by the

conventional non-parametric tools and other relevant methodologies. Its attributes is

to improve but is not limited to (1) sustainable architectural design through facade

optimization, digital fabrication, material assembly, cost optimization and (2)

sustainability by using the building performance simulation tools by evaluating energy

efficiency, airflow, daylighting, wind analysis and the implication of climate to

architectural forms (Yoo et al, 2010).

One that can be considered as digital innovation for sustainable design is

Building Information Modeling (BIM) (Ramilo & Rashid, 2014) (Yoo et al, 2010). It

represents the process of development and use of computer generated model to

simulate the planning, design, construction and operation of a facility (Azhar et al.,

2006). The resulting model, a Building Information Model, is a data-rich,

object-oriented, intelligent and parametric digital representation of a project. Likewise,

Building Performance Modelling can be also considered as digital innovation for

sustainable design (Ramilo & Rashid, 2014) (Yoo et al, 2010). It is another kind of

architecture that is emerging which uses building performance as the guiding design

principle and adopts new performance-based priorities for the design. This new kind

of architecture, interrogates a broadly defined performative design above form

making. It utilizes the digital technologies of quantitative and qualitative techniques

and simulation to offer a comprehensive new approach to the design of the built

environment (Kolarevic, 2003).

3. Understanding the Barriers in Digital Innovation

Digital innovation is a current phenomenon in architectural practice, but some

architectural firms are facing challenges. This is because of the increasing new

technology and the current demands of topologically non-linear building design and

the issue of sustainability. Some architectural practices are indeed experiencing the

challenges triggered by digital innovation. Constant introduction of new digital

technology, increased global competition, greater client demands and higher costs,

limited software knowledge are among the challenges.

In digital innovation research focused on management information technology

(Whyte, 2011), Whyte elucidates that the new digital processes present a

‘technological black box’ with little visibility of the completeness of the design work

represented in models and drawings. According to his research, this is a challenge

because it makes it difficult to manage client expectations, especially where the

completeness of design may have contractual implications. Boland et al. (2007)

explores digital innovation on a project, arguing that the use of 3D digital technologies

allow waves of innovation to propagate across the firms and have identified challenges

relating to the use of digital technology and related processes.

His research suggests that to be effective, 3D modes of working, require a wider

process of change, as this digital infrastructure for delivery challenges institutionalized

understandings of the activities in and duration of different stages of the process

(Whyte, 2011). Likewise as explained by Whyte (2011), this work has implications for

practitioners, as work flow is changing the nature of professions. Figure 2a is the

conventional process, and figure 2b is a useful of representation of new digital work

flow in 3D centric way.

Figure 2: Idealized information flows between different professionals on a project

a) without a central project model and b) with a central model (Whyte, 2011).

In digital innovation research in architecture, construction and engineering

industry (Johnson & Laepple, 2003), it was argued that there is an interrelationship

between business goals, work processes, and the adoption of information technology.

That is, changes in business goals generally require revising work processes which

can be enhanced further by the introduction of information technology. They

concluded that organization structures of architecture and construction have not

changed very much despite the introduction of computer aided design. The reasons

for this are varied and complex.

Likewise in the white paper published by Autodesk (Bernstein & Pittman, 2004)

they have pointed out three significant barriers relating to process management of

building information modelling, (1) Transactional business process evolution, refers

to the array of technologies available on today’s designer or constructor creates

process possibilities that far exceed norms of practice and well-understood business

protocols, (2) Computability of digital design information, which is the digital data that

exists in a variety of forms and many of which are not computable and (3) Meaningful

data interoperability, some digital data is not accessible to the relevant parties

involved in the building process.

In innovation research in engineering and construction (Shabanesfahani &

Tabrizi, 2012), they concluded that one of the major issues in innovation in

engineering and construction industry are knowledge transfer endeavours, that are

being harshly hindered by the lack of proper understanding of such knowledge

transfer and the interrelationship to both firm skills and procedures, and the vision

characteristics of the technologies being transferred (Sexton & Barrett, 2003) Second,

the present knowledge transfer mechanisms are not sufficiently integrated with firm

crucial association and organizational skills and procedures vital to enable them to

absorb technologies and to coil them into appropriate innovations (Shabanesfahani &

Tabrizi, 2012).

Following the innovation research of Bogacheva (2011), which has pointed out

that the success of underproduction innovations in various organizations is dependent

on and is defined by two groups of conditions (1) One of which are forces assisting

deduction in the existing system condition, (2) the second group are forces aspiring to

change. This is because innovation is doing something new and some members are

reluctant to change because they are anxious of failure.

A survey in manufacturing and product design innovation that was conducted by

O’Sullivan (2002) reveal several causes of failure in organizations, which are cited as

follows: poor leadership, poor organization, poor communication, poor empowerment

and poor knowledge management. Other important considerations are the following:

the recognition that failure is an inevitable part of the innovation process, and most

successful organizations factor in, an appropriate level of risk. The impact of failure

goes beyond the simple loss of investment, failure can also lead to the loss of morale

among employees, an increase in cynicism, and even higher resistance to change in

the future, some causes are external to the organization and outside its influence of

control.

Similar studies on AEC made by Cory and Bozell (2001) claim that while the

advent of digital technology have benefited the profession, practical issues occur ;

such as the utilization of new technologies and the company’s consideration,

regarding design costs and time, software learning curve, software costs, ability of

the software to handle complex geometry , level of detail needed and what the

software can deliver, partition of the model among multiple users, integrate model

from multiple sources, tools for model review and web publishing, speed and working

drawing extraction and maintenance, all of which affect the profitability of the

company.

A research made by Civil Engineering Research Foundation (1996) reveals

several barriers to innovation in the building industry such as risk and liability, financial

disincentives, high equipment cost, inadequate technology transfer, Inadequate basic

and industrial R & D, adversarial relationships, poor leadership, inflexible building

codes and standards and construction based initial costs.

Inchachoto (2002) on his technological innovations research discussed some

important pointers on his research about technological innovation such as innovation

is best fostered by team members with prior work experience, as opposed to an

assembly of individuals selected solely on the basis of expertise, collaboration in

innovation is useful and distinctively serves multiple functions such as technical-risk

reduction, financial security, and psychological assurance, project logistics is also

important such as external funding, research collaboration, technical evaluation,

demonstration and validation, and allocated budgets for research plays an integral

role for technological innovations.

Yoo et al (2010) on their digital innovations research, focused on the process

itself, they pointed out several barriers like performance of software, ability of software

to handle complex geometry, integration of models to multiple sources, speed and

drawings extractions. These list of barriers is similar to the organizational barriers

that was elucidated by Jones and Saad (2003) and Walcoff et al (1981) in their

innovation research, they established that there are inherent problems in the

innovation, these are the following- lack of mutual recognition of the need for

innovation, insufficient technical capabilities and lack of skills, reluctance to change,

inexperienced team members, lack of training, weak commitment and support by the

administration , inadequate resources, deficiency in integration and collaboration, poor

learning environment, lack of incentives and the difficulty in complying with the existing

regulations and established standards.

4. Common attributes found

Although the literature review that was presented earlier are from innovation

research in construction, engineering, product design, information science and

business management it has common issues and barriers that can be used as

variables in this research. Upon in-depth analysis, these barriers were categorized in

six (6) subsequent categories such as technological barriers, financial barriers,

organizational barriers, governmental barriers, psychological barriers, process

barriers and used as variables in this research (table 1). It was taken from innovation

research from allied fields elicited by Whyte (2011), Johnson & Laepple (2002),

Bernstein & Pittman (2004), Shabanesfahani & Tabrizi (2012), Bogacheva (2007),

O’Sullivan (2002), Cory & Bozell (2001), Civil Eng’g. Research (1996), Inchachoto

(2002), Yoo et al (2010), Jones and Saad (2003), Walcoff et al (1981).

Table 1: Common barriers from innovation research in different allied fields, where is

A-Technological barriers, B-Financial barriers, C-Organizational barriers,

D-Governmental barriers, E-Psychological barriers, F-Process barriers

5. Research Methodology

This study have utilized quantitative and qualitative survey method where

collection of data from selected sixty (60) architectural organizations that have

employed digital innovation were collected through the use of structured survey

questionnaire. At least 1-2 architects who are key players for the digital innovation,

employed in a particular project in an architectural practice were interviewed.

Singapore was chosen as the model of the study because the country has the

availability of resources such as digital tools, complexity of projects, skills, knowledge

transfer, and presence of variety of different sizes of architectural organizations

employing digital innovation. Architectural organizations with experience in digital

innovation were the only ones selected.

The design of the survey questionnaire was organized and structured using the

research questions of this study which are (1) What are the barriers that architectural

organizations encountered in digital innovation for sustainable design? (2) How

crucial are these barriers in digital innovation for sustainable design? (3) Which

among the barrier is the most significant in digital innovation for sustainable design?

All of the questions are related to evaluating the barriers (technological barriers,

organizational barriers, financial barriers, process barriers, psychological barriers and

governmental barriers) that architectural organizations encountered and how crucial it

is when digital innovation is implemented.

5.1 Variables

Upon analysis of the challenges and impediments presented earlier in table 1,

these challenges were distinctively grouped into six categories such as technological

barriers, financial barriers, organizational barriers, governmental barriers,

psychological barriers, process barriers. All were used as variables of this research.

5.2 Treatment of Data and Method of Analysis

For the first and second objectives, which is to evaluate the barriers that

architectural organizations encountered when digital innovation for sustainable design

is implemented and evaluating how crucial are these barriers, the mean scores were

computed using a set of ranges with their qualitative description scoring 0 if barrier is

not encountered, and relative importance is 1-5 that is low to high. The higher the

mean score, the higher is the observed barrier and the lower the mean score, the

lower barrier.

For the third objective which is to evaluate which among the barrier is the most

significant when digital innovation is implemented, the overall mean scores of each

barrier in each architectural organization group (small, medium, big) is computed, and

comparatively analyzed. The higher the mean score of the barrier is discoursed to be

the most significant barrier in digital innovation for sustainable design.

6. Results and Analysis

6.1 Barriers in digital innovation

Distribution of firms answering research question -“What are the barriers that

architectural organizations encountered in digital innovation for sustainable design?”

and “How crucial are these barriers when digital innovation for sustainable design is

implemented”?

6.1.1 Technological barriers in digital innovation

Table 2: Mean score of technological barriers according to size of architectural

organization. The higher the mean score, the higher is the observed barrier and the

lower the mean score, is the lower barrier.

Size of

architectural

organization

How crucial is technological barriers in digital innovation?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Overall

Small 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.5 3.8 1.1 1.3 4.5 4.9 4.6 1.9 3.2

Big 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.9

Variables: (1) Lack of equipment or computers, (2) Insufficient knowledge of team members, (3) Lack of

training for technology, (4) Lack of interest for the knowledge of digital technology, (5) Lack of technical

demonstration, (6) Inadequate maintenance of equipment, (7) Inadequate technology transfer, (8)

Insufficient staff that has experience on the technology, (9) Insufficient skills on the technology, (10)

Unavailability of new digital tools, (11) Inadequate in-house technical support.

Table 2 revealed that technological barriers are signicantly more present and

observed to be moderately crucial in small architectural organizations with overall

mean scores of 3.2. In small architectural organizations, the common barriers that are

most critical are lack of interest of technology, insufficient skills of the technology and

insufficient staff who has the experience in technology. While technological barriers

are very crucial in small architectural organizations, it is not the case in big

architectural organizations. Typically, big architectural organizations have larger

projects with considerable fees and are capable to subsidize the high cost of the new

technology. Overall results that are shown in Table 2 can be noted that technological

barriers is more crucial in small architectural organizations than big architectural

organizations.

6.1.2 Organizational barriers in digital innovation

Table 3: Mean score of organizational barrier according to size of firm. The higher the

mean score, the higher is the observed barrier and the lower the mean score,

is the lower barrier.

Size of

architectural

organization

How crucial is organizational barriers in digital innovation?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Overall

Small 4.2 4.2 4.1 5.4 4.3 4.2 4.7 4.1 4.4 4.7 5 4.2

Big 0.6 0.6 0.9 1 1.9 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.3 0.7

Variables: (1) Poor leadership towards digital innovation, (2) Poor organization attitude to innovation, (3)

Lack of empowerment and support to digital innovation, (4) Poor knowledge management, (5) Lack of

manager to manage digital innovation, (6) Inadequate personnel to carry out digital innovation, (7)

Adversarial relationship among staff, (8) Lack of teamwork, (9) Lack of collaboration, (10) Insufficient

team commitment, (11) Lack of support from managers and staff.

As revealed in Table 3, organizational barriers are observed to be very crucial in

small architectural organizations with mean scores of 4.2. With all the variables being

very crucial in small architectural organizations, one variable specifically the lack of

support from manager and staff to implement digital innovation is observed to be

extremely crucial. This variable can be considered as the main driver of other

organizational barriers. On the other hand, big architectural organizations have

sufficient resources and have support from the organization, so it is less affected by

organizational barriers. They are able to adapt with the advent of technology and

adopt the change in organizations. As shown in Table 3, organizational barrier is not

crucial in big architectural organization with a least mean score of 0.7. Using the

results, it can be noted that small architectural organizations are significantly affected

by the organizational barriers. It can be concluded that big architectural organization

having enough resources and support from the organization are less affected by

organizational barriers.

6.1.3 Financial barriers in digital innovation

Table 4: Mean score of financial barrier according to size of firm . The higher the mean

score, the higher is the observed barrier and the lower the mean score, is the lower

barrier.

Size of

architectural

organization

How crucial is financial barriers in digital innovation?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Overall

Small 4.2 4.4 3.9 4.9 4.8 4.6 1.3 4.7 4.7 1.4 1.5 3.3

Big 1 0.7 1 4.7 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.3 4.9 1.7 1.1 1.4

Variables: (1) Inadequate design fee to support digital innovation, (2) Insufficient budget for digital

innovation, (3) The practice doesn’t want to spend much for digital tools, (4) Digital tools are expensive

(5) Expensive to set-up equipment (6) Lack of budget for training the team, (7) Financial disincentive,

(8) High equipment (computer) maintenance cost, (9) Practice-based cost doesn’t support digital

innovation, (10) Lack of R and D budget, (11) Expensive salary to hire knowledgeable staff that know

the new digital tools

Evaluating the mean scores in small architectural organizations as revealed in

Table 4, nine out eleven variables are perceived to be very crucial. This is

happening because small architectural organizations with smaller projects and

smaller fees have less financial means to yield the cost of software and equipment,

and is incapable to support the digital innovation. On the other hand, while financial

barriers are crucial in small architectural organizations, it is not crucial in big

architectural organizations. As revealed in Table 4 the mean scores is only 1.4,

compared to 3.3 attributed to small architectural organizations. This is because big

architectural organizations earn substantial professional fees for large projects, they

are economically stable, and can support their financial needs to adopt innovation.

6.1.4 Process barriers in digital innovation

Table 5: Mean score of process barrier according to size of firm . The higher the mean

score, the higher is the observed barrier and the lower the mean score, is the lower

barrier.

Size of architectural

organization

How crucial is process barriers in digital innovation?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Overall

Small 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.8 0.7 4.5 4.8 3.7

Big 4.6 4.4 4.1 4.8 1.3 4.4 4.7 3.8

Variables: (1) Performance of digital tools or software, (2) Slow speed of computers in processing and

drawing extraction, (3) Mobility of software to handle complex geometry, (4) Disintegration or

fragmentation of 3D models to multiple source, (5) Limited availability of digital tools to deliver digital

innovation, (6) Inadequate level of detail needed for the 3D, (7) Slow data processing of 3d models

The overall results in Table 5, shows that process barriers are observed to be

crucial among architectural organizations, with mean scores of 3.7 and 3.8. Process

barriers refers to efficiency of 3d modelling, extraction, interoperability of the software

and the limitation of 3d modelling package and the nature of work processes in

building design (Whyte, 2011), (Johnson & Laeplle, 2003).

6.1.5 Psychological barriers in digital innovation

Table 6: Mean score of psychological barrier according to size of firm. The higher the

mean score, the higher is the observed barrier and the lower the mean score, is the

lower barrier.

Size of

architectural

organization

How crucial is psychological barriers in digital innovation?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Overall

Small 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.3

Big 0.3 0.7 1 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.6

Variables: (1) Fear of work changes, (2) Lack of psychological assurance, (3) Fear of product change, (4)

Fear of failure, (5) Afraid of productivity loss, (6) Fear of new marketing changes, (7) Fear of increase of

labor cost, (8) Fear of profit loss, (9) No trust to digital technology

As shown in Table 6, psychological barriers are more crucial in small

architectural organizations with mean score of 4.3, than big architectural

organizations with mean score of 0.60. Psychological barriers limits the growth of an

organization which in turn affects the organization (Bogacheva, 2007). Typically digital

innovation is doing something new and in effect, organizations are psychologically

afraid of work changes, afraid of productivity loss, and fear of increase of labor cost.

Considering this results, it can also be deduced that big architectural organizations

have support from the management, have available resources, and are perceived to

be more psychologically secured compared to smaller organizations with limited

resources.

6.1.6 Governmental barriers in digital innovation

Table 7: Mean score of governmental barrier according to size of firm. The higher the

mean score, the higher is the observed barrier and the lower the mean score, is the

lower barrier.

Size of architectural

organization How crucial is governmental barriers to digital innovation?

1 2 3 4 Overall

Small 0.67 0.53 0.80 4.67 1.5

Big 1.1 0.8 0.87 1.2 0.8

Variables: (1) Inflexible building codes, (2) Submission of drawings is still hard copy, (3) Submission of

drawings doesn’t use digital copy from digital innovations, (4) High standard of digital modelling and

procedure established by government for drawing submission

In Table 7, the results have shown that governmental barriers are not crucial to

digital innovation for sustainable design among architectural organizations. However,

one variable is considered crucial which is the high standard of digital modelling

procedure established by the government for drawing submissions. These results

were obtained because the model for this study is Singapore, where the authorities

strictly regulate the standards for submitting BIM models. However, this variable is not

crucial in other countries where authorities do not regulate the BIM models. In a

holistic sense, governmental barriers are not crucial to digital innovation for

sustainable design.

6.2 Most significant barrier in digital innovation

Distribution of firms answering research question -“Which among the barriers is the

most significant in digital innovation adoption?

6.2.3 Overall result for the most significant barrier in digital innovation for

sustainable design

Table 8: Overall results of descriptive statistics showing the most significant barrier

Digital Innovation Barriers N Mean Standard Deviation

Technological 60 26.3111 12.37817

Organizational 60 25.7333 16.71336

Financial 60 29.9556 11.13748

Process 60 26.1556 2.48592

Psychological 60 24.5556 14.54078

Government 60 5.5333 2.88885

Based on the result presented in table 8, it is concluded that out of the six (6)

digital innovation barriers presented in this study, financial barrier is observed to be

the most significant among all the barriers presented. Financial barrier is the

challenge evoked by economic factors of the organization that is interrelated to the

liquidity and profitability of the company (O’Sullivan, 2002). It is the most significant in

digital innovation for sustainable design because this is interconnected to

psychological, organizational, and technological barriers. When architectural

organization is impeded by financial barriers, the organization becomes

psychologically and organizationally affected. They are more reluctant to support

digital innovation, skeptical to provide new technology and in turn unable to implement

digital innovation (Cory and Bozell, 2001), (Bogacheva, 2007), (Johnson and Laepple,

2002).

7. Conclusions

The main exploration of this study was focused in evaluating barriers and key

determinants that impede architectural organizations in digital innovation. From the

results of descriptive statistics it was shown that there are varied factors that impede

architectural organizations in digital innovation for sustainable that is dependent on the

size of architectural organizations. For instance, small architectural organizations are

extremely affected by financial, organizational, and psychological barriers than big

architectural organizations that resulted to technological problems which have

significant consequences on the company. These interrelated barriers are mainly

because of the small projects of small-sized architectural organizations, which earn

limited design fee that is insufficient to cover the cost of technology, software, and

other logistical needs for digital innovation. The consequences of limited resources are

the lack of psychological assurance and fear of profit loss (Cory and Bozell, 2001),

(Bogacheva, 2007), (Johnson and Laepple, 2002).Aside from financial, organizational,

and psychological barriers, process barriers are also present in small architectural

organizations. Process barriers boil down to 3D modeling and processing which is

correlated with the upgrade of the equipment and software, which is too expensive for

small architectural organizations who have limited funds (Whyte, 2007), (Jones and

Saad, 2003), (Yoo et al., 2010), (Bernstein and Pittman, 2004). In conclusion,

technological, financial, organizational, psychological, and process barriers are

extremely crucial in small architectural organizations.

On the other hand, big architectural organizations are less affected by barriers

compared with small architectural organizations because large organizations have

substantial projects with considerable design fees that can support digital innovation.

One reason for fully implementing digital innovation in big architectural organizations

is the need to be competitive with other architectural organizations (Johnson and

Laepple, 2002), (Yoo et al., 2010). Notably, big architectural organizations frequently

collaborate with universities in computational design research. Thus, the knowledge

disseminated from leading research institutes can be applied to actual projects

(Inchachoto, 2002). Although the descriptive statistics have shown that process

barriers are the most crucial in large architectural organizations, the actual case is

different. Big-sized architectural organizations are able to cope with process barriers.

Complex projects have heavier 3D models and slower data processing, but data

processing is facilitated with support from organizations, the use of powerful

equipment, and collaboration with computational design research institutions.

Holistically, financial barrier is the most crucial among the six barriers presented.

This barrier has more significant effect than technological, organizational, process

barriers, psychological barriers and governmental barriers. When an architectural

organization is financially incapable, it is more psychologically affected and does not

support digital innovation (Bogacheva, 2007). Therefore, it can be concluded that

financial, technological, organizational, and psychological barriers are interrelated.

Although these four barriers are interrelated, it can also be deduced that process

barriers, which boil down to 3D modelling and processing, can also be crucial.

However, process barriers do not correlate with financial, technological,

organizational, and psychological barriers. Governmental barriers, such as building

codes and other compliance documents, are not crucial.

References

Bernstein, P. & Pittman, J. ( 2004) Barriers to the Adoption of Building Information

Modelling in the Building of Industry, Autodesk Building Solutions, Whitepaper.

Bogacheva, B. (2003), Psychological Barriers at Innovations Penetration and a Way of

their Overcoming by the Personnel Organizations, Russian State University of

Tourism and Service , Myasnikova O. U. , People’s Friendship University of

Russia.

Civil Engineering Research Foundation (1996) Needed: Lower riskes, More R & D,

Architectural Record.

Cory, C. & Bozell, D. (2001). 3D Modeling for the Architectural Engineering and

Construction Industry, International Conference Graphicon, Nizhny Novgorod,

Russia, http://www.graphicon.ru/

Davila et al. (2006). Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit

from It. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing. ISBN 0 13-149786-3.

Intrachooto, S. (2002). Techological Innovation in Architecture: Effective Practices for

Energy Efficient Implementation, PhD Thesis,. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, USA.

Johnson R., Laepple, E. (2003). Digital Innovation and Organizational Change in

Design Practice, ACADIA22: CONNECTING CROSSROADS OF DIGITAL

DISCOURSE.

Jones M. & Saad M. (2003). Managing innovation in construction, Thomas Telford,

London, UK.

Kolarevic, B. (2005). Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, Taylor

& Francis ISBN 0415278201.

Kolarevic and Malkawi (2003). Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality

Spon Press UK, ISBN 0-415-700-83-3.

O'Sullivan, D. (2002). Framework for Managing Development in the Networked

Organizations, Journal of Computers in Industry (Elsevier Science Publishers B.

V.) 47 (1): 77–88. doi:10.1016/S0166-3615(01)00135-X, ISSN 0166–3615.

Ramilo, R., & Rashid, M.E. (2014). Key Determinants and Barriers in Digital

Innovation Among Small Architectural Organizations, Journal of Information

Technology in Construction, ISSN 1874-4753, Volume 19, pg. 188-209.

Shabanesfahani & Tabrizi (2012). Barriers of Systemic Innovation to Increase

Productivity of Engineering and Construction Industries of the World, IOSR Journal

of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) ISSN: 2278-1684 Volumes 4,

Issue 1.

Walcoff et al (1983). Techniques for managing technological innovation, Ann Arbor

Science Publishers 1983, ISBN- 9780250406036.

Whyte, J. (2011) Information Management and its Impact on Project Management

Oxford Handbook on the Management of Projects. P. Morris, J. Pinto and J.

Söderlund, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Yoo et al (2010) Next Wave of Digital Innovation: Opportunities and Challenges,

Report on the Research Workshop: Digital Challenges in Innovation Research,

Institute of Business and Information Technology, Fox School of Business and

Administration, Temple University.