Abstract Building Information Modelling (BIM) has been widely seen as bringing a paradigm change to the construction industry. However, scholars have acknowledged that neither widespread BIM implementation nor the envisaged systemic changes within the sector have taken place. Despite acknowledging that the industry’s conditions and embedded contexts shape innovation diffusion, existing studies have not explored in any depth “how” the context might influence the episode of change when a new technology is introduced and the new practices accompanying that technology and old practices co-evolve. By adopting activity theory, its concepts of contradictions and multiple layers within the activity system, in this paper, we explore the interaction between situated and existing practices, or the “how” of implementation; that is, how the activity system is questioned and redefined during an episode of technological change. Drawing on data from multiple case studies, our findings demonstrate that situated practices related to the definition of information requirements, and the production and the handover of information were re-enacted following institutionalised socio-historical constructs (e.g. norms, rules, division of labour) at the industry and organisational levels. The findings provide insights regarding the inertia in the transformation of the sector as also deriving from re-enactments of socio-historical constructs that mediate the institutionalisation of situated practices. Our findings reveal re-enactment as part of the transformation process and contribute to calls for more realistic views on BIM implementation.

中文翻译：

---

探索社会历史建构对BIM实施的影响：活动理论的视角

摘要建筑信息模型（BIM）被广泛视为给建筑行业带来了范式变化。但是，学者们承认，既没有广泛实施BIM，也没有设想到该部门内的系统性变化。尽管承认该行业的条件和嵌入式环境会影响创新扩散，但现有研究并未深入探讨“当”环境引入新技术以及伴随该技术和旧实践共同产生的新实践如何影响变革的发生。发展。通过采用活动理论，活动系统中的矛盾和多层概念，在本文中，我们探讨了情境和现有实践之间的相互作用，或实施的“方式”。那是，在技​​术变革时期如何质疑和重新定义活动系统。利用来自多个案例研究的数据，我们的研究结果表明，遵循制度化的社会历史构造（例如规范，规则，分工），与信息需求的定义，信息的产生和移交相关的惯常做法得以重新制定。在行业和组织层面。这些发现提供了有关部门转型惯性的见解，这也源于社会历史结构的重新制定，而社会历史结构又是调解惯常做法的制度化的中介。我们的发现揭示了重新制定是转型过程的一部分，并有助于人们呼吁对BIM实施采取更现实的看法。