4.1. Phase 1: rise

Over the course of my professional career as a construction expert, working in the French construction industry for over 10 years, I have had the chance to accumulate sufficient knowledge about construction practices and procedures operated in France. Everything held constant – or in other words, for an external observer – the construction industry in France seems to be functioning just fine (which is true in general!), yet when it comes to smart constructions specificly, it certainly is not.

Just a few years back, the smart city concept started to grow in popularity and advance. It eventually turned into a global trend. Consequently, I, myself, being passionate about the topic, thought of creating a research-and-development department within the general contracting company I own to better understand the question of smart cities. Truthfully, it is not just the smart city concept that drew my attention, but also the current structure of the construction industry’s value chain. Indeed, my aim was to figure out whether the latter is resourcefully designed to allow for companies to undertake smart construction projects and ensure their success in the long run. While being acquainted with the construction industry in Anglo-Saxon economies, I even questioned whether a construction company like the one I am heading could be integrated into the chain and be part of the solution to the various problems France-based construction companies are currently facing.

In France, the construction industry is highly fragmented and state-controlled, so suggesting something new and inciting construction actors to espouse it would not be an easy task to fulfill. I am fully aware of that. Nonetheless, the idea that I had in mind was vital and so, I assumed that it was worth the effort.

At the beginning, I believed that the main problem that was preventing the construction industry from flourishing was the existing mismatch between supply and demand. And the solution, I alleged, may simply take the form of a more adequate offering that could better fit the real needs and aspirations of end-users. Although my solution was to some extent legitimate, I suspected that a more detailed investigation of the topic would be necessary so that I could possibly come up with a global solution that could benefit not just my own company, but the entire construction industry. For that reason, I made the decision to investigate the smart city concept further and endow my research with some scientific credibility. To say the least, the decision I made enabled me to focus my efforts and work on the topic in question, and come up with a proposition that holds value in its layers.

Indeed, my research aimed to identify problems hindering the functioning of the French construction industry and suggest plausible solutions that could set it back on the right path for growth. As previously noted, urbanization is putting intense pressure on cities to innovate and magnify their appeal. The same goes for construction companies, who are obliged to rethink their offerings, so they better match with current market requirements. In France, at least to date, things do not appear to be rolling in the right direction. The inadequate BM on which the French construction industry is now operating has been significantly affecting the latter’s performance and productivity. In other words, this implies that a change must be implemented in the industry’s current value chain, so that it can better cope with shifting market realities and redress its economic figures. The suggested BMI revolves around a GC to be integrated into the industry’s value chain, in an endeavor to bridge the various gaps found along it.

I interviewed various individuals (e.g. architecture firms, multidisciplinary design offices, smart city experts, public developers and others) to gather practical insights into topics discussed openly regarding the innovation I am proposing. Nevertheless, before I reached the interviews, I first did some exploratory research on the topics of smart cities, BMs, and GCs, in order to draft a discussion guide on which my discourse with interviewees would be structured.

The several readings I did, referring to both academic and nonacademic publications, somewhat confirmed my suspicions that the industry’s BM is dysfunctional and that, consequently, some incremental radical changes should be brought to it. Moreover, they actually helped me to draft a review of the literature on the topics in question. Whether based on personal intuitions or insights gathered through interviews, all data pointed towards one thing: the need for a new entity to be consigned for the running and management of large construction projects, from initiation to closure.

My idea of a new GC BM was originally inspired by Flyvbjerg (2014), who put emphasis on the need for a new entrepreneurial entity to conduct lengthy megaprojects. Instead of thin slicing projects into numerous subprojects and executing them as part of disconnected arrangements, the authors proposed that the projects should be bundled into one contract, where a private sector entity would be commissioned to oversee and ensure the management of all works required. Furthermore, as mentioned by Virtanen et al. (2014), introducing a central operator into the old construction value chain would result in improved control over the entire construction process in terms of both scheduling and price determination. In addition, the authors avowed that the amount of logistics and pieces held in storage would be condensed and the subordinate quantities of resources that are tied up in the process would be freed. For end-users, they said that the amount of customizability would be significantly amplified.

In the interviews, an architect (whose identity remains concealed) who works in a well renowned, award winning, Île-de-France-based architecture cabinet affirmed that the French construction sector, apart from being fragmented, has now reached a certain level of maturity, where most CVP made are monotonous and outdated. “Innovation is required”, he said, “not essentially technical or technological, but organizational”.

In the context of smart city development, France is still trailing behind and something new is needed for it to catch up. The smart city market’s potential, we proclaim, is huge and France should adjust its ways of doing, so that it can successfully secure its share of it. Largely, the interviewee showed lots of interest in the idea of developing a GC BM for the creation of smart cities. This has comforted me in the sense that the solution that I am trying to craft would crack an issue that several construction actors believe exists – not only myself. Another interview I conducted with the COO of a Multidisciplinary Design Office based in Île-de-France revealed fairly similar conclusions. Precisely, it has been agreed that although the smart city concept is vague and not very well defined in France, such an innovation, at least for the time being, is interesting, as it constitutes an actionable solution to the daily issues faced by the industry’s stakeholders. For the COO:

Though interesting and worth testing, it is hard to believe that such a role would be able to solve all of the problems encountered in the construction industry today. Such an innovation could, however, be part of a bigger, all-inclusive solution.

Another industry expert who was approached and shared their viewpoints vis-à-vis my BMI proposition was a large public developer who has been in charge of implementing several large construction projects in the Île-de-France area. He specialized in the development of eco-quartiers, eco-friendly constructions that are not necessarily smart. After discussing the foundations of his company and the mix of construction processes he usually adopts for the implementation of large projects, he openly asserted that there is a tendency today among public developers to delegate the ownership of their projects to private entities who have the required knowledge and expertise in handling and managing smart developments. This is, we proclaim, a change that pubic developers are in due course of bringing to their BMs.

As reported, although large projects are being successfully built and delivered, they often fall short in terms of meeting end-users’ expectations. Indeed, there is a huge gap between what is being offered today and what end-users are actually expecting. This problem, we proclaim, has nothing to do with companies’ construction processes, but rather their BMs. Time and again, end-users are dissatisfied with the quality of construction works and complain about the state of the final product received. This situation is further aggravated by responsibility diffusion, where, post-delivery of final product, stakeholders claim to not be liable for final-product state, and end-users see themselves struggling to find the entity who is (should be!) in charge of maintenance or after-sale works (e.g. insurance companies and property managers). For the interviewee:

these problems could not be solved unless potential end-users and local communities become partakers in large construction projects. We are now trying to change our BM so that we do not operate in a pure economic-logic anymore.

Indeed, we say, the spectrum of construction projects has been changing recently, widening to cover the social and the environmental, as much as the economic. The interviewee said:

Construction companies today should worry less about the economics of their projects and more about the well-being of citizens. Nowadays, we are investing both time and effort to revise and widen the scope of our BMs so that we can adjust our value propositions to the satisfaction of end-users. If we cannot keep the promise we make to end-users at the start of the project, then there is definitely something wrong in the BM that we are operating on.

Often, value created in the very early stages of the production chain is lost in the later – more advanced – stages. This difficulty, we aver, could be resolved once a specialized entity has been consigned to oversee and keep track of all works performed at each construction stage. In conclusion, the smart city conferences and exhibitions I attended – mainly the Smart City & Smart Grids Exhibition and the Forum Smart City du Grand Paris – were useful as they have given further meaning to my BM proposition. Indeed, they clarified the nuance that smart city projects should not in any way solely revolve around the technical and technological. As communicated, gadgetizing our cities would not inevitably make them more attractive to people, but on the contrary, we risk making them less humane. We intend to make our cities smarter by reinventing them, and reinventing them is not a simple question of installing smart grids (among others) at city level, but allowing all builds in the city to create a coherent and resilient system where data freely flows from one build to another. The 21st-century challenges (e.g. climate change, energy efficiency and reduced carbon footprint) are numerous, and our cities need to constantly evolve to be able to cope with them. One moderator said:

Reinvesting Paris means summoning all of the creative forces to continue to imagine a city moving ahead in its metropolitan constructions; it is to give our city an original urban radiance so it remains an international attraction; also, it is about imagining new ways for the city to create more wealth and jobs, and encourage data sharing and knowledge exchange among its constituents.

Table 4.2 exhibits the main problems identified in phase one, as well as the solutions suggested for their resolution. Accordingly, a first draft version of our new BM has been envisioned (see Figure 4.2). It accounts for four variables, explicitly: smart city components, construction stages, construction actors and dimensions of a construction project. The color codes were carefully chosen to show inherent similarities between the dimensions of a construction project, on the one hand, and the components of a smart city, on the other hand. Moreover, our choice of variables ensued from our understanding that construction projects are stage-based and that construction works evolve every time we move from one stage to the other. In parallel, we presume that construction actors intervening along the process would change, with one stepping in and another stepping out at each construction stage. Therefore, we say, the execution of construction projects follows a systematic course where the relay, stage after stage, is passed on from one stakeholder to another, and it is their collective effort that would finally result in the building of smart constructions. The dynamics behind our suggested BM are shown in Chapter 5, using a specialized software that was developed to this particular end.

4.2. Phase 2: showcase

In phase 2, after capitalizing on the findings of phase 1, we made a step forward in the direction of building a more comprehensible GC BM for the creation of smart cities. Affirmatively, the exploratory research we did and the findings we gathered gradually nurtured – phase after phase. Further problems were identified and plausible solutions were suggested during this phase.

After brushing up on the industry’s most relevant publications, we noticed that among the various challenges that construction companies face, lay state-imposed construction standards and codes. They are being repeatedly revised at an accelerated pace¹. For construction companies, such tweaks in regulations often ensue in delays in project execution, as on-going projects must be stopped and necessary changes made before construction could resume. Apparently, today, neither construction companies nor the people are able to keep track of those supervisory innovations.

Within this setting, we add some recent texts in construction law (e.g. Élan Law, Article 18, relating to Design-Build contracts)² that seem to favor some specific stakeholders and disfavor others. Largely, some construction actors, mainly architects, are now feeling threatened by such regulatory innovations as the odds of their roles being marginalized are high³. Following the Élan Law, the project owner now has the freedom to deviate from the principle of state law stating that the tasks of the PM and the GC are necessarily distinct. Thus, both tasks could be (alternatively) assigned to a single entity who could concomitantly play both roles. In other words, the project owner may override the process of awarding two separate contracts and entrust the design and the execution of a project either to a group of operators (the so-called in French “ensemblier”) – or to a single private entity via a Design-Build contract. Some exceptions apply though. Those are available in the original text of law, the so-called MOP Law, dating back to 1985. Concisely, such a contract could not be awarded unless two conditions are fulfilled⁴: (1) construction works present a particular technicality and (2) the structure built is subject to a contractual commitment requiring energy efficiency improvement⁵.

Continuing from above, it is obvious that Design-Build contracts are now being endorsed and facilitated by public authorities more, which lays the groundwork for an innovation like the one we are suggesting in this study. Moreover, it is practically conceivable to expect the management and execution of large construction projects to change (for the better) in the near future. Within the realm of contracts, we carry on by stating that big operators, such as Bouygues and Eiffage, have recently used global contracts for their own benefit. Actually, whenever a large construction project is commissioned, big operators tend to subcontract, through passive bidding processes⁶, some or all of the work to third parties. Subcontractors selected for the job are often vulnerable and set to work at near-zero margins. In other words, big operators frequently outsource construction works to the lowest bidders, so that they can keep high margins for themselves. This constricted approach to value creation is one of the main problems that the construction industry is currently facing. At times, big operators may possibly stop the project without even paying the subcontractors. They tend to do so whenever the project is thought to be economically unfeasible, which supervenes in operational issues that accumulate throughout the process to finally reach the end-user. This could partly explain why end-users are often dissatisfied with the final products they get – often being of mediocre quality, unlike the products promised at the start. And so, big operators tend to neglect the well-being of end-users over and over again in a short-sighted attempt to maximize their own profits.

Following a meeting I had with the Chief of Innovation Services at a Multidisciplinary Design Office based in Paris, we agreed that there is an actual need for an innovation at industry level, and that the institution of a new organizational structure for the management of large complex projects is highly recommended. As put by the claimant, as customers’ needs are constantly changing, so should our offerings, otherwise our company will lag behind and see its customer base shrink.

Although most companies would find it difficult to rethink their BMs, they must come up with an innovative strategy that would enable them to redress their market standing and remain competitive in the marketplace: our construction processes are impeccable, yet what is outdated is our customer value propositions.

By focusing on the economics of construction projects, we often neglect the social and environmental. The economics of a project are only worthwhile for construction companies, but are worthless for customers. What customers really care about is the social and environmental aspects of projects, which are so often ignored. According to a Business Development Manager who works at a Multidisciplinary Design Office in Paris:

A smart city does not exist in France – not yet at least. It is the prevalence of short-term financial goals among construction companies that renders our constructions rigid and inefficient. Big operators only care about themselves, their own profits, and do not care about the impact of their projects on people and the environment.

Another architect – specializing in the construction of smart residential structures for the elderly – with whom I had the chance to meet and speak, shared the same viewpoint in this respect, stating that such an innovation (i.e. a GC BM for the building of smart cities) is definitely required: first to palliate the different problems construction companies are currently facing, second to allow France to step into the international (huge) smart city market, and third to ensure that what we are delivering to end-users goes beyond simple walls and roads. The architect said:

Apparently, today, construction companies, big ones in particular, are working on hedging their portfolios by rethinking their own BMs – or say, by extending their scope of work so they can better satisfy all market needs and requirements.

Indeed, some France-based construction companies are currently seeking to espouse the role of an integrator by trying to extend their business activities, in an endeavor to cover the entire value chain, down to upstream⁷. For these companies, any attempt to conceive the city of tomorrow without the help of local communities would be destined to fail. Thus, we affirm that a smart city cannot be built without a successful collaboration between all stakeholders immersed in the project, including end-users.

Hence, under this vision, end-users should become active construction actors who co-conceive and co-design smart projects along with construction companies. To this end, organizing public hearing sessions (concessions) with local communities and potential end-users is a stepping-stone to allow end-users to start playing a more active role in the conception and building of smart cities, and boost social acceptability for the smart structures built. Shockingly, it is only recently that big operators realized that conceiving smart cities following a top-down approach would fail. They saw their financial earns drop and their stocks of unsold units grow. And so, they realized that smart cities cannot be built without cooperation with end-users, following a bottom-up approach.

Within this framework – and according to the General Manager of a financial company whose activities are focused on social housing – the GC role may only be consigned by the project owner (or big private operators). A maven in construction, they would play the role of a delegated project owner, replacing the often-deemed-incompetent original project owner throughout the entire project lifecycle, and be held responsible for the success or failure of the project. They would oversee all construction works carried out and synchronize the tasks of different actors involved in the process.

The diversity of stakeholders (e.g. architects, engineers, urban planners, contractors and subcontractors) involved in construction projects is not a problem per se – the interviewee signposted – but on the contrary, it is a healthy thing, yet what is needed today is someone, an entity that can orchestrate and direct their works, to ensure that they are being achieved harmoniously rather than separately, and ensure that the project is delivered on time and within budget. This is important as faulty estimates are often seen as a key characteristic of large construction projects – a problem that often leads to budget overruns, thus pushing construction companies to adopt cost-cutting measures in an endeavor to meet their project’s budget. Such measures, we proclaim, habitually influence the social and environmental rather than economic aspects of the project. This is true as construction companies are less inclined to sacrifice part of their economic returns to uphold the agreed upon social-and-environmental specificities of the project.

Moving forward, during my conversation with Mr. V.B., a program director at a well-known university in Paris, the topic of social housing was raised. In social housing (relative to private housing), citizens are at the core of the BM. In Mr. V.B.’s words:

The viability of the social housing model is greater than that of private housing because the former is maintained and preserved via public governance schemes, by which the life span of properties could be distended. The social housing model, reinforced by a smart governance structure within which citizens are key actors, may be adopted for the conception and building of smart cities. Such a model would ensure co-conceived constructions are accessible and affordable for all.

For construction companies – mainly private ones – social housing remains an underserved market, an opportunity they should seize in their furious attempt to build smart cities. In conclusion, a university professor specialized in issues of socioeconomic and territorial changes, whom I met during the Smart City’s Exhibition held in Paris, insisted on the fact that the successful building and running of smart cities is primarily a question of governance and financing, hence the need for both central operators who could bring all the constituents of a smart city together, and investors who could procure the monetary funds required for the building of the city:

Unless there is a certain form of interoperability between the different components of a city, the latter would not in any way be deemed smart.

Per se, a smart city is a platform or an ecosystem where all of its builds communicate with one another. Communication, he added, is often facilitated through technology. In addition, by allowing the free flow of data within the city, people could use it to come up with innovative ideas that could be exploited to further enhance the city’s performance and appeal. Therefore, we affirm, building a smart city is an ongoing process that is subject to continuous improvements. Thus, a BM that is specifically catered for smart cities should be flexible and adaptable in the sense that it should fit in to any improvements made.

Table 4.3 illustrates the main problems identified in phase 2 and the solutions suggested for their resolve. Here, we wish to reiterate that the problems and solutions listed are only headlines and will be explored in further detail in Chapter 5. Accordingly, a second draft of the BM has been created (see Figure 4.3).

As is evident, some significant improvements have been made to the first version of our proposed BM – with some variables added and others replaced in version two:

– The TLBMC, being a strategic management tool, has been opted for so we could better reflect the various dimensions of a construction project, namely: economic, social and environmental. In the TLBMC, dimensions (version 1 of BM) are rather connoted layers (version 2 of BM). And within each layer, corresponding building blocks were added. The TLBMC allowed us to narrow down our problem-solution analysis, and served as a scheme for the portrayal of our GC BM. In other words, the various problems identified and solutions suggested at each phase of the BM design process would ultimately be allotted across the numerous builds of the TLBMC.

– Given that innovation is often enabled by technology, we chose to add the BIM (Building Information Modelling) Process into our BM, a tool that GCs, in partnership with other key stakeholders, could use to better plan, design, build and manage large construction projects.

– Finally, we drew the boundaries of our GC BM for the creation of smart cities. Indeed, four variables were identified, explicitly: (1) legal and institutional aspects; (2) construction standards and codes; (3) financing; and (4) social acceptability. Indeed, we say, any construction project, smart or not, cannot be executed unless it complies with state-imposed rules and regulations – including construction codes and standards; it cannot be built unless the required funds are secured first, and, finally, cannot be sold unless requested and accepted by end-users.

4.3. Phase 3: maturity

In phase 3, we affirm that our envisioned GC BM has reached a certain level of maturity and is somehow complete. We are not proclaiming that our GC BM is perfect, not at all. It is simply a serious attempt in the direction of creating an artifact that construction companies in France (or anywhere in the world) could use to better tackle the question of smart cities.

Ensuing from our findings in phase 2, I carried on my investigation by fine-tuning the second version of the GC BM. Based on a meeting I had with the Business Development Manager at a large construction corporation, I was able to gather some invaluable insights about customers’ real needs, mainly what they want and what they aspire to get. To quote the interviewee: “a sociologist once said, what people actually want is to feel like they are permanently on vacation”. Although they live in the city, the village must be brought to them – hence, the importance of encouraging smart initiatives like the Chinese made urban-village. Besides walls and roads, construction companies must look at construction from a different perspective, to include green spaces, entertainment zones, parks, benches and others in their offerings.

For the interviewee, people are not seeking complexity, but simplicity. It is the most basic that has the most value in their eyes. Construction companies should, as a result, widen their scope of how the city of tomorrow should be built and look like, otherwise they may fail to deliver and eventually be evicted from the market. Customers care about the little details and appreciate eco-friendly construction practices. Therefore, everything that generates less pollution and allows for energy consumption reduction is often admired by customers. Besides, construction companies should not pretend to know what people actually want, because they do not. Customers should be part of the process, and it is only when companies and communities cooperate together that large construction projects are destined to succeed. At the building level, the interviewee affirmed, it is important for companies to keep a close eye on the design and modules of the ground floor. In his viewpoint, it is this part of the building that will eventually decide whether the latter would sell or not – whether a neighborhood is livable or not – whether a city is appealing or not. The ground floors of buildings indicate the dynamics of a city. Smart cities, once built, are likely to be job creators; indeed, a community or a property manager must be hired to ensure that all components of the city are interrelated and all systems are working as intended (e.g. waste collection, grid management, energy consumption, space management and others).

Technically speaking, whenever an idea of a large project springs to mind, the execution of that project follows a sequential process that extends from the day the company meets with the public landlord and makes them a proposition about the envisioned project, to getting state permits and permissions, to finally settling through concessions with local communities on a clear expose of what the city would entail and resemble.

In our envisioned BM, integrating the GC as a construction maven in the value chain does not mean that they would have the exclusiveness of fulfilling all works required in the project. Their role is mainly managerial, to oversee and ensure the provision of all necessary trades for the accomplishment of the project. Under the GC BM, as under any other BM, groundworks may possibly be outsourced to third parties who would operate under the supervision of the GC. Also, we note that, nowadays, in France, the world smartness, often misplaced, is being used by construction companies as a mere marketing tool that allows them to sell their final products faster and at higher prices. Until construction companies are held accountable or take responsibility for their actions, the interviewee declared, companies will continue labeling and selling their products as being eco-friendly and smart, while in reality they are not. Corporate social responsibility is a key topic that should be seriously considered in the realm of smart cities, especially for construction companies. Also, given that decision-making is often decentralized in the construction industry, the likelihood of mix-ups occurring in conception and execution plans is high. The interviewee said:

This gives further credibility to your proposition, as once decision-making is centralized in the hands of one entity, such flaws would be dodged. The maladministration of documentations, often resulting from records dispersed in the hands of numerous stakeholders, would also be escaped.

We assert that under the GC BM, the GC – along with other stakeholders, among them end-users – would take part in both the conception and execution of the project. Smart cities cannot be built without team effort, collaboratively rather than individually. Hence, it is a process of value creation (for all) through value networking (by all). Whenever we work individually (without supervision), each one of us would seek our own interest, yet under the GC BM, the odds of the collective interest being served are higher. This is crucial as most propositions made to customers today lack value. Smart cities are never about the technology nor the structure, but about the humane and the livable. Smart cities are mainly a question of smart governance and smart people. All other components come second. They are an assortment of different things, including the environment. The latter should be given further attention by construction companies. By using both smart technologies or systems and sustainable construction materials, the yield that we would expect at the end of the process would inevitably be eco-friendly, sustainable and smart. And so, smart cities are complete packages, including different components that should be considered and thought of before the project begins. Under our GC BM, GCs could be defined as the entities who are in charge of bringing all city components together, which aligns with the experience of Copenhagen, Denmark, in the domain of smart cities.

The GC BM, we found, is a necessity today in the construction market in France, since most of the companies operating in the market are small and specialized in a particular field. The problems listed thus far seem to be common to almost all construction companies operating in France. The innovation we are suggesting is correctional rather than disruptive. And, we presume, it would be beneficial for all: for project owners because they would have to sign one agreement with only one entity, instead of several, who would handle of all the risks associated with the project; also, for small-sized construction companies who often handle micro-scale construction projects, having only one correspondent to talk to throughout the entire construction process is regarded as an invaluable innovation. And so, we conclude, if such an innovation is required for micro-scale projects, what would it be for macro-scale projects? To conclude my investigation regarding smart cities, I held several meetings with Mr. C.R., a professor at a very well-known University in Paris, where we both agreed on the fact that the right departure point for any future research on smart cities would consist of deciphering the notion of smart cities, first by embarking upon all academic research on the topic, then by attempting to make an innovative and scientifically proven proposition in this field. Within this context, I, together with Mr. C.R. and a few other scholars, proceeded by creating a committee of researchers (including Ph.D. students and university professors) to conduct further research on the question of smart cities and smart territories, a work that, we hope, would eventually lead to the creation of a research center (Symbioter – as we thought of naming it) that would be specialized in the study of the circular economy, territorial development and human-centric smart cities.

Table 4.4 shows the main problems identified in phase 3 and the solutions suggested for their resolution. Accordingly, a third and final version of the BM has been envisioned – illustrated in Figure 4.4. We reiterate, color codes were meticulously chosen to reflect potential dependencies between the BM’s six sequentially ordered constructs: construction stage, BIM process, construction actors, TLBM layers, smart city components and TLBMC building blocks. As you would notice, a technical layer has been added to the TLBMC. It was added to fit in all technical aspects of construction projects, and also to account for all aspects that could not fit in other layers. Besides, the BM’s boundaries were colored based on their prospective links with both smart city components and TLBMC layers: financing revolves around the economic, social acceptability around the social, and construction standards and codes – and legal and institutional requirements around the technical. Governance with smart city components has a unique color, as governance could have different forms: social, economic, technical and others.

4.3.1. The six-stratum business model

In the next sections, we briefly explain each of the six strata (variables) forming our envisioned GC BM for the building of smart cities. Following a sequential order, we first embark upon the model’s pivotal (first) stratum, which is the construction stage, going through the BIM process, construction actors, TLBMC layers and smart city components, all the way to TLBMC building blocks, being the model’s final stratum. The latter would help us portray the problems identified and solutions suggested earlier across four dimensions of construction projects: economic, social, environmental and technical.

4.3.1.1. Construction stages

Every stakeholder involved in the process of planning, designing, constructing and operating physical facilities related to the (smart) project under consideration, gains different viewpoints on project management for construction. The contribution of proficient knowledge could be very helpful, mainly when it comes to large and complicated projects, since stakeholders in various specialties could offer valuable services. On the contrary, it is very essential and advantageous to understand how the different parts of the process match together. As previously evoked, the poor coordination and communication among stakeholders may eventually lead to excessive costs and delays. Hence, it is chiefly the requirement of the (delegated) project owner that is, in our case, the GC, to assure that such flaws do not take place. And all stakeholders involved in the project should regard the interests of project owners – represented by GCs throughout the entire project process – as at the end – it is them who would provide the resources and make the decisions.

The implementation of the GC’s viewpoint would help stakeholders to focus on the completion of the project by having proper attention on the process of project management for constructed facilities. This, we proclaim, would curtail the old concept of making decisions based on the historical roles of stakeholders involved in the project, namely: multidisciplinary design offices, urban planners, architects, engineers, construction staff, material suppliers, ICT companies and end-users (among others). There is no doubt that each individual stakeholder would have a lot of contribution to the advances of construction projects⁸ – yet, we trust, the understanding of the entire process of project management would make them respond more effectively to the GC’s requirements. Consequently, they could contribute their proficiency through opinions in improving the productivity and quality of their work. The enhancement of project management boosts the construction industry, which in turn facilitates the development of regional and national economy (thus, cultivating the allure of the city). To have significant improvements, we should be familiar with the construction industry, its working environment and the legal and institutional constraints that are likely to influence its activities and the nature of project management.

Generally, a standard construction project is divided into six major lifecycle phases (see Chapter 2 for more details in this regard) – enumerated and described below:

4.3.1.1.1. Initiation and conception

With any construction project, the first step should be to determine whether or not it is actually feasible and therefore, whether it should go ahead. This is the point at which the project objectives or needs are acknowledged; this could be a business problem or opportunity. A suitable response to the needs is documented in a business case with recommended solution options. Some preliminary feasibility studies are then conducted to examine whether each option clearly addresses the project objectives, and a final recommended solution is then put forward.

Many questions related to issues of feasibility are raised and addressed during this phase, for instance: could and should we do the project? When a solution is approved, a project is initiated to implement the accepted solution. At this stage, the main deliverables and stakeholders that would partake in the process are identified. This is the time when the project team begins to take shape. Approval from the GC is then required in order to move onto the detailed planning phase. GCs, architects, ICT companies and end-users all play a key role during this phase of the construction process.

4.3.1.1.2. Planning

The planning phase involves further detailed development of the project to meet project objectives. The GC identifies all of the work that needs to be achieved. The tasks and resources required for the project are determined, along with the strategy for producing them. In a broader sense, the identification of each activity and its associated resource allocation are also carried out. A project plan outlining the activities, tasks, dependencies and timeframes is created.

The GC – along with other key stakeholders, such as architects, engineers and ICT companies – is the person who handles scope management. This involves coordinating the preparation of a project budget by providing cost estimates for labor, equipment and materials. The estimated budget is then used to monitor and control expenditure during project implementation. Finally, the GC prepares several documents that outline the quality plan, providing quality targets, assurance and control measures – as well as the acceptance plan, listing the criteria to be met to gain customer acceptance. At this point, the project will have been planned in detail and will be ready for launch and execution.

4.3.1.1.3. Launch and execution

During this stage, the project plan is set in motion and work begins on site. The GC spends a considerable amount of time dealing with this part of the process. Throughout the project implementation, different stakeholders carry out a variety of tasks, and progress is reported via regular project team meetings.

4.3.1.1.4. Monitoring and control

The GC would use all information identified in the previous stage to preserve control over the direction of the project, by comparing the progress reports with the project plan to measure the performance of the project activities. If any deviation is noticed from the already defined plan, corrective measures are made. The first option of action should always be to bring the project back to the original plan. Nevertheless, if this is impossible to do, the GC may proceed by recording deviations from the original plan, and recording and publishing adjustments made to the plan. Throughout this step, investors (sponsors) and other key stakeholders (including the original project owner) are kept informed about the project’s status. Generally, status reports must always highlight the probable end point in terms of cost, schedule and quality of deliverables. Also, each project deliverable produced should be reviewed for quality and measured against the acceptance criteria. When deliverables have been produced and the customer has agreed on the final solution, the project is said to be ready for closure.

4.3.1.1.5. Closure

During closure, the importance is on providing the final deliverables to end-users, that is, handing over project documentation to the project organization, terminating supplier contracts, releasing project resources, communicating the closure of the project to all stakeholders and conducting lessons-learned studies.

4.3.1.1.6. Restore, renovate, remodel

A few years after closure, there is a chance that the project delivered might require maintenance, thus it is up to the GC (or assigned specialized entity) to decide whether the property should be restored, renovated or remodeled. In a nutshell, restoration is the process in which the building would be returned to its original condition. It includes simple repairs to be made to the property. Renovation, on the contrary, is the process of renewing a building or structure by fixing what is already present and in some cases adding new components. Often, renovations are done in conjunction with restorations, as we could decide to restore a given property and modernize it at the same time. Finally, remodeling involves changing the entire structure of a given property or structure. Relative to restoration and renovation, remodeling is much more labor-intensive and costly.

4.3.1.2. BIM process

The BIM process founds stratum 2 of our GC BM. It is directly linked to stratum 1: the construction stage. By combining the two, we allowed for an additional breakdown of construction stages, and so, a better trailing of construction works carried out at each stage. The tie between the two strata is shown in Figure 4.5.

Given the broadness and immensity of the BIM process (a total of ten phases), it is essential to locate oneself within it⁹. Today, France-based construction companies, mainly those using BIM to keep track of their construction project processes, do not develop BIM building models, but rather BIM models that define and specify the building or structure to be built. Precisely, they do not model the construction site and do not consider the details and phases of the building systems that would be used to build the building or structure. In other words, they model the structure to be built, not the process of building that structure. Hence, we affirm, BIM is often misconstrued and its potential not fully exploited by construction companies. This is factual since the software could be used to develop a BIM model that not only considers the various stages of a construction site, but also the construction processes (see Figure 4.6). Hence, we avow, BIM is a set of policies, processes and technologies that, together, generate a methodology for the process of designing smart constructions, testing their performance, and managing their information and data using digital platforms.

Besides, BIM is applicable to the entire lifecycle of a construction project, from the conception and creation of a construction project idea, through project development and construction; until after the work is completed, and the final product is delivered and occupied – the reason why we chose to integrate it into our GC BM. Also, based on the scope and objectives of the construction project, BIM may possibly be used to build various models at different stages of a construction project’s lifecycle, while considering the consolidation of data resulting from the evolution of the project and the process of defining constructive solutions and specifications. BIM models, we add, may even be used for occupancy management and maintenance. And so, in conclusion, we trust that by integrating BIM into our GC BM, we would be disposed to resourcefully manage smart developments, by avoiding maladministration of project documentation, reducing paperwork, keeping track of every detail throughout the entire lifecycle of a construction project, curbing needless operational costs, and helping to ensure the accurate synchronization and cueing of tasks to be fulfilled by stakeholders involved in the project.

4.3.1.6. TLBMC building blocks

The TLBMC building blocks constitute the sixth and last stratum of our GC BM. Overall, after adding the technical layer to the BMC, the total number of building blocks rose from 27 to 34, hence allowing for a larger breakdown of problems identified and solutions suggested. The economic layer of the BMC accounts for nine key building blocks causally interacting with one another. At this level, the focus is on the economic sphere, that is, the economic profitability of construction projects. The environmental layer, on the contrary, focuses on the lifecycle assessment, measuring the environmental impact of a structure throughout all stages of its life. At this point, companies should concentrate on identifying material environmental issues through tools, such as energy and water use, waste generation, resource depletion, ecosystems destruction, and negative effects on public health and life. Once a critical material environmental issue has been identified, construction companies should come up with solutions aimed at resolving it. On the social front, the focus is put on the construction company’s social impact. By incorporating a stakeholder perspective, construction companies would be better suited to balance the different interests of their key stakeholders. This layer, we avow, is broad and flexible in use. Finally, the newly added technical layer accounts for the technicalities of projects, mainly technical issues faced which, if unsolved, may possibly have some serious repercussions on the other layers and buildings blocks of the BMC.

For the successful achievement of our empirical research, we sought to identify, map and evaluate all economic, social, environmental and technical issues encountered during the building process of smart cities in general, and constructions in particular. Subsequently, once issues have been identified and mapped out, we used the TLBMC to explore new ways (solutions) to transform the BM through innovations aiming at creating, delivering and capturing superior value.

Before discussing the fourth phase of the design process (evaluation), I conclude the present section by affirming that the idea I first had of the new GC BM was somewhat complex (see Figure 4.7). As a matter of fact, I faced some serious troubles portraying it visually, which is why we finally resorted to using a specialized IT developer, who helped me arrange both my ideas about, and vision of the new BM. Consequently, we were able to conceive and build a business model simulator following the design process phases listed and described earlier.

4.4. Phase 4: evaluation

A total of four interviews were carried out with university professors and industry experts to gather their viewpoints vis-à-vis the validity and sustainability of the GC BM built. Overall, all four interviewees valued my research and avowed that the suggested BMI is original and thought provoking. Precisely, as put by Mr. B.G., “the smart city BM you have built is extensive and all-inclusive – accounting for BIM technology, too – which is great”. One limitation was nevertheless mentioned by Mr. B.G., relating to the fact that the economic analysis pertaining to smart cities was insufficient and should have been extended further. This is understandable – we say – given that our research efforts were not solely focused on the economics of smart cities. The economics of smart cities is an interesting topic that I believe I would unquestionably embark upon in my future research endeavors. For Mr. B.G.:

The GC BM is inventive in the sense that it accounted for all dimensions of a construction project, irrespective of whether the latter is smart or not. The integration of the GC role as a central operator within the construction industry’s value chain is ahead of the functioning of our organizations, who are still a bit orthodox in their ways of thinking.

Also, he admired the business model simulator (software scripted in Agular 2+), which, in his opinion, could be used along with other available technologies to ensure the resourceful planning, execution and management of future smart city projects.

This study is a robust starting point that France based construction companies may eventually rely on to improve their construction practices and contribute to the emergence of a real smart city market in the country.

In the same manner, Mr. J.Y. avowed that the suggested GC BM is very interesting, especially as – in France, it is uncommon to find someone who is capable of looking at things from a different angle. He said: “though the GC concept is practical and viable, the risk market players would refute it is high; the market itself does not allow for such innovations – which is unfortunate”.

Even though the GC concept exists (it actually does exist!), he would be forced to outsource construction works – and so his job would be limited to control and management.

The fact that you added the BIM into your BM is a smart move. Also, the ability of the business model simulator to generate changed BMs, showing possible interactions among stakeholders, is remarkable as problems and solutions could then be mapped stage by stage.

He finally suggested testing the GC BM in real-life to see how it works and whether or not further improvements should be made to it. Similarly, Mr. P.P. affirmed that he has never seen such a tool before (referring to the business model simulator), insisting that the suggested GC BM brings some real and useful changes to the industry’s old BM. He said: “the construction sector is never focused on improving its ways of doing, which partly explains why we are still committing the same mistakes we used to do fifty years ago”.

Moving forward, Mr. C.R. avowed that the research I carried out is perfectly structured, including my choice of the business-modeling tool. In his eyes,

The TLMBC is a somewhat perfect tool that one could use to map problems faced at industry level today and suggest solutions for their resolution. By adding end-users as construction actors, you have respected the human-centricity approach to building smart cities where people partake in the process as both data sources and innovation creators.

The TLBMC per se responds to all aspects of a construction project, smart or not, and the technical layer, I admit, is a beautiful addition to your BM or, better named, piloting tool.

In Chapter 5, we discuss and map the main problems in construction, as well as the solutions suggested for their resolution. We also clarify and graphically illustrate the existing dependencies among the BM’s layers and between its building blocks.