Productivity in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry is lacking. Projects in the industry have become larger and complex, leading to increasing amounts of information involved in the life cycle of a project. The low productivity of the construction industry over the previous decades has been linked to a ‘lack of communication and collaboration through information sharing’ (Boktor et al., 2014). In response, the industry has been searching for ways to systematize information sharing in a project. Building Information Modelling (BIM) has been widely embraced by the AEC industry as the answer to the difficulties in the industry. However, the implementation of BIM has not gone as smoothly as hoped. Extensive research has been done towards the barriers to BIM implementation and has resulted in the identification of three main categories of barriers: people, process, and technology. However, these results fail to acknowledge BIM is not the only method for communication in a project. The AEC industry is a knowledge-based industry that heavily relies on the experience of the people and their ability to collaborate with one another. This research considers a communication processes adept to the exchange of tacit knowledge, messy talk. In this research, the relationship between BIM and messy talk will be studied using activity theory. The main question reads: How can an organization enable effective project team context communication practices in BIM-enabled construction projects?

The research is made up of three phases and was conducted using qualitative methods. The first phase consisted of creating a comprehensive understanding of the two concepts of this research, the use of BIM in BIM-enabled construction projects and messy talk.

The second phase of the research was focused on testing this research proposition based on empirical data, collected through interviews and a case study. The empirical analysis was done using activity theory. Activity theory is a descriptive theory, well-suited to mapping so-called activity systems. The results from the activity systems analysis show that there are two scenarios in which messy talk occurs, characterized by the difference in the relationship of BIM and messy talk. The two scenarios, labelled as “problem identification” and “solution ideation”, can be linked to different aspects of the problem-solving cycle. Problem-solving requires both tacit and explicit knowledge. In comparing the two scenarios, the prompt of the messy talk as well as the intended outcome of the activity system differs. BIM plays a different role in either scenario, either as a prompt or a resolution. BIM can either be instrumental or the outcome of an interaction depending on the purpose of the messy talk. The output from either scenario of messy talk can act as an input to the other messy talk scenario but this is not bound to timeframe.

Finally, the research is concluded in the third phase, where a strategy for enabling effective communication in a BIM-enabled construction is designed using the results from the empirical research. Based on the tensions and coping mechanisms identified in the activity systems, management interventions have been designed with the purpose of enabling messy talk, BIM, or both of these processes. 11 management interventions in the areas of team, instruments, external organizations, and leadership were identified to enable the communicative practices combining BIM and messy talk. The two scenarios can be placed in the larger design phase, thereby offering insights as to which management intervention should be employed when. These management interventions and as such the strategy can be tailored to an organization’s needs, abilities, and facilities.

Further research is needed to create a more complete understanding of the relationship between BIM and messy talk. From this research, several areas of interest came up. These include further elements with an influence on the occurrence of messy talk, such as culture, division of labour or experience. Furthermore, similar research could be done to create an understanding of the role of messy talk in other phases of a construction project. Moreover, empirical data collection was limited, as such it could be worthwhile to do similar research with data collected from a broader array of project team interaction moments or from another party involved in the design phase or later stage of the project life cycle.