Collaborative Virtual Reality as an Adaptable Boundary Object in

the Design Phase of Facility Life Cycle

Annikka Lepola

, Hannu Kärkkäinen

, Henri Jalo

and Osku Torro

School of Business and Services, Tampere University of Applied Sciences, Kuntokatu 3, 33520 Tampere, Finland

Faculty of Business and Built Environment, Tampere University, Korkeakoulunkatu 8, 33720 Tampere, Finland

Keywords: Virtual Reality, VR, Collaboration, Knowledge Transfer, Construction Industry, Design, Boundary Object.

Abstract: Although the large majority of costs of buildings incur in the later operation and maintenance phase, major

decisions affecting these costs are made in the early design and construction phases. Virtual Reality (VR) and

Collaborative Virtual Reality (CVR) have been noticed to have significant potential in involving the expertise

and needs of various stakeholders into the early design phases, increasing the quality of building designs and

reducing related costs. Boundary Object Theory has been noticed useful in better understanding and

improving the knowledge transfer of actors with different backgrounds and expertise. VR and CVR remain

yet little studied as boundary objects. We will address this research gap in this study by aiming to understand

how CVR can act as an adaptable boundary object in the building design phase of the facility life cycle. We

have made use of a qualitative approach, consisting of a multiple case study approach and semi-structured

interviews in Finnish AEC industry companies and organisations. We contribute to academic research by

providing a deeper understanding of how CVR functions as a boundary object, which enhances the transfer

of knowledge in new ways between various stakeholders in the building design phase.

1 INTRODUCTION

The architecture, engineering and construction (AEC)

industry faces a problem which is related to the fact

that although the large majority of the costs of a

building incur in the later operation and maintenance

phase of buildings, major decisions affecting these

costs are made in the early design and construction

phases (Bullinger et al., 2010; Goulding et al., 2014).

Collaborative Virtual Reality (CVR) has been noticed

to have significant potential in involving various

stakeholders, especially the customers and end

customers into early phases of design, thus making

earlier, faster and better design decisions, and

significantly reducing building and building redesign

costs, and increasing the quality of building designs.

With the help of CVR the users can understand the

proposed designs better than with other existing

methods and give more accurate feedback to the

designers. This is becoming increasingly possible due

to the recent advances in digitalization in the AEC

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1156-8545

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4753-4416

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1438-700X

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0706-5010

industry. More specifically, the increased adoption

and use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) has

significantly expanded the possibilities for digital

collaboration between different stakeholders

(Miettinen and Paavola, 2014).

Reviewing the existing Virtual Reality (VR)

literature, the research gap of this study is related to

the relatively little studied field of VR enabled

collaboration, especially in the context of the AEC

industry, which has specific collaboration related

challenges. Furthermore, we want more specifically

here to understand how CVR can be used as a

boundary object, which are seen as vehicles for

enabling efficient knowledge transfer between

various collaborating stakeholders with different

backgrounds and expertise.

The purpose of the study is to better understand

how CVR can act as an adaptable boundary object in

the building design phase of the facility life cycle and

enable enhanced knowledge transfer between

Lepola, A., Kärkkäinen, H., Jalo, H. and Torro, O.

Collaborative Virtual Reality as an Adaptable Boundary Object in the Design Phase of Facility Life Cycle.

DOI: 10.5220/0010020200630075

In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2020) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 63-75

ISBN: 978-989-758-474-9

stakeholders. To answer this, we divide this into three

research questions:

1. How is CVR used in technical building

design?

2. Which type of fundamental stakeholder

collaboration and knowledge transfer-

supporting mechanisms related to CVR are

important in the technical design of

buildings, and why were these important and

beneficial in building design?

3. How does CVR function as a boundary

object, enabling knowledge transfer between

the stakeholders of building design?

To answer the research questions, we made use

of a qualitative approach, consisting of a multiple

case study approach and semi-structured interviews

(Yin, 2009; Ghauri et al., 2020). This was chosen to

understand in sufficient depth the application of CVR

in studied organizations of the building industry. The

building industry in general was selected because

they can benefit significantly from VR use in building

design, are generally seen as early adopters of VR in

design related collaboration and are actively

innovating and developing new VR solutions for this

purpose. Among such companies, pioneering

companies from the industry were selected as case

companies.

This paper is structured as follows: we first review

existing research concerning VR, VR-related

collaboration and boundary object theory related to

knowledge transfer between stakeholders, and the

research gap in more detail. Second, we introduce the

methodology of the paper, describing the case

selection and case companies. Third, we present the

results, and finally, present the main conclusions and

managerial implications.

2 THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND

2.1 Virtual Reality and CVR

The concept of virtual reality (VR) has been known

for decades (Sutherland, 1965), but only recently the

wider commercial adoption of VR technology has

been witnessed (Slater, 2018). The use of VR in

organizations has been mainly focused on different

simulations, education, or training (Slater and

Sanchez-Vives, 2016).

VR can be used in many ways. The prevalent use

of VR is still largely concentrated on its non-

collaborative use, e.g. in non-social games or as non-

social learning environments. Earlier remote

collaboration experiments with desktop-based virtual

worlds (VWs) (i.e., 3D worlds that are used via

computer screen) have mostly failed to attract

participation and engagement. Increasing sensory

immersion was seen necessary when mitigating these

problems in the future. (Kohler et al., 2011).

Therefore, head-mounted displays (HMD)s and the

use of VR are a significant step forward in different

remote collaboration practices. Accordingly, the

collaborative and social use of VR has recently

gained in importance in both consumer and business

use (Perry, 2015). This is due to the development of

VR software and related collaboration-supporting

technologies, as well as the increased performance of

VR gear in the fluent handling e.g. several persons'

simultaneous activities in the same virtual space.

Thus, along with this development, it has been

increasingly noticed that collaboration in and through

VR means has produced significant benefits for

companies and individuals in the enabling of better

collaboration and knowledge transfer (e.g. (Slater

and Sanchez-Vives, 2016; Steffen et al., 2019). Due

to this novelty, there is yet a limited amount of

research on the collaborative and social use of VR in

the working context, in their use in the transfer of

knowledge between different actors, and the use of

CVR as a boundary object, especially in the AEC

industry, as in our case. In this study, we will

concentrate on the collaborative and social use of VR

and will use the concept ‘Collaborative VR’ or CVR

in a broad sense, as described above.

Information and knowledge sharing are central

to collaborative work (e.g. Churchill & Snowdon,

1998). VR can be used in supporting inter-personal or

even inter-organizational collaboration in many

ways. VR-supported collaboration can be co-located

or distributed. Furthermore, it can take place either

fully in VR, or partially in VR and in the real world.

Collaboration can involve spoken, written, or

pictorial communication, and can happen in 2D or

3D. Communication and collaboration can be

supported by manipulation of and interaction with

digital objects and with other users directly, or

through means of digital objects in various ways in

the VR context. Figure 1 depicts the dimensions of

interaction in the real world, in VR, or partially in

both, and defines the collaboration dimensions

between users and digital objects.

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

Figure 1: Dimensions of interaction in VR.

The whole digital environment can often be flexibly

adapted to different users (see e.g. Affendy & Wanis,

2019). The above characteristics are closely related to

the concept of boundary objects (BO), which can be

defined as "objects flexible enough to adapt to

individual needs of the actors using them, yet specific

enough to maintain a common meaning across

different actors" (Star and Griesemer, 1989). We will

discuss the concept of BO in more detail below in

section 2.3.

2.2 Role and Significance of CVR in

Building Design

The utilization of CVR as a boundary object requires

easy access to digital building models. In this regard,

the increased adoption of BIM is expanding the

possibilities for collaboration in the AEC industry,

although the industry’s fragmented and project-

focused nature is hindering the full utilization of BIM

and has largely limited its use to the earlier design and

construction phases of the AEC value-chain

(Miettinen and Paavola, 2014). Although around 80

percent of the costs of a building are incurred in the

operation and maintenance phase, crucial and long-

lasting decisions affecting these costs are made in the

design and construction phases (Bullinger et al.,

2010; Goulding et al., 2014). Thus, there is significant

potential to address these issues with more user-

centric design and in ensuring the building better

matches user needs by enabling more effective

knowledge transfer with CVR in the building design

phase. Until recently, immersive virtual

environments, such as CVR, have mainly been used

in marketing and not in collecting user feedback from

the end-users with the intent to change the building

design (Bullinger et al., 2010). However, this is

becoming increasingly possible due to the recent

developments in BIM adoption and use.

The aforementioned fragmentation of the AEC

industry accentuates the importance of

communication between different stakeholders in

order to successfully complete projects (Goulding et

al., 2014). Possibilities for enhancing knowledge

transfer are especially prominent in the building

design phase. With VR it is possible to precisely

measure how the users behave (e.g., movement and

gaze) in the proposed design of the building (Kuliga

et al., 2015) and to quickly compare user behavior in

different design options (Heydarian et al., 2015). The

digital design can also be easily manipulated in the

VR space unlike with physical scale models (Kuliga

et al., 2015). The use of immersive VR also promotes

a better spatial understanding of the proposed design

(Portman et al., 2015), especially among

professionals and those with higher educational levels

(Paes et al. 2017), and aids in creating mutual

understanding between different stakeholders (Du et

al., 2018). Thus, with the aid of CVR the users can

understand the proposed design better than with other

available methods and give more accurate feedback

to the designers. In addition, the content can be easily

tailored for different user groups by showing them

only content that is relevant to them. For example,

end-users can view a more visually polished version

of the design whereas various technical structures can

be shown for structural designers. VR also makes it

possible to reduce travel by making it easier to

participate remotely (Perry, 2015). This also makes it

possible for experts to participate in design sessions

more often, thus, increasing design iterations.

Furthermore, immersive VR also increases users’

focus on the task since the use of HMDs reduces

external stimuli (Hilfert & König, 2016). These

characteristics of CVR make it a potential tool to be

utilized as a boundary object in the building design

phase of the AEC value-chain.

2.3 Boundary Objects and Knowledge

Transfer

Star and Griesemer (1989), introduced the concept of

‘boundary objects’ and defined it as “objects flexible

enough to adapt to individual needs of the actors

using them, yet specific enough to maintain a

common meaning across different actors”. Thus,

boundary objects can be understood as artifacts, or

some kind of arrangements, that enable

communication and collaboration between members

within and between different communities of

practice.

According to Wenger (2000), boundary objects can

be categorized into three groups: artifacts, discourses,

Collaborative Virtual Reality as an Adaptable Boundary Object in the Design Phase of Facility Life Cycle

and processes. Artifacts can include tools, documents,

models, or virtual places that stand out by having

meaning across boundaries. Discourses, again,

represent a common language that collaboration

process participants use to communicate across

boundaries (Wenger 2000), and include negotiated

terms and language constructions that have the same

meaning for all the participants. Processes include

negotiated routines and procedures (e.g. rules and

agreements) that allow coordination across

boundaries (Wenger 2000; Fominykh et al., 2016).

The interesting and important role of VR as a

boundary object has been noted, in overall, in recent

literature: An and Powe (2015) found that

visualizations, and more specifically VR, seemed to

provide a reasonable fit to the boundary object

conception, and more specifically, provided a focus

for better translation of for instance expert findings,

improving communication and understanding

between the various groups, and helping e.g. the

process of negotiation on controversial aspects.

Furthermore, Fominykh et al. (2016) explored how

boundary objects facilitated, in more general, group

work and learning across different boundaries in a

cross-disciplinary educational context. Olechnowicz

(2018) found that immersive imagery or VR had a

substantial potential as an effective boundary

spanning object that seemed, especially, to increase

participant’s perceptions of credibility and saliency

towards VR and wildland fire management. More

specifically, in the context of building design,

Building Information Modeling (BIM), which is

made use of in CVR, it was noted as important “to

view BIM artefacts as boundary objects and explore

how they contribute to collaboration and support

management of projects” by Papadonikolaki et al.

(2019).

To summarize the recent literature, VR has been

noted as a useful and interesting boundary object in

general, and it has been further studied as a boundary

object in a few contexts. However, VR and CVR

more specifically, has not been studied empirically as

a boundary object in any useful detail in the context

of building design. Since BO’s can be very different

and can be used in different ways in different

contexts, understanding CVR as BO is important in

this specific building design context to better enable

knowledge transfer in building design.

Due to different knowledge and experience

systems of stakeholders, and lack of a mutual design

environment, knowledge transfer is considered

generally as challenging in cross-disciplinary settings

in the facility life cycle. Boundary objects are thus

critical since they provide bridges across boundaries

allowing different knowledge systems and

communities to interact by providing a shared

reference that is meaningful within all parts (Star and

Griesemer, 1989; Wenger, 2000). The role of CVR as

a boundary object is presented in Figure 2, defining

how collaboration between focal stakeholders can be

supported in a shared virtual environment in building

design of facility life cycle.

Figure 2: CVR as boundary object in facility life cycle.

3 METHODOLOGY

The aim of this study was to map and understand how

CVR functions as a boundary object in the building

design phase of the facility life cycle and how VR

enables interaction and enhanced knowledge transfer

between multidisciplinary stakeholders. The focus of

the study was on novel and enhanced collaboration in

VR, which can be perceived to be better than in

current practices.

The study has a qualitative approach. A multiple

case study approach was chosen to understand the

level of implementation and usage of CVR in

organizations that are seen as early adopters and

pioneers in innovating and developing emerging

virtual solutions for the AEC industry (Yin, 2009).

Three Finnish FM companies participated in the

study. The focus was on companies that were seen as

early adopters in the use of VR, and also benefiting

clearly from solutions that improve the quality of

building processes and reduce costs. The interviewees

were experts and pioneers in innovating and

developing virtual solutions for the different phases

of facility life cycle. The list of the interviews is

presented in Table 1.

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

Table 1: List of the interviews.

Interviewed

compan

Persons Role of the interviewee/s

Company A one XR Technology Manage

Company B two

VR Technology Manager

R&D Mana

Company C one VDC Manage

AEC expert

anization

one AEC Industry Expert

The study used purposeful sampling to gather data

that was pertinent for our research (Patton, 2002).

Finland is a remote and big country with long

distances and low population density, thereby the

organization of cross-disciplinary design meetings is

found challenging. Thus, pioneering AEC companies

in Finland have a clear interest to invest and develop

novel solutions for virtual modes of operations and

hence enhance the efficiency of cross-disciplinary

building design meetings.

Semi-structured interviews were used as a data

collection method. This is seen as a useful method for

exploring novel research areas, such as CVR is,

where limited research is available (Ghauri et al.,

2020). The aim of the interviews was to find out how

CVR was utilized in the building design use scenarios

and what benefits it can bring to the companies. A list

of questions and themes were used in the interviews.

All together four interviews were carried out in

September - October 2019. The interviews lasted

from 60 to 90 minutes. The interviewer and the

interviewees were Finnish. The interviews were

audio-recorded and transcribed in Word documents.

The transcribed interviews were analysed

and grouped according to the interview themes:

mechanism and characteristics, as well as consequent

benefits, how VR can be utilized in collaborative

context in building design scenarios.

4 RESULTS

Three building planning and design phases of the real

estate life cycle were identified in the interviews: land

acquisition and building area planning, project

planning, and technical planning. Largely due to

recent developments in BIM adoption and use, which

have enabled easy access to digital building models,

CVR was seen by all the interviewees as a potential

and useful means to enhance interaction and

collaboration in the multifaceted phases of building

planning and design processes. According to the

interviews CVR was utilized mostly in the technical

design processes, and secondarily in the project

planning activities. CVR was seen to have a

considerable potential both in project planning as well

as in the preceding phases of the real estate life cycle.

However practical implementations utilizing

collaborative VR in the phases preceding project and

technical building design processes were still seen as

very scarce. The use cases identified in the interviews

were related to complex technical design building

activities. The use cases are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: CVR use cases in technical building design.

Case

Compan

Use

Case

Definition of use case context

Company

case 1

technical maintenance

uildin

desi

Company

case 2

technical building design

Company B case 3

technical building design of

ducts

Company C case 4 technical building design

Company B case 5

erection procedure sequence

of structural steel design

4.1 Fundamental

Collaboration-Supporting

Mechanisms in CVR

Three main fundamental collaboration-supporting

mechanisms were identified in literature, which were

found as useful particularly in VR supported

collaboration in multi-faceted building design use

cases: Adaptability, Agile trials, and High level of

focus (Steffen et al., 2019). The interviewees were

able to identify all these three fundamental

mechanisms: Adaptability mechanism in 6 different

use cases, Agile trials in 8 use cases and High level of

focus in 6 different use cases. The use cases of the

fundamental collaboration-enabling mechanisms of

CVR are presented in Table 3.

First mechanism identified by the interviewees

was Adaptability. The ability of CVR to adapt itself

according to the tasks and situations where it was

used, as well as according to the expertise and

knowhow level of the users, was seen as a big

advantage by all the interviewees. Moreover, the

knowledge within CVR was seen as intuitive for

various different stakeholders. The visualization

levels of virtual building designs were adapted

according to the expertise and professional level of

the participants. According to the interviewees the

building design professionals, architects and

designers, preferred working with basic and simple

2D models, whereas the non-professional users, e.g.

end users, needed more fine-tuned 3D models in order

Collaborative Virtual Reality as an Adaptable Boundary Object in the Design Phase of Facility Life Cycle

to be able to comprehend the building designs. Colour

codes were used in professional virtual models to

clarify visually the functionality and interoperability

of different structural parts (e.g. purple for supporting

parts, blue for stiffener parts etc.) and hence

accelerate the comprehension of the technical designs

at a glance. The virtual building designs enabled the

designers to scale themselves to different end user

roles, e.g. child or wheelchair users, and thereby more

authentic experience-based perspectives of the

building designs were able to be acquired.

Second, and by the interviewees the most often

mentioned mechanism was Agile trials. CVR was

seen to enable agile, low threshold sprints,

simulations and experimentations to test ideas and

customer needs and thereby further the acquisition of

fast and immediate feedback to building designs. In

fast simulations the used VR models were often

simple, rough and easy-to-build block models.

Participants visited the virtual models quickly, instant

feedback was received on the spot, discussions about

observations and perceived problem areas held along

the way, solutions co-created and functionality and

effects of suggested changes were able to be tested

and analysed immediately in the VR model, even with

several variations during one design session. Agile

customer and end user surveys were able to be

implemented with virtual simulation models already

in the very early phases of the technical building

design process, e.g. to test if potential parking hall

users would be willing to pay higher parking fees for

more spacious use of space. The acquired fast

feedback was seen to accumulate the decision-

making process of investors and other partners.

Spontaneous idea discussions and tests were able to

be organized by agreeing a quick visit to the virtual

design model instead of numerous email interactions

and telephone conversations.

The third mechanism identified by all the

interviewees was High level of focus. CVR was seen

to enable focused observation level and better

attention span of the participants since they were

isolated from the outside world during the design

sessions. Thereby distractions were eliminated, and

the attention of the participants better directed on

desired targets. Parallel usage of mobile phones and

laptops was seen complicated, if possible, at all. In

general, the virtual design meetings were seen

efficient to manage: the virtual models were able to

be structured beforehand to guide the participant what

to observe, where to focus, and what to discuss. The

virtual models ensured automatically that all the

necessary spots of the design plans were

systematically checked. Some interviewees found the

parallel working possibilities in multidisciplinary

design meetings in VR as useful, since they cannot be

allowed in the real site meetings where free

movement in the building sites is prohibited. If the

issue at hand was not relevant for all the participants,

the observations outside the actual agenda were

possible without disturbing the actual meeting.

CVR was seen to enable monitoring and

registration of non-verbal participant reactions, e.g.

direction of glance, gestures, motions, expressions,

and reactions. However, as emphasized by the

interviewees, this possibility has not been utilized on

a larger scale because of the undefined privacy

protection regulations restraining the utilization of

individual non-verbal communication in VR.

An interesting new fundamental mechanism

supporting collaboration in VR was identified by all

the interviewees: Sense-augmented examination of

data. This new mechanism was found to enable

sensing, experiencing and visualizing objects with

new dimensions, also with rather strong immersions:

visualization of data for sight, visualization of sight

with hearing, as well as experiencing various effects

like wind, light and e.g. falling effect with sense of

balance. The knowledge within these virtual sessions

were identified, acquired, transferred and stored

automatically. The Sense-augmented examination of

data mechanism was seen by all the interviewees to

have a huge potential in the usage of VR

implementations in a co-creation and design context.

According to the interviewees there is a scarce

technological knowledge about the usage of this new

mechanism, as one interviewee mentioned:

“Currently only the peak of the iceberg is identified”.

Due to limited user experiences in the case companies

this new mechanism was not analysed in detail in this

study. However, when the technology evolves the

sense-augmented examination of data mechanism

was seen to provide significant possibilities to

integrate totally new reality dimensions in virtual

design models, which are not possible to implement

in the real world. This would significantly transform

the possibilities of VR to identify, acquire and utilize

data in building design processes.

4.2 Benefits of Fundamental

Collaboration-supporting

Mechanisms

From the perspective of enhancing collaboration, two

focal and important benefits caused by the

fundamental collaboration-supporting mechanisms

were identified in the studied cases: better quality and

resource efficiency of the technical building design

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

sessions. Better quality presented itself as better

quality of building design outcomes and more

qualified processes, risk reductions and better risk

management. Resource efficiency presented itself as

time and cost savings, contributing to higher work

efficiency.

All the three main fundamental collaboration-

supporting mechanisms identified in the literature,

Adaptability, Agile iterations and High level of focus,

were recognized by all the interviewees to impact

both benefits - better quality and resource efficiency,

as summarized in Table 3. The Adaptability

mechanism was primarily seen to affect better

quality, however it was seen also to streamline the

processes and hence enhance the process efficiency.

Agile iterations and High level of focus mechanisms

were seen to affect both better quality, mentioned as

BQ in the Table 3 and resource efficiency, mentioned

as RE in the Table 3.

Table 3: Fundamental collaboration supporting

mechanisms in CVR and their benefits in CVR use cases.

Case

company

Mechanism Use case B

Company A

Company B

Company C

Adaptability Variable

visualization

levels

Company C Adaptability Easy-to-

movemodels

x x

Company B Adaptability Colour codes x x

Company B Adaptability Scaling to user

roles

Company A

Company B

Agile trials Fast tests of ideas

and customer

needs

Company A

Company B

Agile trials Rough easy-to-

build, fast-to-visit

lock models

Company B Agile trials Low threshold

sprints and

iterations

x x

Company B Agile trials Visualizations for

investors

x x

Company B Agile trials End user and

customer surveys

x x

Company C Agile trials Spontaneous idea

tests and

discussions

x x

Company A High level of

focus

Automatic

meeting

structuring

x x

Company A

Company B

Company C

High level of

focus

Isolation from

outside world

distractions

Company B High level of

focus

Parallel

observations

outside agenda

Company C High level of

focus

Automated

registration of

nonverbal

reactions

x x

The Adaptability mechanism of CVR was found

fundamentally important in stakeholder collaboration

by all of the interviewees to enable easier and better

comprehension of technical building designs, which

in turn enabled the engagement of a wider variety of

stakeholders, e.g. end users and investors, into the

technical building design processes. This was seen to

further the possibilities of cross-disciplinary

collaboration activities, and thereby to streamline the

building design as well as decision-making processes

significantly. The versatile and qualitative feedback

enabled the co-creation of more accurate building

designs, and thus generated better customer

satisfaction. This all was seen by the interviewees as

a big advantage since it was not seen easily realizable

by traditional means, such as caves.

The interviewees considered the Agile trials

mechanism fundamentally important in stakeholder

collaboration since it lowered the threshold of tests

and experimentations in general, especially in the

early phases of facility life cycle. Thus, the

acquisition of fast feedback already in the very early

phases of building design processes was able to be

acquired, early recognition of mistakes and co-

creation of novel solutions enabled and thereby the

accuracy and functionality of the building design

outcomes improved. Consequent early recognition of

errors and mistakes enabled the minimization and

avoidance of risks, which final economic impact in

the facility life cycle was seen by all the interviewees

to be enormous.

High level of focus mechanism was found

fundamentally important in stakeholder collaboration

while enabling the better concentration of the

participants on the issues at hand during the design

meeting and “allowing them to be immersed in the VR

model”, as one interviewee defined. Because of the

good attention span and immersed experience of the

space, possible problem areas, mistakes and

interesting observations were seen to be perceived

better. Hence the feedback and the acquired outcomes

were found to be more functional and accurate than

with traditional means. Some of the interviewees

assessed the discussions and course of the meetings

in VR to be even more focused and efficient than in

real life. Parallel observations enabled within the

virtual site meetings outside the actual agenda were

seen to enrich the feedback, enhance the retention of

the interest of the meeting participants as well as the

efficiency of time management in the

multidisciplinary design meetings.

Collaborative Virtual Reality as an Adaptable Boundary Object in the Design Phase of Facility Life Cycle

4.3 CVR as Boundary Object in

Building Design

CVR was found to function as a boundary object in

the five identified building design use cases, which

are listed in Table 2, enhancing transfer of knowledge

between design stakeholders. Actors being involved

in the building design processes were mainly

designers from different building design functions. In

one use case also the end users of the property, service

maintenance personnel, were attending the building

design session. In the studied use cases boundary

objects of CVR were studied regarding three different

characteristic boundary object types: processes,

artefacts and discourses (Fominykh et al., 2016;

Wenger, 2000).

The collaboration in the studied design use cases

was currently seen to exploit VR mainly in the hybrid

process models. Process type of boundary objects

supporting knowledge transfer between different

stakeholders have been identified in several kinds:

characteristics is that processes include diverse rules

and agreements on discussions and procedures

enabling coordination across boundaries (Wenger

2000; Fominykh et al., 2016).

The dimensions of interaction presented in Figure

1 are utilized in this analysis. In the studied use cases

three different dimensions of interaction were

identified: 1) collaboration fully in VR, 2) hybrid

collaboration partially in VR and in real world, and 3)

collaboration only in real world. Also, an interesting

new dimension of interaction was identified in the

studied hybrid use cases; indirect, observer-based

collaboration realized outside VR, while one person

at a time was visiting the VR model. Table 4 presents

the dimensions of interaction in hybrid processes

describing the context of collaboration between

different environments: in VR and in the real world,

or partially in both. The collaboration dimensions

between VR objects and actors participating in the

design sessions are also illustrated in the table. The

legends ‘x’ and ‘-’ describe whether interaction

between objects and actors took place.

Table 4: Dimension of interaction in hybrid processes.

In the hybrid design meeting the participants were

moving from real world meetings to VR, even several

times in one meeting. The collaboration among

participants occurred either inside or outside VR, or

in both environments. In most of the cases the

discussions about the observations and solutions took

place in the meetings outside the VR model. In two

of the studies cases the building design session

participants observed and communicated with the VR

objects as well as with each other both in the VR

model and outside the VR model. In one use case the

design session was organized completely within the

animated virtual model.

Interestingly in three of the studied cases the

communication with the VR objects took place

indirectly through one person at a time visiting the

VR model, while the others observed and monitored

the session outside the VR model. As one interviewee

pointed out, the possibility to utilize all dimensions of

interaction in the hybrid processes were seen to have

positive aspects: “The actual discussions and co-

creation activities are often organized outside VR,

either in physical or online meetings. This is often

seen as a relief since the participants do not usually

want to wear the VR glasses all the time. The VR

glasses disturb some of the participants and they

might even cause physical symptoms.”

The participants in the building design session

were seen to perform actively in two different roles;

as a VR model visitor and an observer outside the VR

model. As one interviewee pointed out: “Observer

role, also felt like an indirect VR model visit, seemed

to ease the tension and nervousness towards the new

technology and thus enhanced the readiness to give

feedback. This enabled more versatile observation

and comprehension, as well as more spontaneous

feedback.” One interviewee explained how “a quinea

pig setup” generated a real storm of observations and

insights among all the participants, which in turn

inspired and stimulated the discussion, advanced the

level of observation and thus inspired and enhanced

discussions and co-creation of solutions.

According to the interviewees the reasons for the

frequency of hybrid implementations were seen in the

general habit and common practice in the AEC

industry to meet in physical design and site meetings.

This was considered to be caused mainly by the

limited adoption and knowhow of CVR technology,

and virtual technology in general, in the AEC

industry. Thereby the willingness to invest and

readiness to utilize VR technology and equipment in

different functions in the building design is still in its

infancy.

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

The hybrid case implementations were found to

be a functional way to utilize VR technology under

the current circumstances. One interviewee

prognosed that the actual building design activities

will most likely never be transferred fully to virtual

reality environments since the building design

programs and tools are tightly linked to specialized

computer systems: “Designers from different

building design functions prefer to use their own

design programs so that the strengths of different

design systems can be utilized more efficiently.”

VR models per se were seen to function as an

artefact type of a boundary object in all use cases. The

capability of VR models to adapt according to the

expertise level of the actors participating in the design

session was seen as useful in order to provide

meaning across boundaries. Certain artefact types of

VR model boundary objects were identified, e.g.

technical building design of ducts and erection

procedure sequence of structural steel designs. In

some of the hybrid use case processes VR models

were utilized as an additional tool or function to the

actual building design programs.

VR model artefacts were seen by all the

interviewees to ease the ability to comprehend the

building designs and enhance the observations and

perception skills of the participants. Thus, the

integration of new stakeholders was enabled and

collaboration between technical building design

actors was enhanced, and thereby novel knowledge

and perspectives were able to be integrated into the

technical building designs. Relevant problems and

errors were seen to be detected more accurately.

Visual format and animations were seen to enable

more unambiguous perception of the building design.

As mentioned by one interviewee: “Experiencing and

observing the building design in the right scale, while

actually being in the VR model yourself, enhanced

and eased the capability to understand the building

design and thereby detect relevant problematics.”

One interviewee pointed out: “If the design plans are

presented with traditional text documents, and five

people will read the text, there will be five different

perceptions and interpretations of the plan. Virtual

design are comprehend more uniformly” One

interviewee explained: “Staying in the visual

animation yourself enables better overview and

understanding of the designed property, eases and

accelerates to realization of possible problematics

and errors, enables communication and finding

solutions on the spot and thus enables to prevent the

risks more efficiently.”

Other identified artefacts performing as boundary

objects were agendas and memos utilized in the

design sessions. The roles of the agendas were found

to structure and guide the building design sessions,

whereas the memos were used for documentation of

observations and correction proposals, and to transfer

the knowledge further to other instances and

stakeholders. The technical building design viewing

sessions were structured with predefined agendas. In

some use cases the order of the spots to be reviewed

were integrated in the VR model, whereas the

participants were guided step-by-step by the model

itself in the virtual viewing process. These procedures

were found to function as useful boundary objects

ensuring that all the relevant parts of the virtual

building design model were inspected in the right

order, and no relevant spots were not missed. The

observations and comments made in the VR model or

in the design meetings were in most of the use cases

documented in separate memos. Some interviewees

had been testing examples of VR model solutions

where self-supporting tools immersed in the VR

model have enabled direct integration of the

observations and comments directly in the model.

One interviewee pointed out that future scenarios of

fully automated virtual solutions have been discussed

and tested by major players. In these solutions the

sessions can be structured, managed and documented

without any human input.

The main discourses identified in the studied user

cases were discussions about observations and

perceptions made in the VR model as well as co-

creation of solutions for the identified problematics.

The utilization of CVR in the building design

processes was seen by most of the interviewees to

enable beneficial exchange and integration of

knowledge and perspectives of cross-disciplinary

experts. It was emphasized by the interviewees that

CVR has been found to enable the instant discussions,

co-creation of solutions and decision making on the

spot during the design meetings. With the usage of a

VR model together with other building design tools,

the changes to the building designs were able to be

updated and transferred to the VR model

immediately, changes analysed and the functionality

tested and evaluated, and hence necessary decisions

made immediately. One interviewee explained:

“When inspecting and observing the VR model

together with experts from different building design

functions, participants had possibilities to learn from

each other and thus achieve more comprehensive

understanding of the complex building designs, e.g.

the technical building system of ducts, as well as

evaluate the economy aspects of the solutions

created.”

Collaborative Virtual Reality as an Adaptable Boundary Object in the Design Phase of Facility Life Cycle

5 DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to better understand

how CVR can act as an adaptable boundary object in

the building design phase of the facility life cycle and

enable enhanced knowledge transfer between

stakeholders. Regarding our research questions, how

CVR is used in building design and which type of

collaboration-supporting fundamental mechanisms

were found important, we were able to identify four

different types of fundamental mechanisms, which

were used in the early phases of building design,

especially in the technical design, in the studied case

companies. The first three mechanisms, also

identified in VR literature (Steffen et al., 2019) were

named as Adaptability, Agile trials, and High level of

focus, and the fourth a newly identified one named as

Sense-augmented examination of data. Three first

ones were actively used in all studied companies, and

the fourth one was found as very promising in

technical design, bringing very unique and important

possibilities and benefits compared to earlier design

approaches and technologies in building design. All

these mechanisms made use of CVR possibilities in a

way which provided novel possibilities and benefits,

not essentially provided by other traditional design

approaches, making fundamentally in-depth use of

unique CVR possibilities in building design.

These fundamental mechanisms were

quintessential in enhancing the efficient design

collaboration in new ways, as well as in enhancing the

related knowledge transfer between design

stakeholders and enabling the co-creation of new

knowledge by three major ways:

 Enabling fast and agile design experiments.

 Eliminating distractions and focusing

efficiently the attention of design participants

on desired focal design characteristics and

focal area.

 Adapting the design environment flexibly to

the varying needs and expertise levels of design

participants.

The above mentioned three ways, and the ability

to combine them in various design tasks, can be seen

largely responsible for providing the unique

opportunities and benefits from CVR in building

design.

In relation to our second research question, why

the mechanisms were beneficial and important in

collaborative building design, all the identified

collaboration-supporting fundamental mechanisms of

CVR were found to enhance better technical building

design outcomes, more qualified processes and

enhanced resource efficiency. The mechanisms were

seen to contribute to the more qualified and efficient

acquisition and transfer of knowledge, especially tacit

and experiential knowledge, in the building design

phase of the facility life cycle.

In particular, the mechanisms were found to

enable the participation of new stakeholders in the

design processes. Due to the fragmentation of the

AEC industry it has been challenging to engage

different stakeholders in the technical building design

processes (Miettinen and Paavola, 2014). In

accordance with previous studies (Goulding et al.,

2014), the collaboration and communication between

different stakeholders in technical building design

processes were noted to impact on higher quality of

design processes as well as enhanced resource

efficiency. The identified mechanisms of CVR were

found to enable much wider participation of different

stakeholders, e.g. best experts, end-users, other

decision makers, and thus enable the more qualitative

and effective knowledge transfer.

Possibilities for enhancing knowledge transfer are

especially prominent in the technical building design

phase, as crucial and long-lasting decisions affecting

the major part of the costs of a building are made

especially in the building phase of the facility life

cycle (Bullinger et al., 2010; Goulding et al., 2014).

CVR and the fundamental mechanisms were found to

enable the acquisition of fast feedback from end users

and other stakeholders already in the very early

phases of the facility life cycle. This enabled early

identification of mistakes, thus affecting more

qualified building design and better risk management.

Regarding our third research question, how does

CVR function as a boundary object enabling

knowledge transfer between the

stakeholders building design actors, CVR was found

to meet the general criteria and be aligned with the

definition and main functions of a boundary object in

the way Star and Griesemer (1989) described it in the

literature, and CRV was seen to utilize the certain

characteristic of boundary objects; processes,

artefacts and discourses (Fominykh et al., 2016;

Wenger 2000). Our study revealed that VR models

were performing as an artefact type of boundary

objects in the way Papadonikolaki et al. (2019)

described them to contribute to collaboration and

managing the projects. The identified boundary

objects were seen to have an important role in how

CVR functions as a boundary in the technical

building design processes facilitating

communication, collaboration, and in particular

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

knowledge transfer between cross-disciplinary

facility life cycle stakeholder groups.

Interestingly, the collaborative VR and related

knowledge transfer was currently carried out in

technical design through ‘hybrid VR processes’. The

hybrid processes are defined in the Result section.

The main reasons mentioned for the extent of hybrid

processes were established practices in the industry,

the limited maturity and knowhow of the usage of VR

technology in the AEC industry in general,

limitations in VR technology and software in the

companies as well as the unwillingness of some

stakeholders to utilize VR, or possibility of

experiencing cybersickness. However, the potential

and benefits of VR technology has been recognized

and there is a noticeable interest experimenting with

it. The utilization of hybrid VR processes in building

design might at least partly change in the future, the

exact direction of development being still open.

The identified fundamental collaboration-

supporting mechanisms of CVR, Adaptability, Agile

trials, High level of focus and Sense-augmented

examination of data, were found to significantly

support the functionality of the identified CVR

related boundary objects, artefacts, processes and

discourses, and hence enhance collaboration in

technical building design. This is in accordance with

previous studies (e.g. An and Powe, 2015) on how the

adaptability of VR provided focus for better

translation of expert and end user findings, improving

mutual understanding and collaboration between

various stakeholder groups.

All the fundamental mechanisms were found to be

connected closely to the identified boundary objects:

Adaptability mechanism was found to support the

flexible adaptation of the information in VR design

model (artefact boundary object) to particular use

case and expertise level of the actors in the design

process, and hence support the better

comprehensibility of the technical building designs to

be inspected. Thus, the centralized problem solving

and achievement of common meaning across

different stakeholders were supported. High level of

focus mechanism was seen to enhance the quality of

discourses (boundary object) by focusing the

attention of participants better on desired targets, and

thus also the process (boundary object) flow within

the VR model sessions was streamlined. Agile trials

mechanism was found to enable fast

experimentations in VR, even with multiple

iterations, which significantly supported the usability

of the design processes (boundary objects).

The newly identified mechanism, the Sense-

augmented examination of data, was seen to provide

totally new reality dimensions to the processes and

discourses of the CVR supported design sessions.

Provided that the related VR technologies and

software are further evolving in this respect, this was

seen to significantly transform the possibilities of VR

to better identify, acquire and utilize data in building

design processes which are not realizable in the real

world and with current design means.

5.1 Academic Contribution

The study contributes to academic research by

providing a deeper understanding of the role of CVR

as an adaptable boundary object, and how CVR

functions as boundary object. The aim of the study

was to examine what type of boundary objects

(processes, artefacts and discourses) are manifested in

CVR specifically in the technical building design

processes, while the role of boundary objects have not

been earlier, to our knowledge, been more

specifically researched and understood in

construction industry and technical building design.

To this purpose, we also explained how relevant and

beneficial CVR and related BO’s are in this context.

The study also improved the understanding of

four fundamental mechanisms of CVR, which

contribute to identified boundary objects, as well as

the better quality and resource efficiency of technical

building design processes. The findings indicate that

CVR, as characteristic to boundary objects, enhances

knowledge transfer in the technical building design

processes.

5.2 Managerial Contribution

This study contributes managerially to the practices

of building design actors, especially in the technical

building design phase. AEC stakeholders can use

these findings to acquire better quality feedback faster

from current and new stakeholders already in the very

early phases of the facility life cycle. The study helps

to understand how four fundamental mechanisms of

collaborative VR enable better collaboration and co-

creation activities in building design than current

methods used. The achieved benefits are significant.

CVR enables better quality building design outcomes

and more qualified processes with less risks, cost and

time resources in technical building design processes.

The utilization of CVR in building design processes

does not necessarily mean that all the design activities

will be implemented in the VR environment. The

hybrid model implementations provide versatile

possibilities to utilize specific aspects of virtual and

real-life collaboration modes from different actors.

Collaborative Virtual Reality as an Adaptable Boundary Object in the Design Phase of Facility Life Cycle

5.3 Limitations and Future Research

There are certain limitations which limit the usage

and generalizability of this study. The main limitation

is that the study was based on interviews with five

persons from three companies. A larger number of

interviews would improve the conﬁdence in the

conclusion on CVR and boundary objects. However,

this sampling strategy was deemed to be necessary to

collect relevant data on CVR as it is currently only in

limited use in pioneering companies. The

interviewees are focusing on R&D and innovation

activities in the technical building design phases of

the facility life cycle. Generalizing of the findings to

the building design as a whole cannot be directly

done. The functionality of CVR as a boundary object

can be applied to the other phases of the facility life

cycle, but cannot be evaluated in detail how, based on

this study.

Further research should be conducted in other

phases of the facility life cycle. The utilization of

collaborative VR as a boundary object will be in those

phases in a different form. The innovative approach

could be to further study CVR as a boundary object,

how it benefits new stakeholders and improves

building designs. Moreover, VR hardware and

software are evolving rapidly. There will be more

opportunities available for CVR: the usage of virtual

environments will become more popular,

competencies and readiness to utilize virtual tools

will evolve, and new collaborative characteristics and

features in collaborative VR will increase. When the

adoption has increased and generalized, further

studies will be needed on what kind of effect this will

have on the exploitability of the results.

REFERENCES

An, K. and Powe, N. (2015). Enhancing ‘Boundary Work'

Through the Use of Virtual Reality: Exploring the

Potential within Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment, Journal of Environmental Policy &

Planning, 17:5, 673-690.

Affendy, N. and Wanis, I. (2019). A Review on

Collaborative Learning Environment across Virtual and

Augmented Reality Technology. Joint Conference on

Green Engineering Technology & Applied Computing

2019, IOP Publishing IOP Conf. Series: Materials

Science and Engineering 551.

Bullinger, H. J., Bauer, W., Wenzel, G., & Blach, R. (2010).

Towards user centred design (UCD) in architecture

based on immersive virtual environments. Computers

in Industry, 61(4), 372–379.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2009.12.003

Churchill, E. F., & Snowdon, D. (1998). Collaborative

virtual environments: an introductory review of issues

and systems. virtual reality, 3(1), 3-15.

Du, J., Zou, Z., Shi, Y., & Zhao, D. (2018). Zero latency:

Real-time synchronization of BIM data in virtual reality

for collaborative decision-making. Automation in

Construction, 85(August 2016), 51–64.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.009

Fominykh, M., Prasolova-Førland, Y., Divitini, M. &

Petersen, A. (2016). Boundary objects in collaborative

work and learning, S. Inf Syst Front, 18, 85–102.

Ghauri, P., Grønhaug, K., & Strange, R. (2020). Research

Methods in Business Studies (5th ed.). Dorchester, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Goulding, J. S., Rahimian, F. P., & Wang, X. (2014).

Virtual reality-based cloud BIM platform for integrated

AEC projects. Journal of Information Technology in

Construction, 19, 308–325.

Heydarian, A., Carneiro, J. P., Gerber, D., Becerik-Gerber,

B., Hayes, T., & Wood, W. (2015). Immersive virtual

environments versus physical built environments: A

benchmarking study for building design and user-built

environment explorations. Automation in Construction,

54, 116–126.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.03.020

Hilfert, T., & König, M. (2016). Low-cost virtual reality

environment for engineering and construction.

Visualization in Engineering, 4(1), 2.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40327-015-0031-5

Kuliga, S. F., Thrash, T., Dalton, R. C., & Hölscher, C.

(2015). Virtual reality as an empirical research tool -

Exploring user experience in a real building and a

corresponding virtual model. Computers, Environment

and Urban Systems, 54, 363–375.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.09.006

Miettinen, R., & Paavola, S. (2014). Beyond the BIM

utopia: Approaches to the development and

implementation of building information modeling.

Automation in Construction, 43, 84–91.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.03.009

Mäenpää. A., Suominen, A. H., & Breite, R. (2016).

Boundary Objects as Part of Knowledge Integration for

Networked Innovation. Technology Innovation

Management Review, 6(10): 25–36.

http://timreview.ca/article/1025

Olechnowicz, C. (2018). Immersed in Fire: The Use of

Virtual Reality as an Attitude Assessor and Boundary

Object in Wildland Fire Management. Electronic

Theses and Dissertations, 2837. Retrieved from

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/2837.

Paes, D., Arantes, E., & Irizarry, J. (2017). Immersive

environment for improving the understanding of

architectural 3D models: Comparing user spatial

perception between immersive and traditional virtual

reality systems. Automation in Construction,

84(August 2016), 292–303.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.09.016

Papadonikolaki, E., van Oel, C., and Kagioglou, M. (2019).

Organising and Managing boundaries: A structurational

view of collaboration with Building Information

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

Modelling (BIM) International Journal of Project

Management 37, 378–394.

Patton. M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation

methods. 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Perry, T. S. (2015). Virtual reality goes social. IEEE

Spectrum, 53(1), 56–57.

https://doi.org/10.1109/mspec.2016.7367470

Portman, M. E., Natapov, A., & Fisher-Gewirtzman, D.

(2015). To go where no man has gone before: Virtual

reality in architecture, landscape architecture and

environmental planning. Computers, Environment and

Urban Systems, 54, 376–384.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.05.001

Sutherland, I. E. (1965). The ultimate display. Multimedia:

From Wagner to virtual reality, 506-508.

Slater, M. (2018). Immersion and the illusion of presence

in virtual reality. British Journal of Psychology, 109(3),

431-433.

Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2016). Enhancing our

lives with immersive virtual reality. Frontiers in

Robotics and AI, 3, 74.

Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology,

‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and

professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate

zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3),

387–420.

Steffen, J. H., Gaskin, J. E., Meservy, T. O., Jenkins, J. L.,

& Wolman, I. (2019). Framework of Affordances for

Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 36(3), 683–729.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1628877

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social

learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and

methods. 4th Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Collaborative Virtual Reality as an Adaptable Boundary Object in the Design Phase of Facility Life Cycle